Doug Bowser Says Nintendo Is "Closely Watching" Streaming Technologies

Yes it’s the future

if it is flawless then fine but it will take a lot to beat the current carts that just pop in and go! i think it will leave behind people of the older generation like myself but maybe the kids will embrace it?

No doubt they will release NES game streaming in 2025 with two new games to stream per month

Baby steps guys, you need to figure out how to make a system wide party system with chat in the Switch first.

No thanks. My internet slows down sometimes and that would suck when streaming games.

When we are advanced enough to defy the laws of physics it is. Steaming could feasibly work for games where precise real time control is not needed. But if you are playing something where split second reaction time is needed, you can't beat the speed of light. You press A on your controller, it sends a signal to the traditional game console, which does the action and shows it on screen. All within a tiny fraction of a second.

With streaming you press A on your controller, it sends a signal to your router, then off into the internet through dozens if not hundreds of relays to a server somewhere, probably hundreds of kilometers away, then it does the same thing your traditional console does and sends that information back through those same relays and connections to your screen.

All of these signals are electromagnetic signals and are limited by the speed of light. Try playing Mario or Celeste or Call of Duty or really any intense action game with a 1-2 second delay on every button press. And that's still being generous because with each relay and the further away from the server hub you are, the worse the delay will be.

Furthermore even if the above issue is somehow overcome, any game you want to play, you need a constant internet connection for and will be constantly using data and bandwidth.

Still not concerned? Any game you want to play you are no long buying. You are renting everything. Any game you play this way is entirely at the whim of the sever. Say you put 300 hours into that massive JRPG you fell in love with and something happens and the company goes out of business or get's sued or whatever and has the take the game or the whole service down. Say bye bye to your save file! Or how about that platformer you played 3 years ago? Want to play it again? Oh look, it's not on the service anymore because they lost the license!

Everyone offering the same controller, games and streaming service sounds boring and very standardised with not much scope to offer new ways to play outside of more gwaficks or bandwidth. It's early days yet, and Microsoft are playing super nice because they are in last place after showing their true colours at the Xbox reveal (funny how they are still chasing always online and not lending games to your friends with gamepass.) However, subscriptions will get much more aggressive else many companies will struggle if this becomes the norm. One day we will be stuck on the telephone trying to change contract from one service to another with an excessive fee for transferring all your cloud saves that are being held hostage.

My biggest worry with subscription services is that it feels like the mass market are basically saying 'yeah, feed me this.' And companies no longer have to come up with new ways to play...just new ways to pay. And they are free to exploit the crap out of gaming as a service because it is basically the norm at that point. The huge third party AAA companies dictating where the industry goes is pretty rancid to me.

They can use streaming... when i'm dead. Wait for 40 years at least please lol

I'm curious to know how RE VII on the Switch did in Japan...

https://kotaku.com/resident-evil-7-is-coming-to-nintendo-switch-as-a-strea-1826185018

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Streaming games = HELL NO for me

Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaa says the company that doesn't allow a Twitch app.

@Sean161 You can still buy plenty of new games with manuals and boxes for classic systems.

Doug doesn't say it's a promising device for streaming, not in that quote. He says that Switch delivers many of the promises of streaming such as being able to play anywhere, which of course it already does. Given how Nintendo develop their games not necessarily using the latest graphics technology I don't really see much benefit for streaming them

@Heavyarms55 Look up shadow pc streaming. It's what I use and their speeds are so fast, there's no detectable lag. It's pretty nuts actually

I agree with everything else you're saying, just wanted to point out that the lag issue with streaming is just about dealt with already.

Bowser, streaming would be bad for the gaming industry so if you implement it during your reign I will be forced to spin you around by your tail and dump you in the lava.

I will never trade playing games natively on my console for streaming them.

The day that becomes the norm is the day I stop buying new games/consoles.

@Kalmaro It's never going to be dealt with. It's not physically possible to be dealt with. You can't beat the laws of physics. The only way to keep lag low enough is to keep the machines physically close enough that the lag remains low enough to be tolerable. But Earth is just too be for that. They'd have to build servers all over the place.

@Heavyarms55
I know not everyone was this successful, but I used OnLive back in the day and was able to play some games without much perceptible lag. (I use qualifiers like that because it seemed better when I first got it than later on in its lifespan.)

That being said, your second point definitely applies. I lost the games I had purchased on the platform when it died off (which fortunately wasn't many). Obviously, having a subscription plan similar to Netflix or (more appropriately) Xbox Game Pass would better suit this model because then you don't feel like you own the content anyway.

I like this idea with the new consoles coming, in home streaming for my TV via my switch for multiplats and unique switch experiences on the go. Though, having tried both nvidia and Sony's current streaming platforms the latency was appalling, and I'm on a decent fibre line.

Playing everywhere is one of the promises of streaming? Friend, I have bad news about the real world for you.

If it’s bad as Nintendo switch online then please no and concentrate on making online gaming better

Streaming is just a plain bad idea. basically shows the hardware can't run the game, so it has to rely on a more power console/pc hardware else where.

If your having internet problems then you can't play game intill ya back online not to mention the lag, Mario Maker already has a ton of that ruining it's vs/co-op online mode

and top it all off, when the severs go down/close down, you won't be able to use it anymore even hacking won't help unless they set up another powerful pc to run the game for the Switch

I mean if Steaming is the future, then you might as well get a PC/portable PC to play your games

NO NO NO NO NO !
Native port without internet > Game streaming that needs constant high bandwith internet

I am really looking forward to try Google Stadia. I hope it works as intended. If there is a company that can pull it off, its probably Google, or maybe MS? They have the needed data centers.

