JimmyRustler
Member
Y I K E S
I
K
E
S
Damn, I can see internet providers rubbing their hands for this one going big...
I mean, I have unlimited but no way I'm going to support this with the sleaziness of the providers in mind.
Y I K E S
I
K
E
S
We have Spotify because theres thousands and thousands of songs and bands out there, and digital was the way to go.Yes, I'm 100% in on streaming being the future.
The reaction on the web is one of alot of people afraid of change.
Remember just because we have Spotify, people can still indulge in vinyl, there will always be products marketed to enthusiasts.
The reaction on the web is one of alot of people afraid of change.
Jump, jump, JUMP!!!!
Or they're just sensible consumers and understand the limitations the technology will impose, both on their rights and on the product itself.
We have Spotify because theres thousands and thousands of songs and bands out there, and digital was the way to go.
But gaming is a whole different story.
There are limitations now, having to buy hardware, disc capacity, hardware limitation.
Games are more and more always online, which will leave people will shelves full of colourful coasters.
The medium is changing, just like the automotive world right now with electric cars.
But I'm not willing to trade one negative for another. You're giving up hardware costs to play games with shittier performance and constant lag. This is not a step forward. This is not advancement. This is, at best, an awkward sidegrade for a select a few. If you live somewhere with the infrastructure (and understand, you're going to need an absolutely amazing connection to do 4k 60fps) and you don't like owning games or hardware then have fun: this is for you. If you think the majority of gamers are going to bite then I think you're delusional.
Only 1 in every 250 cars on the road is electric, btw, and that took over 20 years to achieve.
I think in 5 years time people will have to explain to others why they spend money on hardware when the majority of people who live in areas that have the supported infrastructure stream.
Yes, I'm 100% in on streaming being the future.
The reaction on the web is one of alot of people afraid of change.
Remember just because we have Spotify, people can still indulge in vinyl, there will always be products marketed to enthusiasts.
There will be more then 1 way for now, but in 10 years I think we will be in a Netflix situation where it is hard to remember the days of waiting for a DVD rentalStreaming is 1 way. Gaming needs 2 ways. It doesn't work outside of lab conditions, even the damn 1 way conference video lagged.
Literally as stupid an idea as driverless cars. We need a new world war to focus people's minds off this frivilous utter shit.
There will be more then 1 way for now, but in 10 years I think we will be in a Netflix situation where it is hard to remember the days of waiting for a DVD rental
The bit in bold makes no sense. There's no chance that 10 years we're all streaming games. Computing power advances year on year, you really think google (or anyone) can afford to have 100,000 VMs capable of running Doom Eternal, per country?
Also, unless you think the laws of physics will change in 10 years, all the undersea piping in the world can't change how lag works. HDTV screens even lag locally...nevermind 300 miles from a data centre and back, telling your Doomslayer what to do. I also suspect you don't know the difference between bandwidth and latency.
Sorry, the tech doesnt work, wont work. not ever. Everything you see is smoke and mirrors, at best you might get 30fps compressed video with 150ms input lag, if you live close to a data centre, with uncapped data. And then your display will add a bunch of lag, your wireless controller lags.
It's LITERALLY bullshit. Sigh.
75 mbs is still an amount that many people can't get. That speed isn't even offered in my parent's neighborhood.Damn, I can see internet providers rubbing their hands for this one going big...
I mean, I have unlimited but no way I'm going to support this with the sleaziness of the providers in mind.
My opinion on this issue is as follows:
Do you like streaming lag?
Do you like input lag?
Do you like unreliable crashes?
Do you NOT like to own your games?
Are you for a single company controlling gaming making it no longer an open-industry?
If you answered no to any of those questions, that means you DON'T want to touch Stadia, and don't worry I also said no to all those questions. Suggestion: Don't buy it.
BUT MAYBE, there's a few of you onheroine drugshere who had a heavy amount tosnort injectdrink and think that this is a good thing for the industry, and you would like to actually get this product, please share in a post below your opinion on why this is a good thing.
Best go tell them then before they spend any more money on it
.
They know, well some of them do, it's snake oil. But these big executives don't understand games. While he understandds the business, Phil Harrison doesn't understand actual games. He thinks he does, but he thinks you can replace local hardware with cloud stuff and people will happily play along. Only actual, real gamers (and devs) know you need a local device doing the processing. This is why it's a scam, a joke, an absurd push by a dumb company and stupid executives.
Here's the kicker, do you see Nintendo doing it? Nope. The only companies trying it are the ones with idiot execs pushing it internally. I mean, it's all laughable really, and it'll be superb to see it crumble. Just a little bit annoying to watch confused people giving it any credibility for the moment. Even the engineers working on it will be just taking the paycheque, knowing it will fail. I would too.
No, I don't.
That was a rhetorical question really, Nintedo wont touch the tech because it's incredibly dumb. But im glad most people on here get it.
I mean this with the greatest respect to everyone but there are alot of armchair experts on sites like this.