[HN Gopher] Luna - Cloud gaming service
___________________________________________________________________
Luna - Cloud gaming service
Author : metahost
Score : 135 points
Date : 2020-09-24 18:25 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.amazon.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.amazon.com)
| yepthatsreality wrote:
| I love waiting for an install, something in the mail, water to
| boil, etc. It's a good time to slow down and reflect on anything
| else. I don't want things now. I just want. Once I'm
| satisfied...the journey is over. People are so concerned with
| self optimizing time or the perfect experience that they forget
| you don't have to hurry.
|
| Having said that, in modern society you can have it all, but can
| you consume it all? Why would you want to?
| yepthatsreality wrote:
| Also that ad devolves into mostly non-sense, the whole middle
| section. You can't play at half those places on those screens.
| neaden wrote:
| Interesting. Disregarding my issues with Amazon as a company, on
| paper this looks like a better system then Google's Stadia, by
| actually having a netflix style access games for a monthly fee
| that I think most people expected Stadia to do.
| dubcanada wrote:
| Looks like they are going to have channels? Something like you
| pay $3 for Ubisoft games, or $5 for Blizzard games a month.
| polytely wrote:
| Feel like this going to kill any chance Stadia might have had, if
| they have enough games and they give you a couple of months for
| free / reduced price if you have a Twitch Prime this will
| probably own the game streaming market.
| Axsuul wrote:
| Not necessarily, it will also come down to exclusives. Google
| has already been buying up game studios and the games they
| release will never be on Luna. I anticipate we're going to see
| the same fragmentation as we're seeing in the streaming world.
| LegitShady wrote:
| I know a lot of people who game I don't know anyone with
| stadia. Even Microsoft's Xbox streaming is better. Stadia was a
| solution looking for a problem that can't justify its own
| subscription costs.
|
| The recently launched Xbox streaming is a better solution with
| a ton of included games and I don't think that's any good
| either it's just an add on to their game pass ultimate
| subscription.
|
| Google will either have to dump a ton of money into it while
| looking at what their competition is offering, or let the time
| on their contractual obligations run out and shutter it.
| abakus wrote:
| I like strategy games and I enjoying modding / editing various
| aspects of these games. I don't think Cloud gaming will allow me
| to do these.
| camone wrote:
| no, you're SOL on that one, but fortunately strategy games
| don't (usually) have very high spec requirements. I have
| geforce now and used Stadia before, and use them to play the
| high-end games I have on steam that I wanted to play but would
| never bother getting an actual machine for. A decent gaming rig
| is worth more than I'm willing to pay for, so this is a good
| compromise.
| scott31 wrote:
| It will also insta ban you when Alexa hears you use n-word or
| f-word.
| canada_dry wrote:
| You would think this would be a fairly logical extension of
| Newell's game delivery system (Steam) too.
| layoric wrote:
| Ubisoft obviously has some kind of special deal to be able to
| sell their own subscription "coming soon", does anyone know what
| the profit share for game developers is for this kind of cloud
| gaming? Or will it only be large publisher titles available for
| these kind of services with behind closed door deals?
|
| I get that this type of services reduces friction (somewhat) for
| playing graphically demanding games at the cost of network
| bandwidth (10gb/hour), but trying to work out what kind of
| possible Epic vs Apple shit fights this kind of silo platforms
| might start if it is rolled out to all AWS regions around the
| world and becomes dominant platform.
| dubcanada wrote:
| Not to take away from the launch, it's only available in main
| land US. Sadly no Canada at the moment :(
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| It's kinda lame all competing streaming services are launching
| in same market.
| pb7 wrote:
| It'd be cool if something innovative launched in Europe for
| once. Nearly a billion people with very few global consumer
| technologies originating there.
| ebalit wrote:
| Shadow [0] launched a cloud gaming offer in 2017. Jean-
| Baptiste Kempf, one of the lead developer of the VLC
| project just joined as CTO. The problem isn't to create
| consumer technologies but to be commercially competitive
| against major players like Google or Amazon with deep
| pockets.
|
| [0] https://shadow.tech
| _sveq wrote:
| The intro vid on the landing page is very well done.
| asou wrote:
| >Unlike streaming movies or music, cloud gaming can consume up to
| 10GB/hr at 1080p
|
| Jesus Christ.
|
| So of I want to go to game on my phone while I take the bus for
| an hour I've blown 10gbs from my data plan.
|
| The only thing keeping me on Xbox Gamepass is the fact I can
| download games locally. At first I really liked it, but then
| connection dropped so much games where unplayable ( on WiFi )
| outworlder wrote:
| >Unlike streaming movies or music, cloud gaming can consume up
| to 10GB/hr at 1080p
|
| Makes sense. It is also a problem on many internet providers
| (including Comcast), not just mobile.
| dx87 wrote:
| > Experience gaming anywhere there's high-speed wifi.
|
| They don't talk about playing it on mobile data, just wifi.
| franklampard wrote:
| I think 5G can definitely help here, assuming it provides
| faster and more reliable connection.
|
| It used to be unthinkable before 4G for people to watch videos
| everywhere on their mobile phones.
| asou wrote:
| Most providers softcap at 50 to 100 gb .
|
| At best I'd get 10 hours of gaming here.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I want this to succeed. I want to be able
| to play COD or Halo from anywhere with a 5g connection. But
| with such high data usage it's DOA
| franklampard wrote:
| Given the mobile connectivity history, I am pretty
| optimistic the cap is going to increase. It's not that long
| ago that I had a few mega bytes per month.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I noticed that there are web apps for iOS to get around Apple's
| rules. Why couldn't MS and Google do this.
| wayneftw wrote:
| Probably because they rightfully feel that they shouldn't have
| to resort to that and they would rather just fight Apple.
|
| As a consumer, I hope they win. It's my pocket computer, I paid
| for it and I own it, so I should be able to do whatever the
| fuck I want with it.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Neither Microsoft nor Google are fighting Apple on either the
| 30% cut nor to open up the App Store. Why would they? They
| are doing the same thing.
|
| I thought Google was suppose to be a proponent of PWA's?
| wayneftw wrote:
| Microsoft is. They publicly sided with and are helping to
| support Epic.
|
| Google didn't do a _mobile_ PWA for Stadia even on Android.