I tried PS-now, but wasn't impressed with it. To much lag, although I have a nice and stable fiber connection.

So I am skeptical about game streaming, but hope that someone can make it work. Playing my games on any thin client device in my house, is something I will look forward to.

If Google Stadia works, it could easily replace my PC, PlayStation and Xbox consoles. But not my Nintendo devices. Nintendo games are something special, that the other companies just doesn't have.

A lot of people are to negative about game streaming. I think it is the future of gaming, and I am looking forward to try it. If it works, it works. People should be more open minded about new things.

As much as I dread a streaming-only future, if Nintendo was like “here’s our entire back catalog available for streaming,” I would sign up in a heart beat.

@dres
But, not all new things are good.
I would rather play my games offline with real cartridge or discs rather than streaming games that i will regret forever after the server shutted down.
I don't see streaming games is a good choice.
I see a beginning of disaster and regretful.
And i don't even want to try it because it's already looked negative and no benefit at all from streaming games in my opinion.

Lol nope. At least in the US, we would have to update infrastructure and have non-greedy ISPs first. There are still people on dial-up in some places. Even more only have DSL and/or cable available to them, which can -based on my own experience- barely handle video streaming.

@Heavyarms55 So did you look it up or not?

@dres maybe because not everyone has a huge, fast speed Internet connection or the will to not play single-player, offline, games anymore.
Why aren't you more open minded to understand why most of us don't want this? Just saying.

One of the reasons I'm building my Switch game collection. If the next Nintendo console is a streaming device I'll still have my Switch with nearly every game I want to play. (As well as a collection of other classic and mini consoles)

Wait for 5G. Mobile streaming will be a thing. Wouldn't be surprised if Google releases a Stadia handheld.

I'm not buying a console where I can't access my games after the service is no longer available. I'd rather have an sd card full of downloads than pay for streaming.

@Manah Nintendo is very Japan-centric. I guess data and wi-fi are already in place everywhere over there. You're right though, the rest of the world is nowhere close to this. There will be dead spots in the best case scenario. Bad console plan.

@Anti-Matter Never.

Forget streaming games....what about Netflix? Prime Video? HBO Go? What's taking so long to get these services on the Switch, Nintendo?

On one hand I want to say no because of the lack of ownership and some like having a physical collection I can sell.

On the other hand I was quite impressed with the Stadia /idea/. Their website says I can easily get 720p@30fps on my 50mb WiFi and hopefully they will populate it with retro titles as well as new titles.

I'll jump straight into xCloud because I like the Xbox One and its support to my old 360 titles. Being able to stream from my own console is a tasty prospect.

@Sean161
Yeah, those were the days. These are things the younger generations will never understand. Looking at box artwork, reading the manual in anticipation of playing the game before getting home...

That's also part of the reason why I went back to vinyls too for music. Not only modern music sounds better on it (because vinyl can't stand the abuse of the audio spectrum most modern mastering jobs do - so they often need to produce a different master for vinyls), you get to gaze at awesome artwork, sleeves with lyrics printed on them and/or pictures, and in some case, cool bonus things like art books, stickers, posters, etc...

To me, digital anything simply has one thing for it: convenience. And often it's at the expense of quality (when speaking about music and movies). Right now, even services like Netflix, which probably use what is pretty efficient compression algorythms, can't come close to what you can get on a Blu-Ray or 4K disc, in terms of image quality. Colour banding, compression artifacts, and so on, are all over the place and pretty noticeable if you have a good (and large enough) TV set. And this is for non-interactive content.

Nvidia also provides solutions for real-time encoding of viodeo sources, and while it can get to a "good enough" level, it is still not comparable to playing the real thing localy.

I've never seen, so far, solutions for encoding videos in real-time and streaming it over the net that isn't affecting picture quality in some way.

I admit being curious at how Google will make this happen. Especially with the trend from ISPs everywhere to actually raise prices, throttle traffic, and cap monthly bandwidth... And add to this spotty connections, and people with families in which multiple people are downloading/streaming stuff at random times over a limited connection.

But then again, younger generations don't seem to care about these things.

Option to stream? Yes. Requirement? No. That is all I ask I the short term from Nintendo. They can start with the "Switch Pro".

Of course they will.

@Kalmaro I did, but which site is actually about them? Seems to be lots of people talking about it and various YouTube videos but I don't know who is reliable and who is spewing random nonsense. Who do you suggest I watch or read?

"Could it be the future of gaming!?"

You'd be losing revenue from everyone who does not live in a city, because their connections would be unable to support this. Besides, streaming would only encourage the terrible money grabbing practices we see in gaming already. Some of you here are too short-sighted and are contributing to the problem.

@Heavyarms55 Fair point, I should have been specific.

This is a pretty fair review and they demonstrate how well it works here.

https://help.shadow.tech/hc/en-gb/requests/new
You can also get answer questions answered directly from them. They are EXTREMELY helpful. I promise I don't work for them, I've just been using this for a while now and I love it.

I play stuff like final fantasy 14 with everything flowing perfectly and hitman 2 with no trouble.

