|
Post by Ex on Feb 5, 2024 14:38:00 GMT -5
something even worse - a streaming service where you basically play on any dumb terminal you own
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 5, 2024 14:47:43 GMT -5
Wheeeeeee!
In all seriousness, it's likely going to happen - Amazon Luna and Google Stadia, among others that do or did game streaming, are the warning shots. And I'm not even necessarily opposed to the idea! But I'm opposed to the idea when publishers clearly want to replace physical ownership (something they've already done with our digital games) with it.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Feb 5, 2024 14:51:57 GMT -5
I'm not even necessarily opposed to the idea! I am for many reasons, not the least of which being medium preservation and it's anti-consumer as hell.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 5, 2024 14:55:32 GMT -5
Well, my point is that I like the idea of streaming games wherever you are. But I want that idea coupled with ownership. In other words, if you buy a game, you should be afforded the opportunity to do that with your game. It can be an option, but not supplant ownership.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Feb 5, 2024 17:17:07 GMT -5
I think we're in agreement that "buying" a game that is only accessible via cloud streaming, isn't buying a game. That is leasing a game. But if tandem streaming access is granted upon purchase of a physical game, that'd be novel. As long as there is a console available that will run that physical game locally as well, without need of cloud streaming. That'd be actual ownership. A dual ability system like that would be ideal, but I don't think it's where publishers want to take us.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 5, 2024 17:25:27 GMT -5
No, definitely not where publishers want to take us. They want us on the Netflix model. Which, ironically... might not work out so hot? Seems like several of the streaming services are hurting.
I like the idea of GeForce NOW, which ties into digital storefronts to let you play the games you own* remotely. If that were coupled with GOG's model for selling, that would be fantastic. Sadly, the only games on there seem to be the ones straight from CD Projekt Red, so Witcher and Cyberpunk.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Feb 5, 2024 19:13:20 GMT -5
I think the other side of the coin here is that Starfield wasn't the next Skyrim money making machine they probably wanted. lol, that game seriously came and went in a blink, despite the like decade long hype cycle.
So panic... "Please buy our game again on this other platform!"
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Feb 5, 2024 21:23:09 GMT -5
Starfield wasn't the next Skyrim money making machine they probably wanted. Very good point, and we are seeing the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Feb 5, 2024 21:37:56 GMT -5
I missed this new page with you guys still talking about this haha. But yeah I guess you both probably heard the Starfield rumors going around on all this too. I bet Phil Spencer himself said something a year or two ago about nothing Bethesda wise going to the PS5. This made me laugh too: comicbook.com/gaming/news/starfield-bethesda-ps5-xbox-exclusive-game/What can I say, I don't really care when modern day MS/Xbox fails.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Feb 5, 2024 21:54:06 GMT -5
"The fewer platforms you have [quality assurance testers] focused on, the more rounds of testing they can do; if you have 100 people testing two platforms, you can put 50 on each. If you have three, the math tells you [that] you have fewer people on those games. You're finding fewer problems, you're not going as fast. It's going to take longer, it's going to cost more."
That's such smart math. There's no way you could hire more testers or subcontract the extra work in anticipation of the higher sales a multi-platform release nearly guarantees. You just have to divide the 100 in half, because game companies are totally like sports teams and there's a limit on how many players they can hire.
|
|