Now a Microsoft games store. Where does it end?

https://amp.businessinsider.com/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-xbox-netflix-for-games-2019-1

So the TL;DR is that Microsoft is attempting to produce a "Netflix for games", allowing games to be streamed to any device at any time.

Anyone reckon they can actually pull it off? Or is this just another pipe dream?

 

I'm not surprised most people have seen this sort of thing coming.

 

Just like they pulled off that Windows Phone... oh, wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone

 

Is it just me, or do the phrases "in a better position" (the article's interpretation) and "as much a shot... as anybody else" (Nadella's quoted words) sound like they mean very different things?

A potential difference is that, like Sony, they've already developed cheap hardware which can stream games. They're also already putting a lot into cloud computing. It's still going to have to overcome the same latency issues as anyone else, though. Maybe they're in an easier position to make something available to start iterating upon, even if it's only open to people who happen to be near data centers and have better than average connections to begin with?

 

Nope.

 

But can unity pull it off?

 

It depends.

 

@hippocoder do your job as a mod and ban this troll for trying to suggest something improbable.

 

Don't they intend to stream the Internet to out brains for a global neural network?
Do you think they will pull it off?
I dread a blue brain error then candy crush.

 

I expect crush, but not necessary candy one.

I think MS would be better of buying relevant company with product, rather than trying making them self something. I got no more familiarity with new ms products, for what has not been acquired externally. And we have seen it, their management is rather poor. See their mobile market for example, cutting off older users, from many features.

 

So like OnLive then before it went bust?

Microsoft's brand is too toxic for PC gamer's to like it.

 

I would honestly rather work for Microsoft than say Google or Apple.

Why? Microsoft has made bold moves to fix its image and improve for its customers. I really liked Windows 7,8, and definitely like W10. The search feature for just about anything on your hard disk is my favorite. These are all pretty intuitive OSes too. As I've said before: I don't subscribe to the common opinion.

 

I think they should be very close to the technology for this one I don't see streaming in all it's forms and related synergies as something that will go.

In fact it really is the next step. Live persistent games as services broadcast passively, and interactively. It's basically erasing the old concepts of local execution and piracy at the same time. Plus the tech is far closer than truly monetisable VR is.

 

I don't care how they are delivered I just want to see games come out that I actually want to play. But honestly if games turn into something thats going to demand a more expensive internet plan and become yet another subscription and demand constant online access and all this... I'm done. Mediocre games just aren't worth that much hassle. It seems all my recent memory for games can recall is one big scam after another, regarding AAA gaming at least.

TLDR -- I don't care about big business.

 

Doesn't have to be a one or the other, the GAAS can exist on this platform like any other. It is very interesting though beyond how much latency there is. Spectating, esports and so forth. It should be seen less as "streaming a game" which is really not the business point, but more like giving players no reason to look elsewhere for content.

 

My question would be, considering current game market, would games like candy crush, or flappy birds work with subscription scheme? Or is that supposedly targeting bigger games?

 

What makes you suggest, there may be no mutual benefits, across all 3. Producer, seller, customer. Scheme as any other.

 

Microsoft is still positioned to win longterm when it comes to gaming. They have a console, they have a PC platform and installbase (Windows), they have the Windows Phone.

You can laugh all you want at Windows Phone but one day users are going to decide if they want to buy a Samsung Android phone to play some cash shop plagued game or they will decide if they want to buy a Windows Phone to play old Xbox 360 and Xbox One games. This doesn't even have to be streamed, they own Xbox and could very well work towards supporting those titles on future Windows phones.

Having access to your games on Windows desktop, a living room console and your mobile device, streamed or otherwise, is nothing to shake a stick at. They have a very large chance of delivering 1st party emulation or support for Xbox 360 and Xbox One on their mobile devices and Desktop platform. That is a very real threat to companies like Sony who exclusively rely on their console and third-party exclusive titles drawing in consumers.

 

Ok, so please try. Where is Sony's desktop platform? Do they have an operating system used by 500 million? 500 million devices were running Windows 10 by 2017. Where is their mobile phone device? At best they'd be forced to partner with existing phone providers and they don't exactly control the hardware or operating system of the phones currently.

Vita is dead. PSP was years ago. I really don't see how what I said was wrong nor can I see how you could make a similar argument for Sony.

 

She will always live on in my heart, the OLED screen version that is.