One of my coworkers uses it to play rocket league. I work IT and with networking so I was skeptical of all of this but... It just works.

Aside from the dependence upon local internet speeds (which can be abysmal throughout much of the US, especially in rural areas), I would NEVER support streaming games for one key reason: it would mean the END for gamers' already disappearing consumer rights.

Whenever I look at business models being pitched by the videogame industry (and knowing the purpose of a corporation is to MAKE MONEY), I move past the "sales pitch" to consumers and ask the question, "What is in it for the corporations?". And ever since online gaming became a thing, the answer has been every conceivable means of gouging consumers for more money after the original point-of-sale. Just a few examples: DLC, much of which could have been included on the disc (anyone recall "Day One" DLC...and the times when DLC was actually caught being already ON THE DISC???), sloppy, buggy, unfinished products shipping to retail to get "patched" after consumers had paid their $60 (if ever), Loot Crates, and let us not forget the BIG ONE: the EULA, which effectively strips the consumer of basic ownership rights for the game they legally paid for (note: this was not an issue back before online connectivity). Streaming games would forever end any illusion of gamers actually owning ANYTHING they pay for, let alone having any say in when or if a corporation decides to pull it from the servers. All your money and time invested in a given game gone, just like that.

Such exploitation after the original point-of-sale isn't mere capitalism; it is pure, unabashed GREED and is all about CONTROL. And in the end, it will destroy the very hobby which has already made these companies filthy rich. If the videogame industry ever goes fully to a streaming/subscription model it will be where I leave the hobby that I've loved and supported since the Atari 2600.

@Kalmaro
I don't even care how well their (Streaming devices) streaming.
My rules, No physical media = No buy ever and period.

I hate the convenience like that, i would rather have some complicated way to play video games (open the tray, insert the cartridge / disc, play), something from 80's era that completely irreplaceable whatsoever.

I will start to hate every new things like that. New things like that is suck, lame, uninspiring, disastrous, regretful and shameful.

You guys are making feel like I'm using a futuristic product since I (sometimes) stream games on PC. I guess it is technically lol. It's not horrible but it definitely still has plenty of room for improvement.

@Anti-Matter Nothing wrong with physical, I just don't see the point anymore since now it's almost commonplace to release games broken on launch day, then release a patch later.

@Kalmaro
For me, as a game collector, all games i bought are my family members.
I treated them like they are "human", my friends.
It's called attachments / fondness, something that cannot be replaced with digital things.

Here's what we could have now tho!
NETFLIX

@Anti-Matter I think I can say the same but for the system itself, which currently has all my games on it xD

Sure hope not.

What could possibly go wrong?

• grabs popcorn

I hope this is NOT the future of gaming. Internet speeds and availability are not uniform across the globe. Heck, they're not uniform across a country or even a city. Speeds and bandwidth vary from region to region and company to company. This would leave a lot of gamers out if the industry switches to this model. And don't get me started on the impact of climate change. Storms cause power outages or worse, full-on destruction. All it takes is a few servers to go down and boom, no more gaming. Or you're at the whim of a power outage if you're able to play or not. Sure home consoles are already impacted by power outages, but systems like the Switch circumvent that by offering an internal battery (and the ability to connect an external one) for handheld/portable use. Imagine in a power outage due to intense storms and to pass the time you wanted to play some Xenoblade or have a local Mario Kart match going....well you can't in an all-streaming future. Give me my games on cart and as digital download, that is the best future and it gives the user a choice and offers some means of circumventing power outages, server disruptions, and inadequate internet providers.

@AtlanteanMan yep, same, for all the reasons you listed. If streaming was the only way to play new games I would quit playing new games and stick with playing older games. I figure there are enough games out there already to keep me busy.

We haven't even mastered online play in the present time, what makes them think game streaming will work?

@graysoncharles
@Brink

The "Rest of the World" isn't the USA.

In most of northern Europe, like here in Denmark were I live, you can get cheap flat-rate stable fiber. The world doesn't have to wait for the States to get their act together.

Yeah, I know you got crappy greedy communication companies. Your government should do something about it. But there are plenty of places besides Japan or South Korea, that have the internet infrastructure for game streaming.

@Kalmaro @Heavyarms55 It does work great, I use it myself (and I also work in IT, so it's nice to see another skeptical IT person here).

I do think it's worth pointing out that it streams in 6bit color to reduce bandwidth, so you're going to notice some color inaccuracies and such. Not to say it's a bad service or that you'll hate it because of it, but just wanted to point this out.

@Heavyarms55 @nintendork64 That's true, the color quality does take a bit of a hit but I wouldn't say it's too bad. I often don't notice since having things running smoothly at 60 fps makes things look pretty nice.

I'd say the drop in color quality is there but not even close to a deal breaker for me, things still look good... And did I mention 60 fps?

My only real gripe is the smaller hard drive.

Though, all my steam save data is backed up and I can download even massive games in under half an hour or so. That's about how long it takes me to eat and watch a YouTube video.

@AtlanteanMan

I could have written your post myself, right down to the "since the Atari 2600". (it makes me feel old now. lol!)

Thing is, there will always be retro gaming, with its TON of games I still haven't played yet.

I'm not going to jump into that "gaming's future" if it means I can't control what I have access to, and when I can play it.

Cheers.

Not with the NSO we have now..

"Could it be the future of gaming?" Not the future of MY gaming!