| I thought there was a comment about some technical
| limitations on iOS Safari in some previous thread but I
| can't remember. They probably want the same experience
| everywhere.
| hitchhikerr wrote:
| Stadia is a PWA on desktop Chrome
| scarface74 wrote:
| Microsoft specifically sided with Epic with regards to
| Apple trying to deny Epic from developing the Unreal
| engine on iOS. Nothing else.
| wayneftw wrote:
| Microsoft has _definitely_ spoken out about app stores
| and their 30% cut. Here 's a quote:
|
| > "If you look at the industry today, I think what you'll
| find is increasingly you're seeing app stores that have
| created higher walls and far more formidable gates to
| access other applications than anything that existed in
| the industry 20 years ago," says Smith. "They impose
| requirements that increasingly say there's only one way
| to get onto our platform, and that is to go through the
| gate that we ourselves have created. In some cases they
| create a very high price for a toll, in some cases 30
| percent of all your revenue has to go to the toll keeper
| if you will." - Microsoft's chief legal officer Brad
| Smith [0]
|
| [0]
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/19/21296657/microsoft-
| apple-...
| scarface74 wrote:
| The same 30% that they take on XBox? You also have to pay
| MS a license fee for every game sold on the XBox -
| whether digital or physical.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/as-epic-attacks-
| apple...
| mohave529 wrote:
| From what I've been reading, Apple specifically worked with
| Amazon to tweak Safari to support Luna. Definitely opens up
| questions of anticompetitive similar to how Prime Video has a
| special deal with Apple to not pay the full 30% App store fee.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Do you have any evidence that Amazon is using some secret
| Safari API that Google and Microsoft can't use?
|
| Netflix and Hulu had the same deal from day one reportedly.
|
| Do you think _any_ business makes the same deals with other
| big players that they make with small players? If so, you've
| never been in the room when CxOs are making enterprise deals
| with companies like MS and Oracle.
| mohave529 wrote:
| Clipped from the following article:
| https://www.engadget.com/luna-amazon-cloud-gaming-
| interview-...
|
| "We worked with the Safari team to ensure that some of the
| things that weren't there are there, and that allowed us to
| kind of get to where we are today," Luna head of
| engineering and technology George Tsipolitis said.
|
| I don't know if these APIs are secret, so much as didn't
| exist before. I assume that Google and Microsoft are free
| to leverage these as well now.
|
| And fair enough, I haven't been a part of larger enterprise
| deals in my career so far.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Just for completeness. Apple also worked with Epic for
| years to make sure the Unreal engine worked well with
| iOS.
|
| https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic-
| games...
|
| Apple has also worked with Adobe, Microsoft and Amazon
| and given them pre-release hardware and access to
| software.
| _sveq wrote:
| Why back in my day we had to hike five miles in the snow to the
| brick and mortar store...
| swarnie_ wrote:
| Only available in the US and i can't find a link to the launch
| library. Judging by the background images not a single game i
| want is included.
|
| Not a great start....
| QuixoticQuibit wrote:
| This feels like an appropriate place to rant on something that's
| been bothering me for a while.
|
| It's really disappointing to me to see every single form of
| entertainment becoming a subscription service. It's also the same
| problem you see with various apps/software trying the SaaS model,
| even when it doesn't make sense.
|
| Are we going to have exclusive games requiring multiple
| subscriptions to enjoy the content you want? Will we move away
| from being able to purchase games to run them locally?
|
| Moreover, if Games as a Service (GaaS) becomes the de facto way
| to release games, is it going to encourage longer titles with
| lots of grinding/farming to ensure people stay engaged for months
| at a time? Will it slowly kill off sub-20h, more story-focused
| experiences that can be completed in a fraction of one month's
| subscription price?
|
| Also, it really bothers me to see that almost every single one of
| the FAANGs feels the need hop on the bandwagon. First it was
| music streaming, then movies/TVs, and now it looks like gaming is
| next. You can argue that competition is good but really we just
| have exclusive content siloed across various services and priced
| in such a way that likely only the large tech companies can
| subside it with their other offerings (e.g., ad revenue or
| premium phone sales).
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| I wouldn't mind if subscription was something like 10 cents per
| hour played, not 30 bucks a month plus one off $50 fee.
| thebigspacefuck wrote:
| On the other hand, a Playstation 5 is $500 plus $50-$70 per
| game. A PC is even more expensive for the latest hardware. At
| $6/month it would take you 7 years before it costs you more
| renting than owning at which point there could be a PS6 and
| more games to buy.
|
| For someone like me that rarely plays games, I'll probably sign
| up for a few months to play something that interests me then
| cancel it after I lose interest. I'll enjoy not having a
| console I hardly ever use sitting around collecting dust.
|
| The fragmentation with movies/tv platforms has been awful, but
| Spotify has been amazing for music. I've probably listened to
| more music than I could ever afford otherwise. I don't think
| the price of movies has really changed either and you can still
| purchase them, so people are definitely making a choice to go
| with streaming over physical ownership. Go to any Goodwill and
| you will see shelves of discarded VHS and DVDs. I don't think
| people want to buy the VHS, then the DVD, then the BluRay, then
| the 4K BluRay and whatever 8K thing comes after anymore.
| Technology is changing so rapidly that's it better to pay a
| pittance each month now and wait for the next better thing just
| around the corner.
| neaden wrote:
| I find this odd because I think historically most people
| haven't purchased entertainment. Libraries have always been
| common for books, more people listen to a song on the radio
| then on a CD they own, people watched TV on broadcast or cable
| before Netflix, and most movies are watched in the theaters or
| rented then on a DVD they own. Games have been weird for being
| something you have to buy.
| samatman wrote:
| Not historically, surely? People didn't tend to rent chess
| boards.
|
| Even something like billiards, players with enough wealth to
| have a room with a table would do so.
|
| Personal libraries were a commonplace shortly after the
| printing press, as were broadsheets and then newspapers, all
| of which were purchased and owned. Music was impossible to
| 'own' before recording technology, but ownership of musical
| instruments, and the ability to use them, was quite
| widespread.
|
| Same with TV: as soon as it became possible to record (and
| hence own) broadcasts, people flocked to VCRs, and had to win
| a court case to retain the right to do it.
|
| My conclusion is that some people, maybe most, do wish to own
| the means of entertainment, and have historically purchased
| said means whenever they are able.
