Why do PC gamers make charts like this?

[Remilia]

No, Microsoft and Sony impose this cut off limit. After the PS4/XB1 were released, the developers refused to make games only for these new consoles. Which means the new games were going to look like crap because 360/PS3 were a limiting factor. Just like how PS4/XB1 are a limiting factor for PC gaming.

The 5 year cycle isn't new, it's just that the PS3/360 were so powerful that they lasted far longer.

I doubt it's more on the line of refuse as I've played games that are on PS3/4/Vita platform (Yoru no Nai Kuni for example), but making it for older consoles is an extra cost where the player base on the newer console already is enough to be profitable.

Cause emulation is awesome? I have very high respects for emulation authors.

Eh fair enough. I don't really pay attention to the stuff though admittedly.

As a company that makes games, this is literally a minor issue. For example, Fallout 4 is on PS4/XB1/PC. As a developer, you need to deal with two sets of hardware with the PS4/XB1. They're fixed hardware, but still twice the work. With PC, you deal with three sets of hardware. Intel, AMD, and Nvidia. We're not talking about a large amount of diversity here. The PC hardware industry is practically an oligopoly. And you're not coding for specific hardware, but for an API like Direct 3D or OpenGL. Unless the game is ported to Linux and Mac.

Yes they need to test it, but if anything goes wrong with the game on a Radeon R9 270X, then it's AMD's job to fix it, not the developers. Between AMD and Nvidia, they'll do everything in their power to make sure any new released game is working perfectly.

Sort of yes and no. While yes you're using an API it still isn't as simple as Intel/AMD/Nvidia.
While a layer of abstraction is nice, some things will inherently work better on certain architectures. What some people call the 'console effect' (kind of dumb but whatever), where current consoles are running off GCN and being ported. Stuff like in GCN, each compute unit has 64 stream processor. This differs from Kepler, which each streaming multiprocessor has 192 cuda core, Maxwell is 128CC per SM, where as Pascal is 64CC per SM, like GCN. GCN / console take in 64 operation wide wavefronts and thus for GCN each sp is immediately occupied when a wavefront batch arrives where as Maxwell and Kepler would have wasted resources. For devs the choice is to optimize for each architecture or hope Nvidia does something (like Kepler for example no longer really performing up to par).
This is excluding hardware schedulers and other stuff that should only be driver exposed.

Just be glad it's PC and not Android.

Rip

I didn't mention DX12/Vulkan for Indie devs, but for any games ported to PC so developers don't have to write 3-4 code paths so AMD Nvidia and Intel are all happy. Because the idea is most of the code is now in the hands of the developer, and not in the driver, which has traditionally been a problem area.

Ah okay, misread then on the indie part.
It depends on how far into optimization you want to get. Dan Baker from Oxide with an interview with... Pcper?Anandtech? Someone, noted that while yes, they can optimize for every architecture, it is time consuming and expensive. This is something that PC programming can't do, which is essentially to the metal. A layer of abstraction is still needed, just not as absurd as DX11.

And what's responsible for it? GameWorks is responsible for it. The game patched it by disabling Ambient Occlusion. Without any access to the code the issue can't be fixed, not even by the developers.

Yes, I noted HBAO+ for a reason, however this is one of the times where HBAO+ actually has caused artifacting to such degrees and HBAO+ is no longer a huge performance hit for AMD hardware. Now it's VXAO! cause reasons. Granted it's both gameworks and devs that are the issue here.

[Vash The Stampede]

As for utility - Yes a console can be used for 'smart tv'-esque apps, and dvds/blu-rays, but that's about the end of it. You can't program, edit photo/video, use any professional applications, etc etc. PCs are the undisputed victors of the utility war. Additionally, if consoles ever get to the point where they are similar to PCs... then they have become PCs... Less versatile, less user-friendly PCs. You shouldn't want this, you should want cheap machines that do exactly what you want, not machines with loads of tacked on half-functional functionality. If they weren't so obsessed with making the Xbox One the entire living room experience early on, it would probably be a much better console.