Eh. I'll pass I don't do the streaming thing.

@DarthFoxMcCloud If they want to use streaming only in future they better offer everyone free internet everywhere! You want to force people to pay subscription so they can only stream....fine then they have to give us free internet! Period. When you get a subscription add a connection that's connected to an account of the gamer so everyone who does have can actually play the games all the time. The only thing I dont like it will be like Netflix... eventually some good stuff goes away and you can't play it ever again. They are taking it off for some years and sometimes it never comes back...

Streaming music and movies is fine, but interactive media is a whole other level that will not be feasible in most areas for a very long time. There are parts of the US that still use dial up or are just getting broadband. Not mention the mess that digital only games are already causing with the removal of titles people paid for and no longer have access to if they happened to delete or lose their copy prior. Streaming is fine as an option, but I hope it doesn't become the standard.

@Kalmaro Okay. I am at work now, I'll make a note to watch this later though.

@dres Wowie, this was an aggressive message. Especially since you assume that I live in the States and insult the country.

The point was that there are countries that do not have this infrastructure, and that includes countries not in the U.S. that also play games. Nintendo is Japan-centric and they have this in place. Maybe some European or other countries also have incredible wi-fi and data.

But hey, even in Japan, I bet you there are some areas with dead spots. What do you do if you live deep in the mountains and have cruddy wi-fi/data? This is just a reality right now. Maybe this will change 10-20 years from now.

@HumanDog Sounds good until you get the bill after eating through your data cap in a day or two. Streaming is a no-win for consumers. We lose more control of access, have to pay more, and get less. In every scenario it is a worse prospect.

Streaming is another VR, it comes around every few decades with improvements but isn't good enough or cost effective for prime time.

The oldest game I have installed on my computer and still play is from 1995. I have a single player game from 2005 I can't play because EA shut down the servers that only acted to connect two players if you wanted to play coop. Streaming represents another erosion of the control over access of a game. I have heard mixed things about OnLive, but it's a fact no one can go back and play any of those games on the service today. There are some great games that slipped through the cracks with trademark and licensing issues and now are not readily available, with streaming only that is the reality for all games.

Some will argue if you don't like it don't buy into it, but if it's the only access there is that isn't an option. Publishers would love a steady wholesale system for game licensing, cutting out their risk from the public and our "incessant complaining" (aka standards). Such a system just acts to benefit the platform and publishers and will hurt consumers by degrading the effectiveness of feedback, removing control, and costing more per hour and will hurt developers by the same dynamic. If you are paying a flat rate for all games played your hours in a particular game don't mean anything (as opposed to copies sold) , the only thing that matters to publishers and the platform is the number of games available. During a transition phase there is some comparison, since copies sold still matters if that system still operates, but in a streaming-only environment there is little incentive to make great games and much incentive to pump out content for content's sake. Netflix is an example of this negative impact with multiple high-level flops even as it still has to compete on quality.

Streaming only for games would take a long time. Right now it doesn't make sense from multiple angles. Moving from discs to online delivery took a long time. The difference is online delivery presented serious benefits and no major costs. I'm hoping people see it's just paying a premium for a gimmicky tech demo and this round of streaming craze burns out quickly.

@Kriven There is a middle ground. Individuals have created patches, mods, and entirely rewritten code for games in the past. Some older games that are impossible to buy now get uploaded with community patches to modernize the experience. Battlefield 1942 has been uploaded along with a widescreen and resolution fix, mods are still available, and other supporting files like an updated server client. Console games get emulators. With streaming the files are never made available so they can't be archived, patched, modded, or emulated. Publishers generally don't care about making past games available unless they can charge for it again so some games get stuck in limbo and aren't available to buy. If the future of gaming is streaming only it won't be a very bright future or long history. Luckily for us it charges a premium to add hassle and compromises to the experience so most people will steer clear.

My train stopped for 20 minutes in a tunnel yesterday. This is a good enough reason to stick to the good old switch.

@Krazzar Er u r incorrectly comparing streaming to VR, VR is currently "mainstream or as u say prime time" as many large corporations have and will continue 2 invest huge money in2 it, "game streaming" relatively speaking has just appeared on the scene but Virtual reality has and will b around for many a year 2 come.

@Mykillvee lol exactly but Nintendo missed the boat on the whole "online scene"...big time miss...

@HumanDog They already have a handheld...its called a Mobile phone...

@Heavyarms55 But they have 2 start somewhere, people crucified Netflix in the initial years of release but in 2018 it was the most downloaded app in the world and has slowly started to decimate traditional cable or satellite services. I clearly hear, understand and even agree with what you r saying but there is a market for "game streaming" and it's a big market. I 2 enjoy collecting games, dvd's or whatever but the "modern way" is often 2 just play (or watch) something once and that's the end of it...its unfortunately "like that". Anyway any subscription service ends eventually and u always end up losing something, that's life I suppose.

@Sim1 Netflix is a different animal. Doesn't matter of there's a couple seconds, even a couple minutes delay for video or music streaming. You click on Stanger Things, maybe wait a minute or so for it to load, and watch the video. No big deal. But a delay or even a couple seconds can ruin streaming a game because that delay is for every single button press or joystick movement.

Would be great imho. We will see.

I don't know if President Bowser is just being ignorant, or if they're trying to sweep the WiiU under the rug, because that console has supported streaming since DAY ONE. For those who don't know, all audio and video is actually streamed from the console itself to the Gamepad.