| Jare wrote:
| Historically, people in general have wanted to own _some_
| content, but been ok with a fungible form for most of the
| content they consume. But it was nice to know that for any
| piece of content, someone out there owned it and it would
| not be lost. Lending was also a rich social interaction.
|
| The current concern is that the ability to own, lend, and
| retain access to any of it, is vanishing completely. And,
| specifically with server-enabled games, the ability to
| experience almost all of them is guaranteed to vanish in
| just a few years.
| obenn wrote:
| Records were exclusively owned. Theaters and DVD rentals were
| never subscriptions, they were rentals.
|
| We had game rentals too. Either way, I would argue that the
| shift from rentals and subscriptions based around
| exchangeable physical goods, to an exclusively streamed
| experience is a big shift, and a big deal.
| ticviking wrote:
| The weird thing here is the purchase of the "idea of the
| rules" instead of a copy of the rules.
|
| Most games and sports had traditional rules that were passed
| on in a folk tradition, and only around the 1800s were rules
| gathered and written down.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| A book is just a book. It doesn't go away, you don't need a
| complicated setup to read it. If you like it, you can still
| buy it. Games could be rented too before blockbuster folded.
|
| And while I'm pretty sure I can still stream a random French
| band with moderate success from today in thirty years, I'm
| not so sure if I can stream games released today then. As an
| enthusiast I can turn to emulation, retro systems, reverse
| engineering to get old games going if I own a copy. Music
| streaming is delivering a byte stream from storage. Game
| streaming is a whole different beast.
| DivisionSol wrote:
| It all boils down to $$$, of course.
|
| 1. You cannot touch the sacred cow $60 game price. You can go
| lower, you cannot go higher.
|
| 2. Reoccurring revenue & upsells/addons are every business' wet
| dreams. The game is done, sell it at $60 and shift 9/10ths of
| the team onto the next game. 1/10th of the team remains in bug-
| fix/content-churn mode to fulfill whatever season/battle pass
| scheme they're peddling. Release a new game with the same stuff
| ~2-4 years later.
|
| 3. Singleplayer games are dead because studios haven't figured
| out to get cheap secondary/ternary monetization out of them
| (for cheap.) A lot easier to make a digital hat than keep your
| design/narrative team making expansions.
|
| To address the actual post: Amazon is hopping on because they
| have the technical capabilities... Unfortunately they don't
| have the game-industry/consumer-oriented know-how to make this
| a success. It's going to be a 'neat tech demo' but they'll
| never get a foothold because it's not solving an actual problem
| consumers are having at the moment.
| IdiocyInAction wrote:
| > 1. You cannot touch the sacred cow $60 game price. You can
| go lower, you cannot go higher.
|
| I am merely 23 years old yet I still remember when I used to
| pay 50EUR instead of 60EUR for new games on Steam/Retail. And
| now it's going closer to 70EUR for some games. For consoles,
| I've seen anything between 60EUR and 90EUR. So, at least in
| Europe, this doesn't seem true.
|
| > 2. Reoccurring revenue & upsells/addons are every business'
| wet dreams. The game is done, sell it at $60 and shift
| 9/10ths of the team onto the next game. 1/10th of the team
| remains in bug-fix/content-churn mode to fulfill whatever
| season/battle pass scheme they're peddling. Release a new
| game with the same stuff ~2-4 years later.
|
| That's definitely true for the megabudget games like GTA.
| There still seems to be a sizeable niche that for pure
| single-player experiences though, for which I am glad. I find
| them to be far from dead; there are tons of upcoming SP games
| I am excited for and I see no reason for this trend to end
| anytime soon. There are also still expansions. I mean,
| there's a lot of AAA SP games on the market and coming out.
|
| > 3. Singleplayer games are dead because studios haven't
| figured out to get cheap secondary/ternary monetization out
| of them (for cheap.) A lot easier to make a digital hat than
| keep your design/narrative team making expansions.
|
| The problem with secondary/ternary monetization is that the
| market will probably saturate quite soon; most people aren't
| going to pump money into 5+ live service games at once.
| iamjake648 wrote:
| > 3. Singleplayer games are dead
|
| While they certainly aren't as common as they used to be,
| this is quite a stretch. Some of the Playstation's most
| popular exclusive titles have been single player games: Ghost
| of Tsushima, Last of Us 2, God of War, etc. Same thing for
| Nintendo: Breath of the Wild, Mario Odyssey.
| dyingkneepad wrote:
| Regarding point 1, it is wrong. Every new game has the $60
| version, but also has the ultimate/deluxe/premium/season-
| pass/whatever version that costs up to $90 or $120 that you
| can buy on day one and often will even give you extra content
| on day one. The $60 purchase is not the full product anymore.
| hellotomyrars wrote:
| 1. $70 is going to be standardized for the next generation.
| Also $60 may have stayed the price of a AAA product but most
| big budget games have plenty of ways to let you spend more
| money, even outside of live services games
|
| 3. "Singleplayer games are dead" is a myth that people have
| been repeating as a mantra for over a decade now. Yet some of
| the biggest AAA releases are still purely singleplayer
| experiences. Singleplayer games aren't dead. They never died.
| viraptor wrote:
| > 3. Singleplayer games are dead
|
| That kind of became a meme last year (?) when EA exec
| mentioned it as a reason for scrapping a title... a few
| months before they released some top-earning single player
| games that pretty much proved it wrong.
|
| There will always be single player games. We just got an
| explosion of multiplayer in the last decade because lots of
| people have networks which can support it, some new genres
| became popular (battle royale), and skins are good for
| monetization. But single and multi player can coexist just
| fine.
| bpicolo wrote:
| > You cannot touch the sacred cow $60 game price. You can go
| lower, you cannot go higher.
|
| Several AAAs for the upcoming gens are going higher.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/video-game-price-
| increase-60...
| Axsuul wrote:
| With Google Stadia you can still purchase the game and play it
| forever.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| This is roughly equivalent to DRM - you can play it so long
| as the service is available, but after that you lose it
| forever and are not getting a refund. So you aren't actually
| purchasing the game, you're renting the ability to use it so
| long as Stadia is operational.
| iamjake648 wrote:
| "Forever" - so until Google kills it in a year or two.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Well, that's how console gaming and most e-shops work. You
| get to play until the hardware generation phases out.