To finish this thread, I'm going to make a point and a prediction. Right now we're seeing the death of the console. Yes I know, drama drama. But, this is how things go in any industry. The consumer will always move to the "all in one product". Take the iPod/Mp3 player for example, which did one thing really well and that's play music. Then the iPhone came out, as did a number of other Android devices. Now it's a camera, a phone, a mp3 player, a game console, and to some degree a productivity device. One could argue that a MP3 player or a digital camera is specialized for this task, and is cheaper, but people went with the smart phone instead.

This is what's going to happen to gaming. People will dump their traditional console for a PC. A PC you hook up to your TV. To some degree, people are doing this with Chromecast, just without the gaming. There's also laptops, and such. Which means the PS4 and Xbox One are the last generation of game consoles. Unless Sony does release a PS4k, which is just a speed bumped PS4.

So if you aren't a PC gamer, now would be a good time to get familiar with it. I'm certain that Microsoft is planning to merge Windows 10 with Xbox One to make this unified platform, cause Xbox isn't doing great so far. Sony probably plans to keep the Playstation brand going for as long as possible, because they literally have nothing else. Nintendo's Wii U was so bad this generation that already Nintendo is planning to release a new console.

[Rhaide]

Seeing as I have several friends and my wife, who all still have their original NESs and they are all still working, it's a valid point. In addition, there are still places you can take them to have them repaired. Retro-gaming is becoming a large trend nowadays and there are at least 2 stores I know of here in my city that have STACKS of old consoles and WALLS of games for them:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Propa...06471902754173

Granted, that can get expensive, more expensive than PC gaming really. Better off downloading ROMs and Emulating if you ask me.

I also agree to a degree on the second point. However, if you have the need to program, edit photo/video or any professional applications, yeah, obviously a PC is the better choice, if your job does not give you one. Your average gamer though, likely does not need those things. It would not surprise me though if more and more of this type of thing was available on a console though. Since it really is just a PC with set hardware and a custom OS, it would not be hard to add this functionality to consoles and you still have the advantage of having set hardware and one platform to test on, so it is still the easier route for developers to create games on. I think consoles are going to continue to move this direction and we already have PCs that try to pretend to be consoles like the SteamBox.

Don't take me wrong here. I fully support PC gaming and am really ust playing devil's advocate here.

I wasn't being sarcastic about the first point. I was being serious, so I'm glad you agree. Also, NES was the best console ever made.

Ironically, my first favorite video game was Rock n' Roll Racing for the NES by Silicon Synapse... now known as Blizzard Entertainment. Funny that I would later go on to play 10 years of their most successful game in my later life. I have great memories of my grandfather ranting about Crystalis, despite being well into his early 60s, and my father keeping me up late at night because he wanted to play Lemmings on the SNES in my room when I was like 6 years old.

There's no problem with consoles, I'm purely speaking from a utilitarian, economical perspective. PCs win out there, there's no contest.

- - - Updated - - -

To finish this thread, I'm going to make a point and a prediction. Right now we're seeing the death of the console. Yes I know, drama drama. But, this is how things go in any industry. The consumer will always move to the "all in one product". Take the iPod/Mp3 player for example, which did one thing really well and that's play music. Then the iPhone came out, as did a number of other Android devices. Now it's a camera, a phone, a mp3 player, a game console, and to some degree a productivity device. One could argue that a MP3 player or a digital camera is specialized for this task, and is cheaper, but people went with the smart phone instead.

This is what's going to happen to gaming. People will dump their traditional console for a PC. A PC you hook up to your TV. To some degree, people are doing this with Chromecast, just without the gaming. There's also laptops, and such. Which means the PS4 and Xbox One are the last generation of game consoles. Unless Sony does release a PS4k, which is just a speed bumped PS4.

So if you aren't a PC gamer, now would be a good time to get familiar with it. I'm certain that Microsoft is planning to merge Windows 10 with Xbox One to make this unified platform, cause Xbox isn't doing great so far. Sony probably plans to keep the Playstation brand going for as long as possible, because they literally have nothing else. Nintendo's Wii U was so bad this generation that already Nintendo is planning to release a new console.