@Heavyarms55 Worse than the speed of light! It's only the speed of light if every node is fiber. But for many it's not fiber except out on the backbones (and it is not EVER going to be fiber for them.) For everyone else it's still not fiber within their building, and it gets converted back to electrical impulse in every routing and switching facility it hits. And again in the datacenter running the game. So it's limited by the speed of electricity - significantly slower than light.

But worse is it's all banking on radio (cellular) - which is limited by the speed of radio waves. Significantly slower than electricity!

We need time travel for this to actually work the same as local systems. It'll be fine for Assasin's Creed where mashing A near an enemy is good enough. It's not practical for everything from Tetris to CoD.

@Sim1 I think that's the problem with the game streaming thing, everyone compares it to Netflix and think "that works so so will this!"

The difference, as Heavyarms55 said is video is single monodirectional communications without any time sensitive events. When you stream a video on Netflix, you're not watching in real time. It buffers - pre-downloads - a chunk of the video....seconds to minutes worth....hundreds to thousands of frames, and the accompanying, downloaded in advance, so you are, in fact, playing it from local storage, as it continues to download the upcoming content in advance. Youtube switched the large cache buffer for a 30 second buffer, and the video/audio is split into multiple streams so it can download several chunks, non-linear, in the background in advance as you watch.

But it's not real-time. Spin up the same video- even a live stream on YT or such, on multiple different machines. You'll find some of them are seconds to minutes behind the others, but they all say "live."

Video game streaming is video streaming. The technology is effectively the same. But there's two problems. It's bi-directional. That means your transmit to them needs to be as fast and effective as their transmission to you. Second, there is no buffer. Because the display needs to react to your input, the frames have to be delivered, one by one, in real-time. No buffer, no local cache, no advance downloading of chunks. You push a button, that button push needs to get from you them, cause the resulting frame render, then send back that frame to you. In real time. Video streaming in it's worst implementation (YouTube) has already downloaded the video for 30 seconds from now, so the next frame will always be the "right" frame. Games cant' do that. You need 7ns upload and download of the requested frame.

The problem is the internet doesn't actually work that way. At all. And it's not going to any time soon (read: probably not while you're alive and definitely not before you have bifocals. ) It's a struggle enough on gigabit fiber. But the backend usually can't keep up.

Even if you eliminate the internet entirely and just stream LOCALLY (your own LAN, gigabit switching on 1-2 network switches, copper wiring, both renderer and client on the same interface) - it works...but there is perceptible latency. That's without out adding hundreds of miles of fiber + copper + multiple traffic shaping/managing copper datacenters/switches/releays/packet monitors/security analyzers/DNS lookups/ etc. etc. etc. in the way. And without freaking RADIO waves as 5G internet adds to the mix.

Netflix/video streaming is thus the wrong comparison. Remote session software (Citrix, Remote Desktop, LogMeIn, Splashtop, VNC, etc.) are the proper comparison to the types of technology that are in use for real-time bi-directional interactions. While greater efficiency can probably be incorporated compared to the thick desktop connection software, it can only add so much. And while all that works well enough for basic business purposes, the latency is hair-pulling "scream an unending stream of obscenities as you try to do something stressful/important" related....it's not what I'd want for gaming/entertainment. At all.

@Mgene15 Just like tractor beams and transporters. Just not a future I'll live to see.

@Kriven Your comment was essentially, "why bother with physically installed games because there are patches when streaming is always up to date". That's not true, streaming is up to date until the platform or publisher decides to end access. There are some games from the 90s that are more up to date and active than more recent games because the community has access to the files to create fixes or run on an emulator. That's a major danger with streaming, they hold all the cards and decide when a game can no longer be accessed.

@Sim1 the same was said in the 80s and 90s when VR had its previous blips on the gaming radar. VR is a niche that most people aren't interested in. Streaming pops up and disappears the same way. Companies keep gambling to see if "ahead of it's time" will turn into "first mover". The only problem is there is a difference between "ahead of it's time" and " generally undesirable".

@Yorumi The slower end of the light spectrum - lower wavelength than the visible light spectrum. But that's just the theoretical part. Radio is inherently analog, and it has to first go through D/A conversion back to A/D conversion, and the much greater risk of lost packets and retransmits adds considerable delay, and when it comes to communications radio technologies, even when dividing the band as much as they can, it's ultimately still a time sharing situation - there's only so many antennae divided across so many bands on each TX/RX node.

@Yorumi I think you've just stumbled upon the infrastructure of Nintendo Switch Stream (Holiday 2021!)

It's a Nintendo Switch-like device that can stream Any Game, Any Time, Anywhere, from the Nintendo Cloud Kingdom(TM). More reliable and lower latency than competing platforms, Nintendo Switch Stream uses directional wireless technology for the most stable, enjoyable gaming experience, whether you're player Super Mario Brothers, Splatoon 3, Or Managing all your Pikmin in Pikmin 3 Go!

Just stand perfectly still and tap the cards matching the Nintendo characters you see on the screen. This is a fun new way to enter your GPS coordinates. Then be sure to extend the antenna to its full length, and turn to face the direction indicated on the screen. Try to hold as still as possible, and enjoy playing your favorite games streamed |DIRECTLY| to you from the Nintendo Cloud Kingdom(TM)!

