/v/ - Video Games

I hope so. Though I heard something is wrong with the Switch when it comes to physical copies. Something about a lot of the game having to be downloaded or something?

>>15561422

Bigger carts cost more to devs, and there was a shortage of bigger carts due to them using the same materials as Apple with the iPhone, so for a time, a lot of third party shit needed to have certain modes downloaded separatenly. I haven't heard much about that lately, though, so maybe they got their shit together.

>>15561399

Streaming games is done on the Switch now. AssCreed Odyssey received a Japanese-only release on the Switch.

I can't wait to stream, uh, what does Microsoft have still?

it makes sense that is getting pushed, this is the final form of DRM, from now on all of the new games will be could only and you'll have to subscribe to whoever is providing the service to get the game, no more pesky file sizes or download times, when you could get everything in an instant at a smooth jittery 30 fps, don't have a good internet connection? well that's too bad. this is their final solution to piracy

>>15561399

>Seems like the kikes are gonna make a big push for streaming.

Of course. Games are a "service" now after all.

>Will Nintendo or Sony make the fact that they still focus on physical media a big selling point for their next console?

Their next consoles will likely be their last before they too jump on the streaming meme. They might even do it during the next console gen. The Ubi CEO said he expected as much. Seeing how all these companies are now making their moves I'm sure he knows more.

What I'm amazed at is this constant push for tech that's not efficient, works worse, is more expensive and overall just is a downgrade from current technology. Like they all got together and promised each other they would push for this collectively because they can squeeze more money out of their consumers for longer and more cost effectively than making a new DRMbox every 5-7 years.

Now that I think about it, maybe they'll still make "consoles", but they won't even take discs. They'll just be stream boxes which you use to connect to "The cloud(tm)".

The future looks nasty.

>>15561429

It's so powerful, it doesn't have any exclusives. Maybe Sunset Overdrive and Sea of Thieves and I think that's all they have right now.

>>15561444

So was Phantasy Star Online 2 and Resident Evil 7. It's a bit different for japs, they have solid internet.

Funnily enough, the big thing keeping physical games alive is the fact that American internet is absolute fucking trash. I remember Google said that for solid 1080p60fps in Ass Creed with streaming, they need at least 20mbps.

>>15561455

What interests me is how they're gonna sell successors if they're just stream boxes. They have to tell the public some bullshit about how they're more powerful, right? What could they make up?

>>15561479

They might not have to. The way I envision it is they'll wave "exclusives" around that you can play only on their stream service. Wanna play all those cool games? Better subscribe to multiple streaming services boyo. They might still come out with a new box every now and then claiming it has "Faster connection, less input lag, #G whatever", but the point of streaming is selling you something with the least amount of money spent on making hardware.

>>15561399

Did these faggots learn nothing from OnLive? Streaming games from servers miles away from a player's device sucks. I know this because I was one of the few that gave it a chance. You have to physically tap into the LAN of the data center for it to be a playable experience.

>>15561528

All they need to do is collectively push for it, which is what you're seeing now, so that they can force an inferior product on the consumer. They obviously expect people to eat it up and not switch to PC instead.

Hardware is gonna get less powerful (worse price/power ratio) so streaming looks more attractive. With big companies it's about steady income and streaming makes sure that people keep coming back for more. People who buy hardware can still pirate their games, or play old games for the rest of their life. But if MS removes all games people are forced to subscribe to them.

Industry analyst/economist here. TL;DR: you’re all wrong :)

Game streaming will never replace the current way of playing games because the current ownership model is far more profitable to all parties involved than streaming it all.

Console manufacturers don’t want to replace current hardware ownership with streaming because they would rather have you buy the hardware than just taking a big loss on it to make it up from streaming. Remember, THE HARDWARE HAS TO BE SOMEWHERE. They would rather have you pay for the box (and the electricity required to run it) to run it locally. There’s also the networking and server side of things where entirely replacing ownership with streaming doesn’t make financial sense. It is far cheaper for them to distribute games on a disc or digitally via a one-time download than streaming because after a few hours of streaming use, the amount of data needed to be served exceeds a native download and keeps going from there, and the more data you have to serve out, the more expensive it gets.

Game publishers won’t want to rock the boat much either because they won’t give up the massive amount of revenue they get from big launches to just get a slice of a monthly subscription. While there may be alternative streaming options to access new games, no publisher is going to want to compromise their big launch hauls they currently get.

Game streaming will be aimed at two groups of people who can’t really be reached with the current ownership model:

1. People in poorer developing countries that have good internet infrastructure but can’t really afford to own expensive hardware.