| iamjake648 wrote:
| Which is why so many in the gaming community prefer to
| buy physical games as opposed to digital downloads. At
| least with digital downloads you can quick download all
| of your purchases before a store closes down. With gaming
| streaming that shit's gone forever.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| The real problem with the Physical vs Digital divide
| these days is that a lot of content is _cloud_ based. So
| even with standalone discs, there 's a reliance on online
| services to succeed / gain content.
|
| It's by design. MS made it clear 8 years ago that they
| wanted Digital and to move on from Physical media. It's
| an inevitability, the question is how can we migrate
| licenses from platforms. I like how movies are handled
| with MoviesAnywhere.
| IdiocyInAction wrote:
| Google is particularly well known for killing off their
| less profitable services though.
| andoriyu wrote:
| Except while I have my PS3 with Resistance installed I
| can play Resistance as much as I want. Sony is not going
| to come to my house and take it away.
|
| Google be like "we decided to close it down, bye"
| r00fus wrote:
| s/purchase/perpetually license/
| nightski wrote:
| I'm not too worried about it personally, the only tech company
| I think that has a competitive offering in this space is
| Microsoft (with Game Pass and potentially xCloud). All others
| are doomed to fail.
| fartcannon wrote:
| You're not worried that Microsoft has the only competitive
| offering?
|
| Shouldn't that kind of terrify you? Microsoft is not known to
| be a good corporate citizen when they have a monopoly.
| nightski wrote:
| No because I'm betting on the concept not being successful
| enough to become the dominant distribution method. I think
| it will have a successful niche, but not much more. I know
| that I never plan on using it, I already own over a
| thousand games and have barely played 10% of them. TBH I'm
| probably good for most of the rest of my life haha.
| dyingkneepad wrote:
| I feel the gaming industry is segmented in a few universes
| these days. There's the universe of high budget AAA games,
| where decisions made by corporate execs often ruin great ideas,
| or you get the same exact game re-released every 1 or 2 years
| under slightly different name. There's the world of mobile
| gaming, where every single game seems to be the same gacha
| experience that trains you to open the app every minute to get
| timer-based dopamine drops. There's the indie games, where
| great ideas are implemented on low budget. There is the retro
| game universe. And others.
|
| I feel that streaming can't really take over all of these
| universes. Sure it may dominate some of the AAA titles I don't
| care about where latency is not an issue, but I can't see it
| taking over everything. And for it to become even remotely
| popular we'll probably also need some breakthroughs in terms of
| latency.
|
| Some gaming communities even have a lot of power in terms of
| pushback for bad things. Look at the fighting game community
| (FGC) where they basically boycotted Street Fighter x Tekken,
| Marvel vs Capcom Infinite and other titles there were either
| doing crappy stuff.
|
| We can resist crappy things pushed to us.
| nicoburns wrote:
| It's basically how the music world works too. There's big-
| budget pop artists that are occasionally good but usually
| crap. And then there's a ton of smaller artists of all
| mixtures of talent, but are often amazingly talented, and can
| be found at your local pub or music venue (or could be pre-
| covid).
| impendia wrote:
| > There's the indie games, where great ideas are implemented
| on low budget.
|
| +1 for this. The best game I recently played was _Return of
| the Obra Dinn_ , which incredibly seems to have been an
| essentially one-man effort: Lucas Pope wrote the story, did
| all the programming, designed all the art, and composed all
| the music.
|
| Big companies can push all the crap they want, but unless
| they find a way to stand between indie developers and their
| audiences, I think we can look forward to great innovative
| games for decades to come.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Taking this to some sort of terminal conclusion ("all games
| will be rented and streamed") is going too far.
|
| The current situation doesn't serve everyone either. You need a
| decent desktop computer or console, the space for it (desk,
| monitor, tv, peripherals), and an interest in even owning all
| that crap to play many modern games. And more to enjoy them at
| any decent fidelity. That's a crappy deal for whole segments of
| the population.
|
| Imagine if we were going the opposite direction, from streamed
| games to locally-run games. You could ignore the upsides and
| just focus on the downsides all over again. Ugh, the greedy
| companies now want me to invest $60 just to play their ONE
| game, and put wear and tear on my own $1000 machine? Hell no,
| capitalism suxxx!
|
| I built a desktop computer just to play Stellaris on anything
| more than the tiny galaxy. I bought $900 of parts that fit in a
| shoebox sized case I could carry onto a plane. A subscription
| service with a good CPU would have let me enjoy the game
| without all that. There's downsides, there's upsides.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| Two major points:
|
| * Many subscription services have managed to return good value
| to consumers, for example Netflix. Other services are more
| contentious but I would argue are also good value: Amazon
| Prime, Spotify, and Costco.
|
| * I've never worked at a large tech enterprise company but I
| believe the following statement to be true: Large companies are
| risk averse and can only focus on a handful of board-approved
| moonshots at a time. Seeing another large company do it serves
| as a carpool lane for it being approved. Employees at company
| #2 are incentivized to work on (and be bullish towards) those
| cloned projects because they offer the most opportunity for
| quick advancement.
|
| I personally find it hilarious that the "smartest minds" at
| "the best companies" are still doing little more then a grown-
| up game of monkey-see monkey-do.
| mbesto wrote:
| > It's really disappointing to me to see every single form of
| entertainment becoming a subscription service. It's also the
| same problem you see with various apps/software trying the SaaS
| model, even when it doesn't make sense.
|
| Disappointing in what sense?
|
| It's basic economics. Companies that have shifted towards
| subscriptions (Adobe, Autodesk, Amazon, Ultimate Software,
| Disney pre-COVID, etc.) have significantly higher valuations
| when they shift their services to subscriptions for obvious
| reasons.
| [deleted]
| victords wrote:
| I'm partial to the subscription service model because most of
| my life I could barely afford a console or a gaming PC to play
| a lot of games, so it seems much more accessible.
|
| But regarding the argument that we will have a bunch of
| different service which we would need to subscribe to: Is that
| really a downgrade?
|
| We already have exclusives for consoles. There a number of
| games you can play only on Xbox. Then there are the games you
| can only play on PS4. And then there the PS3 games, which you
| will need yet another console because there is no backwards
| compatibility...