You're probably right.

- - - Updated - - -

Cutting it down cause it's a lot.

And quite honestly, it does get annoying when you see PCMR stuff a lot when people can just play games on whatever platform they wish. If you think it's immature and reductive, then so be it. Not everything is simplistic, and it never is, but if you want to dig for faults on either side then it's going to be a big list. Instead of doing that why can't we just play the games we want. This PCMR and console peasant crap is meaningless.
There are benefits for each platform and that's the thing. Not everyone subs for 3 years of PS+/Xbl for $50/60. They don't mention anything about the games you get a month for those subs. I have a PC, I know the trade offs of it, but I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't have it's flaws either. Suddenly games on consoles also don't have sales either, when did that happen? Stuff like that somehow doesn't exist because you said so? This is the exact issue I have because somehow some things don't exist anymore on one side.

Thought it was pretty obvious what I meant, only one person confused it. Though nice to know there's a term that's a lot easier to use (quoted above).

Final point here, of course there are sales on console games, but you can't pretend they do steam-sale type sales on console games. Even used games go for 20-30 dollars for a popular title, at best you'll see $10 for a bargain bin game that isn't very good. Whereas major hit titles on PC go on sale REGULARLY for $20, and great games that have aged a couple years go as low as $10, and go a bit older and you find AMAZING things like Darksiders I and II bundled for $5.

I agree they have sales for console games, no one is pretending they don't. But they don't have THESE kinds of sales, the steam summer sale is coming up. Match even half the games on steam during the sale against the lowest LEGITIMATE, widely available sale price for the same game on console and I'll concede the point to you.

Also, I forgot the games for gold program. Good point. That used to be a good deal for xbox owners (I have a few myself). But it's really the least they can do for charging you a fee for nothing. The monthly fee for live, what do you think that gets you? You're paying for access to an ad-space. Many games don't even have dedicated servers (not that PC's don't have that problem too in some cases, which is frustrating), but you are literally paying microsoft money for access to the internet on your xbox more or less. I would be furious if Asus tried to charge me money because my ethernet port was integrated into an Asus motherboard. It's robbery. The LEAST they can do is toss you a few bargain bin games a month, they gave out some good ones early on, but that dwindled quickly and eventually gave way to giving away the same item over again and handing out games no one even wanted. Again, I know this, I have 20+ of these games.

[Deleted]

I also predict consoles will die in a not so distant future. Soon we'll only have (game) PCs and game stream services which will have replaced consoles. Much like Netflix, but for games.

[Hellfury]

I also predict consoles will die in a not so distant future. Soon we'll only have (game) PCs and game stream services which will have replaced consoles. Much like Netflix, but for games.

We are still long way from proper game streaming but, games as a service where you have a game for X time in your HDD like a rent I can see it happen

[Deleted]

We are still long way from proper game streaming but, games as a service where you have a game for X time in your HDD like a rent I can see it happen

I'm not sure it's that far away to be honest. Gigabit internet is becoming more common every year and bandwidth, is the only thing holding us back.

[Allenseiei]

Hey guys,

I love PCs and consoles very much. I also believe people should play whatever platform they want. Today I came across this revolting image that is misleading. Here's why I hate this image

http://imgur.com/jJYnvdH

Cost of Online Features:

The guy says the cost of online is $180 for 3 years or $60 a year. A very select few people pay that amount. On groupon you can find a year subscription for $40.

https://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-12-...d-membership-1

The Cost of the System:

The guy is right about the price but the console also comes with a free AAA title depending where you get it from.

http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-One-1TB-C...0677247&sr=1-5

Cost of Games:

Games are $60 on release for PC and consoles. Console games also go on sale just like PC games. I don't know anyone who pays full price for console games

The guy who made this chart is misleading people into thinking console gaming is expensive, it's not. Just let people play what they want.

Because people have too much free time and they create drama over useless subjects.