There. Is that an appropriately "Nintendo-like solution" to cloud streamed gaming?

@Heavyarms55 Yes different but the delivery method is the same, it's streamed 2 the user and as it stands the Netflix service is far from perfect as the picture also freezes, stutters and breaks up...latency and lag is an issue, always has been and always will b, but that won't deter people from using it...hopefully it won't b counted in seconds hey cos that wud just b a waste of time...apparently humans can even detect it in so many nanoseconds, if that's the case they'll never b able 2 keep everyone happy...

@Krazzar lol that was a long time ago, VR has come a long long way since then, the current current PSVR headset has moved over 4 million units and Facebook's Oculus Quest recently sold $5 million of content in its first two weeks on the market...to say "less desirable" and "gambling" is a slight over exaggeration...believe me it's far from "niche" and many many people r interested in it...just take a quick glance at YouTube (for example) and u will c a huge amount of content. But clearly ur mind is already made up and nobody can change that.

@NEStalgia The technical aspects of how each service is delivered may differ although they are both considered as "streaming" and even Netflix as it stands is not perfect cos u still often get a poor quality picture, freezing, lag, latency or whatever u wish 2 call it...In comparing it to Netflix I was attempting to say that many thousands of people dismissed it originally but it's still going, and going strong...Google may not have the "perfect solution" but that does not mean it will not sell as there is potentially a massive market unless "streaming" would not even exist (in any state or form)...somebody has 2 give it a shot 2 begin with...and in any event Stadia has not even been launched so we are merely just speculating the performance levels...or would u prefer they just leave it alone ?.

@Yorumi Mmm yes but remember that's a few million units in less than 3 years (and that's just one product), it's only starting to pick up pace now, this "scene" has far bigger potential than 3d TV and comparing it to a console from a company that has been in existence for more than a hundred years is unrealistic...keeping in mind that is their "core product". Sony has just submitted numerous patent designs for their upcoming PSVR2 including "eye tracking", lol its much more than a passing fad...what insurmountable things r u referring to ?, I'm intrigued...

@Sim1 The difference is Netflix doesn't provide a fundementally broken experience if you don't have the right conditions as game streaming must - and the right conditions are out of the control of the consumer themselves almost entirely.

Additionally Netflix succeeded because it was CHEAP. $13/mo for any and all content you want to consume, versus $3.75 per video rentals that you have to return in 48 hours. It was an obvious win.

Game streaming, such as Stadia's model is buy a $60 game for the same price as all the people getting good experiences on their consoles, and pay $10/mo to access it, and get a worse experience......

Value and convenience sold Netflix. Expense and inconvenience isn't going to sell Stadia

@Yorumi VR's not a passing fad since it's been a technology that's returned and been brought back for what's going on 25 years now. There's long term demand. It's just a niche demand. Which is fine, I think it'll survive as a small entertainment industry with continued niche demand. Like retro consoles.

@NEStalgia But u currently have no evidence that Stadia will provide a "broken experience" unless you r currently Beta testing it..not every game will cost $60...and people won't have 2 buy that "expensive" console which needs updating every few years...lol even Microsoft and Sony have teamed up recently 2 focus primarily on "cloud based services"...Under normal circumstances that would never happen.

@Yorumi But putting Stadia aside for a second cos u nor I have experienced it yet, currently "game streaming services" already exist on PC, actually quite a few of them...r u telling me those r all "broken experiences" and have just been created for the hell of it ?.
Lol VR is not going anywhere, it wud b difficult for anyone 2 describe titles like Tetris, Minecraft or The Elder Scrolls as tech demos...and Nintendo have never seemed 2 have issues with releasing the same games with a fresh coat of paint for decades now...I'm waiting for u 2 spell out the "insurmountable things" u refer 2, please indulge me...

@Sim1 we already have evidence. Game streaming uses the same infrastructure for real time communication we already have. We know how it works under current conditions.

Ps now also exists currently.....and uses Google's infrastructure. To be different, the nature of network communication needs to change it something that defies current physics. It's not a software problem to solve with newer technology. It's a physics problem. You can't innovate around physics.

The investors don't understand that, though, and will continue pushing companies to "be there first"

@Yorumi
You are wrong about the distribution of the games, though. It's not that black and white.

A streaming service could do exactly as you just described it. The Netflix way, were you pay a flat rate for a subscription service, that let you "rent" all the content. You do not own anything.

But it doesn't have to be the model every company follows, and it's definitely not the way Google Stadia works.

Google Stadia will be a free service, were you actually buy the individual games. They are your content, and Google will never remove the stuff you have previously bought.

From time to time they will remove some games from the service, because of license issues. But you will still have access to those games, if you bought them.

So Stadia is more like a digital store like Steam, Nintendo e-shop or PS Store. If those stores stop to exist, I will also loose most of my content, because I do not have enough storage to save all that content anyway. So Stadia is not that different.

That issue haven't prevented digital distribution of games to be successful. And it won't stop game streaming either.

Google will also offer a PS+ kind of subscription service, called Stadia Pro. But it's not necessary to buy and play games on Stadia.

The Pro subscribers get 4K/HDR streaming, 5.1 sound, exclusive discounts and access to some free games. But basic 1080p streaming will be a free service with Stadia.

@NEStalgia

Comparing PS- now to Stadia doesn't make much sense.