|
| One way or another we already have this fragmentation today.
| Subscribing to multiple services actually seems cheaper for me.
| nightski wrote:
| Yea but other than streaming, we've been seeing exclusives
| slowly disappear over the past generation. They still exist
| but are becoming much less common.
|
| The thing is that I've probably spent the same on games as I
| have on Netflix for the past 10 years. But now I have a
| Steam/GoG/etc.. library with over 1000 games I can take with
| me and maybe even share with my kids some day. I have nothing
| remaining but memories from Netflix.
| BelleOfTheBall wrote:
| I'm honestly most bothered by the fact that this is yet another
| slice of media that gets the "you rent it, you don't own it"
| treatment. I want to own my games, damn it, I don't want to
| rent it for a month. It's not about me feeling like I'm paying
| too much for games if I stay on a subscription for years just
| to play a game. It's about me wanting a hard (or digital) copy
| of a game I love because one day they might introduce an awful
| patch or licensing issues might push the game out of the
| service and, by proxy, my reach. I'm gonna keep supporting
| services like GOG and itchio that let me have games that I paid
| for because those seem optimal to me.
| canada_dry wrote:
| > "you rent it, you don't own it"
|
| At least it's clear that you don't own it and if/when the
| service vanishes... have keep nothing.
|
| Unlike many recent games/apps where they require being online
| to use... then when the service disappears - even though you
| own the product - you're screwed!! That pisses me off even
| more.
| IdiocyInAction wrote:
| I don't think games as a subscription service will necessarily
| work out as well as for movies and television. At least at the
| moment, buying games can be so cheap (if you wait 1-2 years
| after releases) and games are usually so long that it's
| probably quite hard to release a subscription service that
| beats just waiting for sales. Also, I'm not sure how much the
| third-party developers that are not owned by Amazon/MS et. al.
| will make of these services; if they decide not to put their
| games on the service (or after years when sales are already
| occuring), it would already be a blow to these services.
|
| Also, at least for me, having a more expensive internet
| connection (needed for game streaming services) would actually
| cost me more than a high-end gaming machine and way more than a
| console.
| gordaco wrote:
| I hate this as well. This is not just software: it's becoming
| increasingly difficult to acquire DRM-free digital goods (i.e.
| products that I can guarantee I will be able to use in 10-15
| years), and in some cases, video in particular, I don't think
| that there has _ever_ been a marketplace where I could legally
| buy DRM-free products (there are niche sites, of course, but I
| mean a generic store, like a bandcamp for movies). Music is an
| exception, fortunately. For now.
|
| SaaS, and streaming in general, is very much anti-consumer,
| especially for those of us who value reliability over quantity.
| It's sad, but in most cases piracy really is the most pro-
| consumer option, _even without considering the price_ (although
| in my case I usually just don 't bother and go for other forms
| of entertainment).
|
| The next generation of consoles already seems to include two
| versions, one with support for discs and another one (cheaper,
| of course) which is digital only. I'm tempted to rant about how
| this is a ploy to incentivise people to eschew physical games
| and go digital only, but I would be fooling myself, since
| physical games are also DRM-riddled and they might just stop
| working if some software update so decides.
| dylz wrote:
| > Music is an exception, fortunately. For now.
|
| Even then only if you're lucky
|
| https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,89818.0.html
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110809/04114515451/umg-w.
| ..
| cooldevguy wrote:
| Well there is already Sneakers-As-A-Service so it just feels
| natural that every company will try to screw consumers into
| that tactic since a lot of people joins it for "perveiced"
| convenience
|
| https://www.on-running.com/en-us/cyclon
| li4ick wrote:
| Add that to your aaS bullshit filter.
| rayhendricks wrote:
| Well if you play borderlands 3 or another AAA title inside
| stadia and purchase you are already paying for game + gaming
| service + DLC...
| hello_tyler wrote:
| Pay to beta test Amazon's stadia ripoff? No thank you.
| mattfrommars wrote:
| Anyone know how this infrastructure works? What are these servers
| running on? Java web app? Virtual machine on a single machine?
| xkfm wrote:
| I wonder how this one will go. I wish I lived closer to most of
| these companies data centers. It'd be great living in Spookville,
| Virginia right about now if you were into these game streaming
| services.
| rococode wrote:
| Has anyone tried a Stadia before? I've remained doubtful about
| game streaming because it seems like the latency is such a hard
| problem to overcome. In any game that requires even a bit of
| precision and fast reaction, 30-100ms of latency can feel pretty
| bad.
|
| Seems to me like the only way this could possibly work is if the
| games are designed with streaming in mind, but even then it seems
| hard... Remote Desktop in Windows, for example, feels laggy even
| on LAN (connecting to another computer in the same house).
| boardwaalk wrote:
| I believe there is (was?) a trial for Stadia Pro if you want to
| try it.
|
| Having tried it myself, I don't think you're off point on
| anything you've said.
|
| The latency is substantial (and I'm on Google Fiber) and my wi-
| fi caused regular hitches. Which could be my hardware, but it's
| not like my hardware (Unifi gear) or situation (typical
| suburban environment) is odd.
| verst wrote:
| Can't comment on Stadia, but my Unifi UDM and WiFi routers
| weren't good enough for reliable game streaming. Had to go
| wired. With Gigabit Fiber (Centurylink in my case) it works
| extremely well on several cloud game streaming services.
| 8fGTBjZxBcHq wrote:
| I think you can try it free? I did a few months ago thinking it
| would suck but it's surprisingly good.
|
| I have doubts about google's commitment to it and most of my
| reservations have to do with that rather than the service
| itself. I've played hundreds of hours on it on all kinds of
| internet connections and it's been great. I've even played
| destiny 2 through my phone's hotspot and it worked fine.
| notatoad wrote:
| i haven't tried stadia, but i have tried sony's alternative (PS
| Now) with a couple games. i'm a pretty casual gamer, and was
| playing some pretty casual games (grand theft auto, some car
| racing sim, and something else i forget), i'm not going to be
| as sensitive to latency as a lot of people probably, and it was
| completely unplayable for me.
|
| i guess it must work for some people, but my 100Mb canadian
| internet was definitely not good enough.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| Surprisingly stadia actually works pretty well with a few
| caveats. Primarily hardwired and using chromecast. I have a
| subscription, but i'm at the point of cancelling because my
| original intent was gaming when traveling, now we've been home
| so long I just use PC / Consoles.