[Hydrofluoric]

Hey guys,

I love PCs and consoles very much. I also believe people should play whatever platform they want. Today I came across this revolting image that is misleading. Here's why I hate this image

http://imgur.com/jJYnvdH

Cost of Online Features:

The guy says the cost of online is $180 for 3 years or $60 a year. A very select few people pay that amount. On groupon you can find a year subscription for $40.

https://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-12-...d-membership-1

The Cost of the System:

The guy is right about the price but the console also comes with a free AAA title depending where you get it from.

http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-One-1TB-C...0677247&sr=1-5

Cost of Games:

Games are $60 on release for PC and consoles. Console games also go on sale just like PC games. I don't know anyone who pays full price for console games

The guy who made this chart is misleading people into thinking console gaming is expensive, it's not. Just let people play what they want.

Well the title is called Made a simple infographic to educate peasants so obviously he's ignorant to some degree.

PC Gaming can be cheaper than consoles and vice versa. I personally prefer PC over console simply because it offers more capabilities and the sales for games are way cheaper. Although I do acknowledge you need to upgrade parts every so often and that it can be very costly.

I feel like a lot of people that spout "PC Master Race" just have a huge ego because they feel more sophisticated when playing a more advanced machine.

He should make a chart about a complete parts list for a PC that can run say, Witcher 3, at the same capabilities of a console. It's going to be around the same price or more if you include Speakers, Mouse, Keyboard, and most importantly the processor and video card.

[Lathais]

He should make a chart about a complete parts list for a PC that can run say, Witcher 3, at the same capabilities of a console. It's going to be around the same price or more if you include Speakers, Mouse, Keyboard, and most importantly the processor and video card.

and then you get right back to the argument proposed by some, "Well everyone has a PC, he would just need some upgrades not a whole new PC. Then we go around and around again.

The real answer is it's different for each and every person. There are far too many variables to narrowly say one is better for everyone.

For those saying they think consoles are dieing out, I seriously doubt it. Just look at a list of the best selling games from 2015:
http://venturebeat.com/2016/01/14/20...s-of-the-year/

Half of them are not even available on PC. They are console only. The second best selling game of the year, not available on PC. Like I said earlier, what we will likely see is consoles becoming more like PCs. They'll have more apps they can run, more they can do. Like people who think consoles will go away and PCs will take over because they can do more, consoles will fill that role. They'll be your cable box, your DVD player, your gaming system, video chat device, so on and so forth. You can say that console sales themselves are down and that is accurate, however, the length of time between console releases has also increased, so of course sales will go down slightly over time when the consoles themselves are lasting longer. The game sales are still there though. They still have exclusive titles people want to play. Usually, at release, a game will sell more on console, but then sales crawl to a stop after about 2 years, while PC continues to sell, but for far less money, because of sales. Over 10 years or so, sure, they made more money from the PC version, but in the first 2 years, console sales are what get them their dev money back, so devs will keep making console games.

[Vash The Stampede]

I also predict consoles will die in a not so distant future. Soon we'll only have (game) PCs and game stream services which will have replaced consoles. Much like Netflix, but for games.

I doubt we'll ever see a streaming service for gaming. It's extremely expensive and anti consumer. There's also very few benefits one can get from a streaming gaming service. Companies though have lots of benefits from streaming games. It'll never happen.

We are still long way from proper game streaming but, games as a service where you have a game for X time in your HDD like a rent I can see it happen

You do this already with WoW, except Blizzard double dips for the service and the game itself. But companies wouldn't want to rent games, cause people would pay far less for them. They like the idea of you paying $60 for a game.

I'm not sure it's that far away to be honest. Gigabit internet is becoming more common every year and bandwidth, is the only thing holding us back.

Throughput isn't the limiting factor for streaming service. It's all about latency, which is the distance between you and the server. To solve this problem you'd need a internet connection that uses quantum entanglement to give nearly 0 latency, or damn near it.

He should make a chart about a complete parts list for a PC that can run say, Witcher 3, at the same capabilities of a console. It's going to be around the same price or more if you include Speakers, Mouse, Keyboard, and most importantly the processor and video card.