Google have made specific controller's for Stadia, with build-in WiFi and direct access to the Stadia servers. That way they will remove input lag significantly.

Also, Sony do not have low level access to Googles cloud infrastructure. PS-now is just plain PS4 / PS3 games served in the cloud. It's like spinning up a local console somewhere on the internet. It takes forever to start up.

Stadia games are optimized for streaming and instant access. It's something completely different than PS-now.

@dres the controller does nearly nothing for input lag, and may make it worse. Wireless controls are only slightly more latent than wired. Otherwise using pro controller would suck unless usb connected. A few ns difference only competitive gamers really care about. Ns!!

So the only difference between the controller communicating directly to the game server versus connecting to the console and then to the game server is a few ns at most. Except. A small wifi antenna on a controller isn't going to have as solid connection as a lan wired console. So the few ns gain could be a few ms loss.

The instant access part affects only the ui and session start. It has nothing to do with performance in playing.

Again, it's a physics problem. For anyone near the datacenter and with perfect internet.... And with that controller, perfect home wifi too, it probably works reasonably well. Trouble is that will be about 15% of the US for decades.

And to be clear, i always need the disclaimer, it's not a short grapes issue. I have gigabit fiber, and very solid planned wifi. If it represented acceptable performance and Superior value, itd be all over it. But.... It simply doesn't because that result isn't really possible due to physical limitations. It's an investor pipe dream, not a real business plan.

@Yorumi

You are incorrect about the requirement of an subscription.

Yes, at launch Google Stadia only offers the pro subscription. But Stadia Basic will launch a year after, and it will not require a subscription. It's a free service.

https://9to5google.com/2019/06/06/google-stadia-free-base-tier/

So you buy your own games on Stadia. It will be your content as long as Stadia exist. And you can stream those games everywhere for free in 1080p with Stadia Basic.

@Krazzar data cap? We already have flatfee 4g over here. Will be the norm with 5G, like with wired internet.

@Sim1 WHUUAUAHAAHAHAHAHAA that's a good one!!!!11 how do you come up with that? Please explain

ideal for older games:)

I doubt streaming will become the future of gaming on the short term. Stadia isn’t releasing worldwide, for example, and the speed requirements for the internet means that many will have a subpar experience or will outright not be able to use it (ignoring that some ISP have data caps).

@HumanDog Wat r u referring 2 exactly ?...

@Yorumi Mmm I was just waiting for u 2 start reaching on the VR issue, if u have a closer look u wud c that Sony have already been working on the motion sickness effect, they've been working hard enough to push thru a patent related that exact issue, it was filed back in 2017. As far as the isolation goes u only have 2 go out in a public place these days 2 c almost everyone staring blankly in2 a mobile device, we r already an isolated society and can barely even converse anymore cos whatever is on that small screen is more important than even our loved one's...VR can encompass any genre, Sony have recently announced the upcoming Gran Turismo will support VR and it's even been used now in the automotive, Medical and Military industries...yeah just a few small money spinners...anyway I'd rather embrace these more forward thinking technologies and give them a chance, afterall that's what life is about...

@NEStalgia lol u and your physics issues...companies such as Amazon, Sony, Microsoft and Google should just pack it in and focus on something else...It certainly won't b perfect but then I've yet 2 experience anything that is...that don't mean it can't b fun or won't make truck loads of money does it...

@Sim1 if my goal is too set a screw, it doesn't really matter how many times i hit it with a hammer, it won't actually work because the tool isn't capable of accomplishing my task. Even if it works all enough to force the screw in, it will be stripped and the work material split.

The internet is not a tool designed for what they're trying to use it for. Gaming, most gaming, depends on a certain responsiveness as a real time interactive technology. The internet is designed around the model of telephony and request-response sequences. The tool doesn't fit the application.

If you are in the right place it might work ok.
But very few are. If they change gaming so that everything is an interactive movie like uncharted, where input is almost irrelevant it'll work. If the value is Superior, which is how netflix and Spotify succeeded, it'll work. If it's expensive, restrictive and inconvenient, it won't lure the mass market to gaming any more than consoles did. And if it's a worse experience than consoles, the existing market will keep dismissing it without huge cost savings.

As for if it will make buckets of money is a different question. With limited geography it's even usable in, and no tremendous value, (full price games, $120/yr... After 2 years it's more expensive to buy stadia than a ps4 or x1s..... It's hard to believe it makes any mass market splash. But consumers have bought poor quality products en masse before.

OnLive 2.0 may succeed financially even if it's awful. Unlikely but it could.

@NEStalgia

If you want to compare the pricing of Stadia to PS4 or Xbox, then do it properly.

Stadia pro for $120/yr is equal to PS+ or Xbox gold. It cost almost the same, and gives equal benefits.

But a free and basic version of Stadia will also be available soon. Compare the Basic and free version to the cost of a PS4 or Xbox.

@dres gold and plus are not required to play your non multiplayer games. Stadia sub is. Gold and plus are half the price, $60/yr (and often in sale for less) unless you pay monthly, stadia is $120. Free tier is going to be resolution limited, and let's be real... Ad sponsored. That's a big difference.

All for sucky frame pacing, compression artifacts, stutters, and perceptible input lag except for some people in some locations. Not to mention bandwidth caps in the us. (1tb/mo from Comcast).

The whole thing as a business model is based on the idea that a wii like mass market gaming surge is just around the corner of only the pesky $250 up front charge were replaced by $10 installments. It assumes that console cost is the major entry barrier to mass market gaming.