What I would really like:

Honestly, I would actually be quite OK with all my game dev done in a browser connected to http://www.unity.com/live and collab with other users there. I would be able to develop my game exclusively in the cloud.

People say things like "oh but what if your internet dies?" well since it's streamed I can continue in realtime on my mobile phone or laptop. It's so simple and way better. Unity would handle all the storage, all the processing and baking. Never lose any work.

I just take my dev with me to the latest global game jam, and it's all there. I just took my phone. Can borrow random laptop on site if needed. Streaming dev is something I would really be happy to pay Unity for.

I hope they've thought that far.

 

If my internet dies, I would just be stuffed, due to lack of phone service. My internet is also probably too crap to handle any kind of streaming.

 

Some good has come from netflix being everywhere, I guess.

 

Oh, does it still hurt for you?
I thought we all have moved on from that, now that things have settled.

 

I suggest people say their piece and move on if they have made their points, seems silly to repeat.

 

haha. Nice trick.

 

Some people focus on something to the point that they're incapable of moving on from it. Microsoft is an excellent example of this. For years they wasted resources trying to have a share of the browser market even though they lost any chance of succeeding long ago. You would think they'd have just written it off by now.

 

Will you be doing good deeeds this time round, or should we just go there? Happy to oblige.

 

It's not impossible.

They may not die but it would be extremely painful.

 

This is a very narrow view. I mean, sure, if by "gamers" you mean "people who already play games" then this isn't going to enable them to do anything they couldn't already do. Consider: smartphones also didn't really solve problems that gamers had, but they did introduce games to a whole raft of people who didn't play them before.

Assuming that the network issues can be overcome, what if this allowed people who aren't interested in buying gaming hardware to access console / desktop quality games anyway? That might enable games to reach people who might not be turned off by some input lag* or a lower resolution**. Also remember that those things aren't important to all games.

* Until fairly recently most TVs already added more than 30ms latency of their own. And plenty of people happily play games with keyboards and mice that add noticeable latency, too. As developers or enthusiast gamers this is a big ticket item to us, but plenty of people don't really care.

** This one is a non-discussion, right? Look at old games now and they almost make your eyes bleed, but when we weren't used to having today's crisp images we were happy with whatever we had at the time.

 

I still don't think streaming is inevitable. The idea of dumb clients is nothing new and has been universally rejected up to now for the most part. Games don't really bring any new reasons to the table, it's just a different context.

Most companies that have touted dumb clients underestimate future tech like miniaturization, and overestimate the benefits on all sides. Just cost alone makes this not make sense. Why move all that processing to the server. That's a big reason why dumb clients have failed in the past.

Companies like MS and Amazon would just love to move everything to the server. It's like Bezo's told his team for their new mmo, I don't care what you make as long as it uses ridiculous amounts of processing power. Cloud providers are all trying to think of ways to move stuff to the server so they can make more money.

 

It's been in use for a while now. It will eventually be good, but right now there are many of latency problems and computing problems. I don't see how it could be enjoyable *at this exact moment with normal internet connections*. Gamepass is kinda like that though already, you just have to download the game. Maybe that is totally different though.

Edit: I had it backwards, that's my fault. https://www.playstation.com/en-ca/explore/playstationnow/ It's PS that had it.

 

You're looking at it from the perspective of a developer and a gamer. My mom on the other hand looked at the cost of the device and thought it wasn't too bad but then she saw the cost of the games too and quickly realized that what looks like only a few hundred dollars on the surface is more realistically several hundred.

 

Desktop virtualisation is a 5-10 billion dollar market. Not earth shattering, but not exactly dead.

There is a rather large difference between going down to the store to spend a a few hundred dollars and clicking a "Try Now" button and waiting a few minutes for a download.

The cost of streaming services tends to be massively lower than direct rental/purchase. Compare Netflix to buying Film and TV on iTunes or Google Play.

If you could get access to a library of 5,000 (and growing) console quality games for $19.99 a month, are you saying you wouldn't be interested? ... not even for an exclusive game that was right down your alley ... not even with a free trial ...

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 is $60. If we assume that the cost of a subscription is $14.99 (OnLive was charging this and it's not too far off from where a new service would be), that's four months of subscription time. Yet there is no way the game will last four months. You might get a single month if you're a completionist and don't have a ton of time to play but that's stretching it.