The barely $500 PC I created with PCPartsPickers is more than capable of playing Witcher 3, probably far better than any console. I believe the developers even said that a PC running the game on lowest settings is better than console. I can't find the quote.

For those saying they think consoles are dieing out, I seriously doubt it. Just look at a list of the best selling games from 2015:
http://venturebeat.com/2016/01/14/20...s-of-the-year/

Half of them are not even available on PC. They are console only. The second best selling game of the year, not available on PC. Like I said earlier, what we will likely see is consoles becoming more like PCs. They'll have more apps they can run, more they can do. Like people who think consoles will go away and PCs will take over because they can do more, consoles will fill that role. They'll be your cable box, your DVD player, your gaming system, video chat device, so on and so forth. You can say that console sales themselves are down and that is accurate, however, the length of time between console releases has also increased, so of course sales will go down slightly over time when the consoles themselves are lasting longer. The game sales are still there though. They still have exclusive titles people want to play. Usually, at release, a game will sell more on console, but then sales crawl to a stop after about 2 years, while PC continues to sell, but for far less money, because of sales. Over 10 years or so, sure, they made more money from the PC version, but in the first 2 years, console sales are what get them their dev money back, so devs will keep making console games.

Right now the PS4 beats PC in sales. As far as I know no PC version of a game has outsold a PS4 version. Xbox One though has been doing terribly. Half the sales of PS4, which makes sense since there's half as many Xbox One's compared to PS4. But right now PC is fighting PS4 neck to neck in sales. It's hard to determine how many PC games were sold because PC doesn't sell many physical copies. So you have to go by what EA and Ubisoft say about sales, cause obviously they know.

But the reason for the death of the console is because the PS4 and XB1 had a very rough start. A PS5 and XB2 would have it even worse. This is why Sony is hoping that streaming services take hold, and Microsoft hopes that people will play more Xbox games on PC through their system. They couldn't make another console when developers refuse to make games exclusive to PS5/XB1. First party games are doing terribly, because the sales of a single system isn't going to be profitable for the cost of making a game. Hence why very few games today are exclusive to any platform.

[Denpepe]

I doubt we'll ever see a streaming service for gaming. It's extremely expensive and anti consumer. There's also very few benefits one can get from a streaming gaming service. Companies though have lots of benefits from streaming games. It'll never happen.

It already exists
http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/nvidi...gaming-uk.html
https://shield.nvidia.co.uk/android-tv

Not saying it good or useful and i don't intend to use it but it's out there.

[Hydrofluoric]

The barely $500 PC I created with PCPartsPickers is more than capable of playing Witcher 3, probably far better than any console.

Legitimately want a source/PC part list on this. My friend is trying to save all the money he can and wants desktop for college. I've seen cheap PCs, but from what I've experience they're not capable of running games like that. My ~$870 (That's not counting the keyboard, monitor, speakers, mouse, and video card that I already had) build can run Shadow of Mordor at about 40fps on max until it rains in game, then it drops to like 12.

He's looking for something that can at least do Medium running something like Witcher3/GTA V

[Vash The Stampede]

Legitimately want a source/PC part list on this. My friend is trying to save all the money he can and wants desktop for college. I've seen cheap PCs, but from what I've experience they're not capable of running games like that. My ~$870 (That's not counting the keyboard, monitor, speakers, mouse, and video card that I already had) build can run Shadow of Mordor at about 40fps on max until it rains in game, then it drops to like 12.

He's looking for something that can at least do Medium running something like Witcher3/GTA V

Here's the build I'm talking about. It doesn't come with a monitor, cause this was meant to be compared to a console which hooks up to a HDTV through HDMI. According to this video, this should run the game at high settings no problem.