2. Curious potential gamers who want to try a game out but don’t want to invest hundreds of dollars in buying hardware just to play it. There are a huge number of people who would play games occasionally but are totally turned off because of the investment necessary to do so. (This is a big part of why mobile gaming took off so much)

Basically, game streaming offers a way to get to people that can’t or don’t want to go about owning hardware, but because of the extra cost in several areas that comes with streaming, there will never be any kind of push to disincentivise or eliminate traditional local gaming. It just makes too much money!

The only real concern I have about this is that big unsustainable AAA development models can be propped up by revenue from this, therefore delaying or preventing a necessary collapse. In fact, I suspect that hope is why Ubisoft has gone so gung-ho on partnering with Google, because Ubisoft will have to make some really tough cuts before too long unless they get some kind of lifeline like this.

It's like someone roped all these CEOs in to this big scam and they went along with it because they didn't think about it for more than 2 seconds. I can think of a few good reasons it's a terrible fucking idea. Looking forward to seeing this fail.

>>15561741

>:)

Stopped reading.

>>15561741

This one time, I'm going to pretend I didn't see that thing.

You're still a faggot.

Now, assuming you are not full of it, what is the purpose of this?

You say that they are targeting people from developing countries and curious customers.

The former is not happening, anyone who lives in a "developing" (stuck in economy hell forever) country is not going to spend money on VIDEO GAMES of all things (which is why F2P trash is so popular in those) unless money is overflowing from their pockets or they are very serious about it as a hobby in which case they will find streaming redundant.

I would know, I live in one.

The latter might get some people interested in games, but where does it go from there? Are they expected to buy a console and games for it then?

If streaming games is already costly, then what hope is there to profit from such a service?

Why invest in something as useless as that?

>>15562342

I would imagine this is ultimately about surveillance and not profit.

>>15562359

What would a private company get out of surveillance if not profit.

>>>/v/15562366

>a private company

Not even giving your weak ass a proper (you).

>>15562386

He isnt wrong you retard.

Once you let people invest on your company, it's no-longer private.

HOLY SHIT, HOW REVOLUTIONARY!

>>15561741

The difference is that the vast amount of casualfags who play videogames only buy maybe two $60 games a year, tops. Less than that, usually. They have one or two franchises, like Madden or Call of Duty, that they buy the console for. Sometimes it's a gift they didn't even necessarily want, so they just get a few games and otherwise use it as a Netflix box. Sometimes they want to buy a bunch of games, but have other obligations tying up their time and money. Even if they don't sell their hardware at a loss, and with online multiplayer paywalls becoming the core of their profit generators, they still make a killing on royalties and (now with digital marketplaces) distribution fees from which they can pocket up to 40% of each game sale.

If you can take that one or two maypole franchises that people want access to - stick them behind a service and charge monthly for it - you're essentially guaranteeing monthly game sales from an audience that would otherwise have no reason to spend the money. This is the primary reason for the not"free" monthly offerings on the paid multiplayer paywalls. First they were happy to just sell you a game out of the grab-bag. Last gen they wanted you to keep paying month over month just to keep access to those grab-bag games. Next Gen, all of the games are going to start to go behind a paywall. And the gen after that, some companies like Ubisoft are already speculating that you won't have a choice in the matter.

They're more than happy to shoulder the burden of hardware and electrical costs if it means selling every single subscriber the equivalent to six or seven games a year rather than one or two. They'll probably end up taking a larger cut of the revenue, considering their distribution infrastructure (which will be made up since third parties have the shelf-price barrier to entry for people trying their games basically eliminated) - meanwhile they can make up the difference by selling you microtransactions and lootboxes. Basically, everything will go on the "free to play" model, on a network you pay $40~50 a month to access.

>>15561444

Japan is probably one of the only countries with the network infrastructure to make it possible.

>>15561454

Yeah, but the games being made by people who disrespect their consumers so much are crap anyways.

>>15571208

Let's see how well im doing, I don't own any console since a game cube a DS and a psp, pirate all my games and my desktop runs an AMD card, think im doing breddy gud

>>15571138

>pay 40-50 a month, They can kiss my ass. when that happens im no longer buying any games.

I haven't even bought a game in years already.

>>15561399

Xbox is failing while both the Nips you have to admit even if you loath consoles like I do are running away with the market. I do not think Microsoft will make another true console they will wack out some shitty streaming box no one will buy and that will kill off the Xbox brand.

>>15571208

dangit sorry anon