Since the game only lasts you a month you will need another game after that month is up and then yet another game after that. Getting four months of games at $60 each would be $240. By comparison you would only be spending that first $60 if you went with a subscription service.

You might make the argument that you can always just play the game again months down the road to which I would be willing to bet that most people say this but almost never get around to playing them again. I know I have a huge backlog that I want to go back and enjoy... but there are too many new games for me to get through first and still have a life.

That's if you can even play the games still. I have a few large containers (totalling one entire bookcase worth) of games from eras that there is no easy way to emulate properly. Unless I seek out hardware from that time period the games are completely unplayable.

https://www.amazon.com/Red-Dead-Redemption-2-PlayStation-4/dp/B01M5DZ525

 

If thats your argument, then really what your saying is we don't have the technology. Because the only barrier to making it cheaper is a technical one (okay probably some licensing issues too, but they can likely work through that).

And maybe you are right, maybe the cost of all those cycles is just too great, but I think they will give it a pretty good shot, probably take a lot of losses in the short term with the expectation that the tech gets cheaper and cheaper to run.

 

Hmmm nope, the problem is game streaming sucks.. I didn't throw out my CRT monitor that did 100hz at high resolution until LCD panels started doing 120hz and the inputlag had been reduced.. I'm all about that twitch gaming speed, and not just for fps, that stuff helps in any action reflex based game...

Sure it's fine for lazy couch potato gaming where the game is practically a cutscene followed by hit this and that button in time boring gameplay.. but for everything it kinda sucks, even racing games..

My guess is with some AI they'll just have that play the game for you based on your inputs so that could reduce the gap in ~ms from client to server in movement/action input... it will almost be like people who suck at playing games might find playing a streaming game turns out to be a better gaming experience for them. Where the game is being played better than they do ... without assisted AI inbetween I'm sure they'll find the experience awful, as they react to streaming footage that really isn't in sync with what they are reacting to in input... awful for gamers who notice it though.

 

Correct, most people don't buy based on logic, which means if the $400 hardware and the $60 software is the logical choice then it won't be the winner. The winner will be the subscription since it's far cheaper in the short term.

Only for as long as console manufacturers continue to allow it, only for games that don't require a serial number to unlock functionality, and only if the game has value. There are plenty of failures for every platform every year.

Once again playing anytime you want requires you to have the hardware. If you're reselling every game as you go you're most likely selling your hardware from one generation to the next and even if you aren't the hardware doesn't last forever.

 

Microsoft have experience of building stores and selling games through them; curious to see how their Netflix-like streaming system works!

 

If the store they have now is any indication of that experience, I'm not at all curious. It's a foregone conclusion that the streaming service will be a nightmare if the Microsoft Store is any indication.

 

Ill be happy with streamed games if it means no hackers in multiplayer games. GTA 5 online was unplayable on the pc because of all the hackers.

 

Your argument could have been made for DVDs. It didn't prevent Netflix.

Most PC gamers already have moved to a non ownership of physical copies with Steam anyway. The convenience of not having to go put in the disk to is a huge. Consoles are also having success going diskless.

This service is going to rise or fall on the technical implementation. If they can build it, customers will come.

 

It will be also crucial to prove that they won't shut down the games after 1-2 years. The major problem with the always-online movement is that the developers are shutting down servers. You buy a game, you can play it for a while then it becomes useless when they shut down their DRM servers. That's just wrong IMHO.
Now, if you think about games the same like when you watch am average TV-show episode once and then never again, that's okay, but people usually like to replay their games. Even after years.

I pretty much like the Bethesda's Fallout series but I didn't buy Fallout 76, because of this problem. I don't like server-side gaming, clunky, slow, high-latency, and there is no way to play it locally. This is a problem for me and I'm afraid we're heading towards a world where it will be the norm and we won't be able to play games locally anymore. Or not average games I guess.
I also don't like Connected games, I don't play MMOs, I don't play battle royale. I play occasional MP, but it's secondary comparing to the single player games I play.

---
BTW, Microsoft has everything to build it properly, Store-experience, game-experience, streaming-experience (MixR), cloud storage experience. So if someone can build it properly it's them (from technical point of view). But will see.

 

I honestly don't think this would be a problem in a Netflix style subscription service.

Loosing access to a game after a couple of years when you paid $60 to own a copy sucks, and upsets people. On the other hand if you are paying $14.99 a month to access all games, when one shuts down you simply move to the next game.