Copy of Windows 7 Home for $20.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD Athlon X4 860K 3.7GHz Quad-Core Processor ($73.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock FM2A78M PRO3+ Micro ATX FM2+ Motherboard ($49.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: Mushkin ECO2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($28.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Hitachi Deskstar 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($51.95 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R9 380 2GB Video Card ($179.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Rosewill FBM-05 MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($24.00 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($34.99 @ Newegg)
Keyboard: Logitech K120 Wired Standard Keyboard ($11.88 @ OutletPC)
Mouse: Logitech Optical USB Mouse Wired Optical Mouse ($10.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $466.65
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-04-18 15:28 EDT-0400

It already exists
http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/nvidi...gaming-uk.html
https://shield.nvidia.co.uk/android-tv

Not saying it good or useful and i don't intend to use it but it's out there.

I know the services exist, but they'll never take off. Everyone who's ever tried it, had nothing good to say. Those that weren't bought by Sony and Nvidia.

[Deleted]

I doubt we'll ever see a streaming service for gaming. It's extremely expensive and anti consumer. There's also very few benefits one can get from a streaming gaming service. Companies though have lots of benefits from streaming games. It'll never happen.

I love it when people say things like this ^^ It's like they have this super-secret access to future information and technological development. I'll rephrase that for you: "I don't think it will happen any time soon."

Clean that crystal ball because here's another little secret for ya: It already exists. (Nvidia, Sony, Utomik)

Anti consumer? Yeah, it would be extremely anti consumer (whatever that means in your mind) to opt into a subscription based service and have dozens of games available for playing.

You can post a tweet from some random fat dude saying it's "painfully retarded", but it doesn't support your case, on the contrary, it makes me think you're parroting Youtubers.

The technology is in place, the services exist, we're merely waiting for average bandwidth to increase (especially uploads) to do it well. We're not talking about streaming multi-player games, that I reckon, will not happen any time soon. But simple, single player experiences shouldn't be a problem. I think (a word that you should use a wee bit more often, perhaps) it will be a success, once content increases in quantity and quality. (Again not unlike Netflix' shaky start)

[krunksmash]

while high end PC gaming has a much higher entry price point, a basic system is about the same cost as a console and still provides a higher visual quality game experience (Usually, some bad ports happen time to time ) PC gaming is also scaleable, as the games get more intense you can just upgrade a part when needed. PC gaming is also fully backwords compatible. game does not work? no problem get an emulation program to run the game in a virtual environment.

Console gaming is buy the hardware and your stuck with thoes system specs for x number of years until a new console is released. then pray your games will run on the new system other wise you will be changing systems to play older games. does this mean consoles and console gamers are inferior to PC gamers? no, not at all. do Console have good points? sure they often have extremely fun exclusives.

in the end, play what you enjoy and can afford. there will always be elitist on both sides, just ignore them.

[Deleted]

while high end PC gaming has a much higher entry price point, a basic system is about the same cost as a console and still provides a higher visual quality game experience (Usually, some bad ports happen time to time ) PC gaming is also scaleable, as the games get more intense you can just upgrade a part when needed. PC gaming is also fully backwords compatible. game does not work? no problem get an emulation program to run the game in a virtual environment.

Console gaming is buy the hardware and your stuck with thoes system specs for x number of years until a new console is released. then pray your games will run on the new system other wise you will be changing systems to play older games. does this mean consoles and console gamers are inferior to PC gamers? no, not at all. do Console have good points? sure they often have extremely fun exclusives.

in the end, play what you enjoy and can afford. there will always be elitist on both sides, just ignore them.

I can't think of any exclusive worth mentioning, besides Nintendo titles.

Anyway, everything you said is true, which is why consoles are dying. This upgraded PS4 has already started a shitstorm and it's not even released yet.

PC gamers aren't superior, but PC gaming definitely is.

[Triks]

I can't think of any exclusive worth mentioning, besides Nintendo titles.

Anyway, everything you said is true, which is why consoles are dying. This upgraded PS4 has already started a shitstorm and it's not even released yet.

PC gamers aren't superior, but PC gaming definitely is.

The PS4 Neo is the most baffling thing I have seen so far in the tech industry considering that Sony is rocking the sales charts.