It still has a problem that the existing gaming market will have less than no interest in paying more to get less, and I'm not convinced a new gaming market is really waiting for it. Plus the infrastructure to support it properly, everywhere, at least in the us, the biggest gaming market, doesn't exist, and isn't going to for a long while. So even if the mass market is waiting, the moment you step away from coastal major metros, the experience isn't going to be so great. And even in the netros it's not going to be consistently great.

As I've said, if the value proposition were there, if it were a $20/mo smorgasbord of all games, and performed great, id be first in line, though probably xcloud since i already have a huge ms game library. But the value is garbage and the actual tech is worse.

@Yorumi We should probably ask Facebook cos they've recently purchased Oculus for 2 Billion USD...but what do they know hey...lol even Nintendo have got VR, it's made out of recycled cardboard or something like that.

@NEStalgia

You don't need a Stadia pro subscription to play your games on Stadia, when the Free Stadia Basic version get released in a year from now.

You can play both your single and multiplayer games with Stadia Basic. All you need is a free Stadia account, just as you need a Steam or PlayStation account.

You need PS+ or Xbox live, if you want to play all your online multiplayer games on those platforms. But you do not need a Stadia Pro subscription to play online multiplayer on Stadia. You only need Pro for 4k streaming.

So there's different benefits to get from all these subscriptions.

We do not know if Stadia Basic will be ad driven. I do not think it will, although we are talking about Google here. But ads isn't really part of the business model behind Stadia.

Google wants you to buy individual games on Stadia. That is how they want to get money out of the service. The Steam model.

That is the reason why they also offer a free basic version of Stadia. It's not about ads, but about selling games.

Stadia isn't like YouTube or the other "free" services from Google, that offers mostly free content. Stadia is worthless, if you do not buy any content for it. There is no free content on Stadia. So ads doesn't really fit in here, like on YouTube.

@dres if there's a few things I know about Google services it's that Google is an ad company, not a tech company. The other is that they always, ALWAYS change their too good to be true services once they get a subscriber base. The prices jump, the ads increase. The privacy terms get much worse, etc. Especially anything tied to YouTube even remotely. The other is that Google still hasn't figured real time streaming out.... At all. Amazon/twitch, vimeo, even MS Mixer are light years ahead of YouTube in real time.

I'll say that i don't believe streaming is going to be a big deal like they all hope for all the reasons mentioned above. But even if it's going to take off, Amazon or MS will certainly be the better products and better service. Particularly Amazon.

I say that with a note of dread. Neither Google nor Amazon needs to monopolize any more of the world.... And between the two Amazon presents the biggest Monopoly move as the existing largest retail vendor of games and platforms... They could easily boost cloud by crippling hardware sales. Both need to become regulated utilities at this point. And i hate government involvement in anything .... But some cases can't be ignored. It feels like Pullman Car Company and old AT&T/Bell System all over again.

Still, when one of the big cloud enteries is doubling down on hardware while launching cloud, that says something.

@NEStalgia

Google is also a tech company, not just about ads. And they already have similar services like Stadia for other content types besides games.

Google Play Books, Google Play Music and Google Play Movies.

Like Stadia, all of these Google services sell premium content. And none of these are or will be ad driven. It's just doesn't fit into that kind of business model, were there is no free content.

So I am pretty certain that Stadia will follow the same model as these other Google services. I do not see any signs that Stadia Basic will be ad driven like YouTube. It simply doesn't make sense to do that with Stadia. But time will tell

@dres Google is an ad company first, tech to service the ads, and a data aggregation company is service to the ads. Anything "free" is still connected to advertising via data aggregation. However they've recently been quietly upcharging on all their "free" services and making free less appealing.

Books/music/movies is a good comparison though. They all exist, but they are all half dead, barely maintained, and a pale imitation of their competitors. And music is an utter disaster of a mess....i say that as a paying customer...i wouldn't be were it not that i use the YT premium heavily for international music content.

@Alucard83 The problem with that is Nintendo is not an Internet Service Provider. In Canada, that's Rogers, Bell, and Telus. I don't know about other countries but good luck convincing any telecom to give you anything for free. That's why I argued that we SHOULD NOT have a streaming-only future. I prefer physical games with the choice of digital downloads for those who want...but NEVER streaming.

@Yorumi Very true, though I expect GameStop won't live for too too long, there's at least Target, BB, Walmart etc. Still, Amazon controls a disproportionate portion of the market and can influence migration to streaming by cutting hardware sales. Similar to how they cut sales of all products that compete with their Kindle, FireTV, etc.

Both Amazon and Google, I don't understand how they're not broken up. I mean I do understand. Half the politicians are bought and owned by Google. Having Eric Schmidt PERSONALLY in the campaign headquarters of candidates, partying with them, while selling/"donating" analytics and data to their campaign/party should raise every single red flag that ever existed. It's like having J. Edgar Hoover personally supplying electorate data and eating caviar at your campaign stops.

I'm not sure which is worse. Amazon dominates as the cloud platform. Google owns video information and search, but Amazon owns nearly every service and server on the internet that isn't Google's, including the Pentagon and CIA's. But they don't use the data or have access to it. Just because it's located in their building on their server, in their network architecture....sure...they could never access anything, and wouldn't, because they pinky swore.