|
| The problem here is that Luna is going to soft launch with all
| the features + that Stadia was to launch with (but has yet to
| deliver). If they succeed, Stadia is going to be in a weird
| situation. The power of Twitch shouldn't be underestimated and
| it steals the thunder of the _killer_ feature w / was youtube
| advertised.
|
| It looks like another Half Baked Google product thats going to
| be crushed by competition.
| dmitriid wrote:
| I tried OnLive, LiquidSky and GeForce Now.
|
| Cloud gaming _when done right_ is amazing.
|
| OnLive was nothing short of magic in ~2010-2011: quite smooth,
| easy-to-use, decent library of games (for their time).
|
| LiquidSky (in limbo/defunct for the past 3-4 years) was actual
| magic: you could play _any_ game from your regular Steam
| library, and it would be streamed to you. No "your game
| doesn't support our service yet".
|
| GeForce Now is sorta decent, but suffered (and probably still
| suffers) from connection issues, long wait times, clunky
| library selection and installation process etc.
|
| Latency is really only an issue for fast paced action games
| (FPS, bullet-hell twin-stick shooters, precision platforming).
| So you need to be really close to a datacenter with a good line
| to it to not "suffer" (for some definition of "suffer"). I
| played Batman Arkham <something> on OnLive and a friend of mine
| played DOOM beta on LiquidSky, and we were both more than
| satisfied.
| strig wrote:
| Yeah, I tried it back when there was a free trial. For what it
| was, it was pretty impressive to be able to just start playing
| the game without installing anything. That being said the
| experience is just plain worse than playing locally.
| Resolution/graphics quality was worse, input lag was definitely
| present, and other limitations like lack of crossplay. It's got
| its niche but I probably won't use it again.
| tomca32 wrote:
| I was very skeptical about Stadia until a friend made me try it
| so we could play Destiny together.
|
| Totally blew me away. I still can't believe I'm streaming a
| fast paced shooter game in multiplayer and it works without a
| hitch.
| sickcodebruh wrote:
| I was going to give Stadia a try when Doom Eternal came out
| because I wanted to play it in 4K and only have a PS4. Backed
| out because of their announcement that it was not native 4k, as
| originally promised, but actually upscaling. Whether or not I
| would have known the difference is another story but the
| backtracking on something they had been so adamant about left a
| bad taste in my mouth.
|
| I also don't like their subscription model, TCO is way too high
| compared to console. You pay monthly and you still pay full
| retail price for the games.
|
| I wound up getting Doom for PS4 and it's awesome. The HDR makes
| it look fantastic.
| p1necone wrote:
| This bewildered me - they advertised 4k gaming and then it
| turned out the vast majority of games were running at like
| 1080p and being upscaled. Sending 1080p video at 4k seems
| incredibly wasteful and pointless.
| fwsgonzo wrote:
| Technically upscaling with machine learning can be amazing,
| and it's what most real-time renderers use nowadays. You
| won't be able to tell, and it can even add detail if the
| network is good. I'm not an expert though, but I suppose it
| can only get better?
| mohave529 wrote:
| I use Stadia pretty regularly as my sole gaming platform, and
| so far its been pretty amazing for games like Assassin's Creed
| and even FPS games like Destiny 2. I encounter noticeable
| stutters a couple of times every hour or so, but for the most
| part its as if I'm playing on actual local hardware. Also, the
| loading speeds are blazing fast - its made me very optimistic
| about how the gaming experience can improve in the years to
| come due to the underlying compute being elastic instead of
| limited to your own box. I'm someone who held off on buying a
| console for years due to the cost, so for me Stadia has been an
| absolute blessing.
| compscistd wrote:
| I think this is an area where instead of optimizing local
| hardware, it's all about optimizing network connections.
| Stadia works great for me for 10-20 minutes until I get a 10
| second long stutter (WiFi, router in a different room). I'd
| imagine the experience is way better with an ethernet
| connection. I just wish for single player games, Stadia cloud
| could detect I'm lagging and pause the game.
| CapnCrunchie wrote:
| Using Stadia with my Chromecast wired to ethernet has been
| pretty incredible. Very rarely have I felt like I had a
| degraded gaming experience.
| milancurcic wrote:
| I've been enjoying Stadia on a 2013 Linux PC with a ~30/8
| (down/up) Mbps wi-fi. Both Destiny 2 and AC: Odyssey work
| great. Occasional hiccups, yes. No more than a few per hour. It
| doesn't bother me. The fact that I'm playing recent games on an
| old Linux PC still blows my mind occasionally.
| Mupuff wrote:
| I play regularly, usually the experience is pretty flawless,
| there is the occasional stutter once in while and\or
| degradation of graphics.
|
| When it works well (and it usually does for me) I think most
| non-pro players won't notice any gameplay impacting latency.
|
| The biggest issue right now with the service is lack of games.
| JeremyBanks wrote:
| And the lack of other players in multiplayer games...
| ficklepickle wrote:
| I played PUBG on stadia with users on consoles. It shows a
| little gamepad next to their name, whereas mine had the
| stadia logo. I never actually encountered another stadia
| player.
| ficklepickle wrote:
| I tried it out. I'm a very casual gamer. Some types of games
| cannot tolerate the extra latency. GRID, a racing sim, was
| basically unplayable. The input latency was too noticeable.
|
| PUBG, on the other hand, was perfectly playable (although I
| have never played it natively so can't compare). If I were a
| skilled player, I might have noticed the latency, hard to say.
|
| I'm on Linux, so I was interested to try games I can't run
| easily. Unfortunately, chrome on Linux doesn't have VP9 _, so
| 4k resolution was not possible. It also didn 't fit my wide-
| screen aspect ratio, so I had black bars on the side.
|
| _You can compile it yourself or some such hacky thing, but the
| whole point of Stadia for me was not to futz around with that
| stuff.
|
| Note that this was from Vancouver, with hard-wired ethernet on
| ~300Mb/s cable. If you are closer to the server (California?),
| your results may differ.
| adamnemecek wrote:
| Not stadia but geforce now and I like it a lot.
| verst wrote:
| I also like GeForce Now a lot. Works great with Gigabit
| Fiber.