[Vash The Stampede]

Anti consumer? Yeah, it would be extremely anti consumer (whatever that means in your mind) to opt into a subscription based service and have dozens of games available for playing.

Because people want to pay a monthly fee to access their games? If they stop paying the fee, then the games they bought are inaccessible. We're not talking about new games here. Most of the games in the Sony and Nvidia catalog are old, and cheap with the exception of two games.

Also you can pretty much do this yourself for free. Nvidia requires you to have Nvidia hardware to even use their service. But you could just use Steam or other free services like Remotr. Since the server is the PC at home, you'd have a better experience in terms of latency. Plus your gaming catalog isn't limited either.

The technology is in place, the services exist, we're merely waiting for average bandwidth to increase (especially uploads) to do it well. We're not talking about streaming multi-player games, that I reckon, will not happen any time soon. But simple, single player experiences shouldn't be a problem. I think (a word that you should use a wee bit more often, perhaps) it will be a success, once content increases in quantity and quality. (Again not unlike Netflix' shaky start)

I will repeat, bandwidth isn't an issue. Latency is the issue. There is no magic bullet to fix latency. If you live in New York and the Nvidia Geforce Now server is in California, you will have high latency regardless of what bandwidth you have. The best solution to this problem is to put a server in NY as well, but then the people in Canada will suffer, so then you put a server there as well. You have to flood the world with servers just so everyone can play games with low latency.

Everyone who's ever used the service has played games that doesn't require twitch like response time, which a number of games don't require. But games like Dark Souls and Street Fighter type games would be unplayable on these services, because even a hair of latency is too much.

- - - Updated - - -

The PS4 Neo is the most baffling thing I have seen so far in the tech industry considering that Sony is rocking the sales charts.

Mostly due to developers complaining. Also, just cause Sony is rocking the charts, doesn't mean they can sit back and relax. It's smart to do things that'll keep you on top.

[Artorius]

If you care about image quality, bandwidth is a problem too. But people think Netflix looks good so I suppose people don't care about image quality.

But yeah, even your case of NY~California is still a good one. People connecting from different continents will would have it way worse.

I'm located more or less well and it's ~90ms between me and Miami.

[Deleted]

Because people want to pay a monthly fee to access their games? If they stop paying the fee, then the games they bought are inaccessible. We're not talking about new games here. Most of the games in the Sony and Nvidia catalog are old, and cheap with the exception of two games.

Also you can pretty much do this yourself for free. Nvidia requires you to have Nvidia hardware to even use their service. But you could just use Steam or other free services like Remotr. Since the server is the PC at home, you'd have a better experience in terms of latency. Plus your gaming catalog isn't limited either.

I will repeat, bandwidth isn't an issue. Latency is the issue. There is no magic bullet to fix latency. If you live in New York and the Nvidia Geforce Now server is in California, you will have high latency regardless of what bandwidth you have. The best solution to this problem is to put a server in NY as well, but then the people in Canada will suffer, so then you put a server there as well. You have to flood the world with servers just so everyone can play games with low latency.

Everyone who's ever used the service has played games that doesn't require twitch like response time, which a number of games don't require. But games like Dark Souls and Street Fighter type games would be unplayable on these services, because even a hair of latency is too much.

- - - Updated - - -



Mostly due to developers complaining. Also, just cause Sony is rocking the charts, doesn't mean they can sit back and relax. It's smart to do things that'll keep you on top.

Of course buddy, I never said latency wouldn't be an issue. But a service like that would require more than a few servers centrals at key locations to guarantee sufficiently acceptable latency.

Street Fighter multiplayer is a very good example, Dark Souls not so much. I used to play Street Fighter on an old fashion monitor, because option-selects or cancels were nigh impossible on LCD screens, never mind via a streaming service. As I said, strictly PvE games, no online-multiplayer games are perfectly doable, especially with 'smart partial downloads'. I also mentioned the quantity and quality of content is imperative. You either missed that, or thought it was important to reformulate.

Why don't you think people would be willing to pay a monthly sub? Most games cost a pretty penny and are shelved after a single run. This, could be the perfect solution.