Streaming sucks. People say the latency is close to native, it's not.
I don't know. Just the though that my game is streaming would drive me mad. Videos can buffer and be downloaded.
There isn't a single game streaming platform out now that is targeting casuals, so of course, they wouldn't buy into it yet. XCloud is the closest, but it's not quite there yet. The Game streaming business model doesn't work on its own, but who said that it has to? Game streaming is just another option.
I think most people think GeForce is top-tier streaming. With that being the case...
The year was 2010. The forum was AVS. Many a prognosticator felt this way about the side hustle Netflix was working on called Watch Now. "Who wants to watch a movie on their computer?" we wondered on the way to the post office. Gamefly was tagging my mailbox a couple times a week in this era, and I had a nuanced muscle memory of that soft, waxed-cotton texture of the Netflix disc sleeves. But the times changed. The only people with optical disc players in their house are reclusive weirdos and streaming video content is the law of the land. It couldn't happen to video games though. It makes way more sense to put a 128 GB of RAM in the PS7 and put one in every household in Kansas.
The only real problem out of these are costs. On Ultimate none of the others matter much.
predicted solution being games streamed to our tvs(stadia/lumia alike) then it means streaming games hitting mainstrear/being viable is crazy far away and likely we got many gens before it even tries to replace traditional physical stationary consoles 
I agree about cost and cost will increase if streaming becomes the main platform for gaming. However, my biggest problems are session limits, monthly time limits and queues. Sure, it would probably only be a problem for me at certain times, but when it shows up, it would be very frustrating. These things occur now with the limited number of gamers using streaming services. imagine how much more of an issue they become of most gamers are streaming.
What? When did he say that? I didn't watch the whole video in the OP, but the quote in the OP doesn't say anything about Game streaming being the only way for companies to sell their games to customers. Consoles are on their way out, like MP3 players were decades ago; better devices are replacing them. Getting rid of consoles doesn't mean they can't sell you hardware; Nintendo still sells hardware, and they haven't released a console since the Wii U. I'd say by the PS8 generation Sony's hardware for those who don't use streaming will either be something like the Switch or a PlayStation-branded gaming PC.Michael Pachter! It's right here in this thread made by the OP
Movie streaming VS game streaming really isn't comparable. Videos can buffer, or even be downloaded and played offline. There's no interaction, so latency doesn't matter. Speed of light doesn't matter.
Who is renting an optical disc player in the cloud?
If the rate of game streaming advancement keeps up, by the time PS6 is winding down it will be more than good enough for 95% of gamers. Hell I think we're already there for at least 50% of gamers. GeForce Now is very impressive. Sony is testing the waters with Pulse. It solves so many problems that the industry wants solved, it's just a matter of time.
Very ignorant. Solve what? You can't solve physics. Games will have added latency and worse picture quality. But you are probably talking about solving the "issue" of not having to pay for hardware. But you are just replacing expensive hardware with expensive subscriptions. And if, God forbid, they gain market dominance, they can just increase the subscription price and add more restrictions as much as they want. Suddenly you are enjoying 10 hours a month for 40 bucks.
Yes, someone who actually knows what a console is.
Then the PC wouldn't exist.
I bet Nvidia added the 100 hour limit because they probably gained a few more members because of how expensive everything has become. Next in line is probably a price increase, followed by even more restrictions, but they can't pull the trigger just yet.
Because its not yours 24 hours x 30 or 31 days. You get X number of hours and rest of the time its being used by other subscribers. 720 hours in a 30 day month. Max limit of 100 hours per subscriber. So they can fit at least 10 subs per 5080, so $200 a month in revenue. And quite a few prob dont max out their 100 hour allotment, so even more subs per gpu. And obviously their gpus are obtained at cost, no aib markups.
I assume it's "profitable" in the same way as Gamepass. Meaning it's only actually profitable if a huge amount of people buy in.
I don't think anything in its current form will be the model of the future. It's just proof of concept. Nvidia is only throwing down "curious" money. Sony too. I even see advantages for myself tbh. My old games aren't going away, and developers can shoot for quality levels that can't be otherwise dreamed of. Big budget games have to cast a wide net in terms of tech specs. If Naughty Dog could put full effort into a game that only had ever had to be playable on a 5090, what would that look like? Streaming is the fastest path to that.
Huh, I'd never thought about that part of it before So basically games would be streaming from a glorified console? That definitely would make it easier for developers.
![L*][*N*K](/data/avatars/m/842/842515.jpg?1783922481){kind=avatar}