|
| Can't wait for them to upgrade their servers to Ampere GPUs.
|
| Another game streaming experience: I sideloaded the XBox Game
| Pass app on Nvidia Shield TV Pro and stream the xCloud games
| that way. Input lag feels acceptable in this unsupported
| environment.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| Not Stadia, but PS Now. Ignoring the fact that it lets you
| install some of the games, the latency isn't really a big deal.
| It's nice having access to so many games as well that I can
| play in minutes.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| If you're curious, you can try out GeForce Now free of charge
| with any of its supported titles, they just limit your sessions
| to 1 hour and deprioritise you in the queue when there's high
| demand.
|
| I've found it generally works very well, but with the
| occasional hiccup.
|
| I can't comment on how it compares against the other services,
| I presume they're roughly as good as each other.
| boardwaalk wrote:
| The Venn diagram for target audience and situational use cases of
| these services has always seemed very small to me.
|
| At least the subscription model and game selection seems better
| than Stadia.
|
| edit: Also, it seems to me like the target audience is for the
| same sort (and I'm not trying to denigrate) that watch movies on
| their TV with internal speakers or can't fathom why you'd pay
| more than 30 bucks for headphones or earbuds. Some people just
| don't care about the latency, hiccups, or compression artifacts.
| And that's fine, but I'm not part of that group.
| vmception wrote:
| The latency is the only "situational use case" to care about.
| This has been mitigated more and more. The rest is just
| gatekeeping gamers imagining what a larger group of _wallets_
| would care about and being strong. Chronic problem in that
| community. Isnt the biggest protest amongst enthusiast gamers
| based around _at what point_ they will pay the company anyway?
| Hard to take any stance there seriously when there is zero
| power over what happens, companies dont get cancelled, 2% of
| their audience just doesnt preorder the thing they were going
| to buy anyway, amazing.
|
| Hiccups and artifacts are largely solved and where they aren't,
| the market tolerates it just fine.
|
| There has been a whole decade of this stuff. The arguments are
| literally from last decade and they weren't issues even with
| the inferior infrastructure then.
|
| I dont think any of these services have proven themselves as a
| profitable endeavor on their own yet, but as far as advertising
| or a competitive ecosystem for a larger brand, theyve done
| really well.
| dx87 wrote:
| It's not just people gatekeeping, developers are usually
| going to target whatever gives them the biggest return. PC
| games have been gimped for a long time because the developers
| make sure the game runs on consoles as well, and if cloud
| gaming takes off, it'll be even less likely that people
| develop games with PC players in mind. I can't blame people
| for wanting cloud gaming to fail; if it's succesful it could
| cause major changes to their hobby as games are developed for
| the lowest common denominator.
| nightski wrote:
| Not to mention it makes modding dead on arrival. I get it,
| most gamers do not mod. But being able to write mods and
| work with Microsoft Flight Simulator in the 90s is what got
| me hooked on computing in the first place.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I used to care about those things and then I had kids and my
| priorities changed and I just want real quick access to 45 mins
| of media or games.
|
| I bet that will change yet again when they get older.
|
| I really like your perspective: there's millions of consumers
| out there with different priorities. You don't have to "get" it
| you just have to appreciate that they exist.
| MikusR wrote:
| Hawe you actually tried Stadia or Geforce Now?
| chaostheory wrote:
| I don't have fiber, so I'm at the mercy of how much demand
| there is for Comcast at any given time. Sometimes it works
| great, other times not so much. I'd rather just install games
| locally like with Game Pass, Steam, or EPIC. My local
| computer can handle these games just fine. I'm definitely not
| the target audience since I can afford the hardware.
|
| The only place I can think of in the US with fiber are
| university dorms.
|
| Outside of providing a cheap substitute for hardware, the
| only other use case I can see this for is for MMO's that have
| drastically changing environments like Rec Room, VR Chat or
| anything like 2nd Life
| MikusR wrote:
| You don't need fiber. As for use cases, i just now played
| an hour of The Division 2 on my laptop (with intel
| integrated gpu) using 4g connection from my phone.
| chaostheory wrote:
| You do if you don't want lag or weird graphical
| artifacts. You need fiber if you want a local install
| experience.
| MikusR wrote:
| The experience playing on 4g was about the same or even
| better than local install with Geforce 1050.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Bear in mind: While very few consumers benefit from cloud-based
| gaming, the outcome of dragging consumers over to it for
| businesses is huge.
|
| Why sell software and hardware once when you can sell software,
| the hardware it's hosted on, and the support and services to
| manage that software and hardware _every single month_. It 's
| why companies like Adobe and Microsoft have tried to push their
| main, relatively static[1] software packages like Office and
| Creative Suite over to a rent-seeking model. And it's why
| selling cloud services is all the rage.
|
| It's not a good way to do things, it's not good for any
| consumer or user of those things, but it prints money on a
| stable and continuous basis in perpetuity, because people lose
| everything they paid for when they stop paying.
|
| That's why cloud gaming is going to keep coming up year after
| year, no matter how impractical or stupid it is.
|
| [1] For the vast majority of users, the difference between any
| given version of Office or Creative Suite and one released five
| or six years prior is nearly zero. Almost nobody needs to
| continually buy these.
| lumost wrote:
| I haven't used office products unless obligated too in ~6
| years. cloud based options, even terrible cloud based options
| like quip are an order of magnitude better than word. It's
| faster to open the documents I care about, easier to share,
| easier to collaborate, and just plain faster.
|
| The word docs I still use end up having 3 dozen copies in my
| downloads folder from different versions sent via email. It's
| a nightmare.
|
| If it requires a $6/mo subscription for the cloud based
| equivalent of a $100 consumer software package, I'd gladly
| pay it.
| alexwebb2 wrote:
| > very few consumers benefit from cloud-based gaming
|
| > It's not a good way to do things, it's not good for any
| consumer or user of those things
|
| > no matter how impractical or stupid it is
|
| Hard disagree on this take.
|
| I would personally love a stable, smooth gaming-as-a-service
| experience - where I can pay based on my usage level, access
| any games I want to, pick up my saved game from any device,
| and never have to worry about sitting around for hours
| waiting for updates or downloads.
|
| I expect there's a _massive_ market for that. You may not be
| in it, and that's fine, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss
| it.