 

Yeah, replace one trash with another on the conveyor-belt. It's even more depressing. When people stop caring, companies will move towards even more shallow experiences with even less effort invested. We see it already on the AAA lineup enough. It won't ease, it will be much worse. This is what I'm afraid of.

 

yeah not very good ones.

MS used used to have talented people experienced in building Operating Systems aswel and various useful features for them that actually worked and were productive and had gui/ux designers that weren't idiots that designed well as opposed to the complete idiocracy inspired simpleton garbage of things now, so things have taken a nose dive since satyan noob whats his face took over.. they are about as good as the competition, ie not very good at all compared to how things used to be compared to the likes of crApple and various rubbish linux distros.

That might be the one good factor about it, but you don't really get console cheaters as much anyway they just no life the game until there skills are much better, it is only the pc/desktop world that multiplayer games get hacks developed for noobs to use. Not really helped at all by game engines that don't have very good multiplayer frameworks and tools to assist game developers in making good server authoritative games with good client anti cheat developed tools/codebases to build a game around/into etc would make it easier to do this stuff without the headache.

In anycase game consoles have kept that playing field relatively hacker free.. still happens though as can be seen in plenty of youtube videos catching those cheaters out, so maybe streaming would work better for that.. if you don't mind the playing experience being somewhat lagged .

And if they don't come, they'll shove it down your face whether you like it or not and remove all previous better options. While going on a massive marketing campaign spreading as much bullshit about it as possible, yay everybody likes this, I heard it on tv and via all those adverts that keep getting plasted all over the websites I visit, besides I think they've managed to dumb down the end comsumer enough at this point, probably would work look how many ended up staying on winshitting 10 when they could have carried on using windows 7 had MS not done there damndest on breaking things and shoving people onto the newer improved idiocracy looking crapware infested telementry spy os.

"Most PC gamers already have moved to a non ownership of physical copies with Steam anyway. The convenience of not having to go put in the disk to is a huge. Consoles are also having success going diskless. "

Pretty shocking how many don't even know what to do with an archived file of a game to install, the idea of extracting something and running it or even following basic instructions... just shocking how dumb the end consumer is getting, kinda amazing how some even managed to install Steam at this point, probably doesn't help MS and affiliates have made a business out of scaring people with S***ty anti virus scareware.

 

I was assuming for the sake of the "who is this for?" discussion. I was not saying that we can plan on it happening.

 

Personally I don' think it's price, I think it's broader accessibility.

Smartphones are an example here. There are loads of people who play games now that they have a smartphone who didn't play games before that. Price is one factor of accessibility, but since many of these people happily hand over money while playing games it's clearly not the only one. The difference, I suspect, is that a whole bunch of people who wouldn't go out of their way to buy gaming stuff now had it by default, in their pockets. No need to spend hundreds on a dedicated, complicated device (plenty of people don't know how to plug their DVD player into their TV), no need to do stuff to their computers (plenty of people don't like "installing" things, and/or see their PCs as purely working tools). Just press highly inviting, safe looking buttons on a device that lives in their pocket.

Again with the assumption that the tech works out, something like this could make games nearly as accessible as streaming TV shows. I say "nearly" because unless a game is designed for touch and/or TV remotes then chances are people will at least need to grab some input device before they can play.

On the note of the price argument, as a developer I think that's a bad direction for our industry to go in, for reasons revealed by @Ryiah's example of Red Dead Redemption 2.

 

Oh man... a few times now I've purchased physical copies of games, entered the key into Steam, and then let it install via my internet connection rather than using the disk because it was both more convenient and faster. (On top of that, I'm in Australia! Though I did have a much-faster-than-average connection at the time.)

 

Streaming gaming is a solution in search of a problem. Lots of companies are chasing it because common knowledge is that streaming is the future, because streaming was the future of video content. I believe this to be a miscalculation; a failure of people high up the chain to understand the fundamental differences between the use and delivery of game content vs video content.

 

What I like about many older games, that maybe not as much popular, but you can still play them online. For example older Unreal Turnamet, which is FPS. Still have some active servers after many years.

I have noticed already many years ago, that current trend is such, that making game for short living, specially online one, and as said, shovel another one. Seams there is no more tendency, to keep game online going. There are some exceptions, but that is just handful.