| outworlder wrote:
| > and never have to worry about sitting around for hours
| waiting for updates or downloads
|
| Here's the thing though. Those downloads and updates have a
| massive efficiency factor. Once you have downloaded your
| assets, they don't have do be downloaded again to be used.
|
| With these game streaming platforms, it doesn't matter that
| you have downloaded 100GB in screen frames. They can only
| be used once and then are discarded. In some cases this is
| a benefit - on Flight Simulator 2020 the servers only have
| to send you a fraction of their terrain data. But that's a
| small part of it.
|
| > stable, smooth gaming-as-a-service experience
|
| Netflix and the like work because you can buffer. Is your
| connection a bit choppy today? Hit pause and let it buffer
| a bit, hopefully it will stabilize. But games do not
| tolerate ANY latency issues. Even things like Steam Link -
| using only your local network - can struggle if there's too
| much traffic or interference.
|
| Then there's the business model. I don't want a
| 'subscription'. If I buy a game today I may be spending $60
| upfront(if the game has been out for a while, often much
| less), but I can play as much as I want.
|
| Do you have fantastic internet connectivity, an under-
| powered device, and you want to quickly shuffle through
| different games from an online selection? Ok, this could
| make sense.
|
| Still, this sounds like a far better deal for corporations,
| as opposed to consumers.
| londons_explore wrote:
| The 100GB of game data I have to wait around to download.
|
| The 100GB of streamed frames happen while I'm playing so
| I don't care.
|
| This benefit is for those who value their time highly and
| want something to 'just work' without having to bother
| with installing stuff, updating, buying and setting up
| new hardware every year, etc.
|
| Imagine you only have 30 mins a month to do gaming...
| Like many busy adults... With a PS4 or PC, you'd spend
| most of your 30 mins waiting for updates to complete.
| bradlys wrote:
| If you only have 30 minutes a month, you're not the
| target audience.
|
| It's also wildly expensive at that point. How much are
| you paying to game per hour? Much more than going to a
| movie.
| mdoms wrote:
| You may speak for yourself but you most certainly do not
| speak for every consumer, regardless of how many superlatives
| you use.
|
| I, for one, prefer the subscription model for some things. I
| like that I can dip my toes in and out of the Photoshop
| ecosystem without having to shell out hundreds up front. I
| prefer to rent Netflix for a month rather than purchasing
| DVDs or Blurays I may watch once or twice. And when cloud
| gaming is baked (it will be a long time away for me as I live
| in a small island nation) I will love being able to play any
| game from a huge range with no outlay other than my monthly
| subscription - no hardware requirements, no upgrading, just a
| few bucks a month, and only on the months when I choose to
| keep my subscription.
|
| My only caveat with cloud gaming is that mouse + KB is non-
| negotiable, I'm not sure how realistic that will be. I will
| not play shooter or strategy games with a controller.
| robbs wrote:
| The nationwide fibre in NZ means that latency from Auckland
| to anywhere with fibre is very low. Cloud gaming could
| arrive in NZ just as soon as Azure does!
| oehtXRwMkIs wrote:
| Does anyone know the basic tech stack behind Luna? This landing
| page doesn't mention anything, and I'm dying to know if they're
| also going the Linux and Vulkan route of Stadia.
| whoisjuan wrote:
| Since Lumberyard doesn't support Vulkan I doubt that this is
| using Vulkan at all. Most likely DirectX 12 or maybe OpenGL.
| echelon wrote:
| This was always Amazon's play with Twitch. Amazon will be able to
| make a much more compelling attempt at the market than Google
| with Stadia.
|
| I _still_ worry about these streaming platforms. Ease of use goes
| up, but it turns the industry into a subscription economy.
|
| Maybe attention fulfillment maps better to subscription than to
| purchase, as there's less buyer's remorse? I still don't like it.
| mmcdermott wrote:
| That's kind of where my headspace is as well. I tend to view
| subscription services as a way to look for stuff I like and
| when I've found stuff I like, I want to add it to my own
| library. Luna may be technically superior, but I will avoid it
| as long as I possibly can.
| neaden wrote:
| I'm the opposite I think. With the exception of video and
| board games, I don't own much of the media I consume. I read
| probably over a dozen books from the library for every one I
| buy and I think I've probably bought maybe 5 DVDs in the past
| decade. I listen to the radio a lot, but rarely buy an album.
| echelon wrote:
| I think this is where the disconnect lies for me.
|
| I don't buy much, but when I do, I purchase things and use
| them often. I don't rent much at all. Moviegoing and
| attending concerts are my biggest "rental" purchases.
| dubcanada wrote:
| Let's say you have a game, say you are Ubisoft.
|
| You distribute with Amazon Luna, I assume you get some sort of
| money, something like for every hour played on X game you get
| $0.0000005 or something silly like that. Basically you get a
| rough amount of money from people playing your game every
| month.
|
| I fail to see how that is any different then a Steam or
| GameStop based distribution.
|
| Which is...
|
| You find a publisher, they setup and get all the
| boxes/discs/what ever figured you and every month you get a
| cheque of all your sales.
|
| From a game developer point of view, it's the exact same.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| The difference is that players don't need to invest anything
| to play your game, just like I don't need to buy or rent a
| specific DVD to watch a movie anymore.
|
| They don't need to pay additional money, they don't need to
| install it. One advantage is that there's no barrier to
| trying out your game. The other is that your game now runs on
| anything.
| dubcanada wrote:
| It's different for the end-user, yes. But from a
| developer/game business point of view it's the exact same.
| Maybe less earnings, but there isn't any details on that to
| confirm so it's just speculation.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Well, those UX considerations in my post are also
| business considerations.
|
| Just look at all the games people never even get to
| entertain the idea of playing because they only own a
| tablet, macbook, underpowered computer, wrong/no console,
| etc. Getting your game into their hands through a service
| like this surely impacts your business.
| defen wrote:
| > You distribute with Amazon Luna, I assume you get some sort
| of money, something like for every hour played on X game you
| get $0.0000005 or
|
| Even better than that, you could get $0.0000005 for every
| hour spent playing _or watching on twitch_. Or maybe separate
| numbers for twitch vs plays, but in theory does Amazon care
| if a million people play alone and don 't broadcast, or if
| one person plays and a million people watch?
| kristianpaul wrote:
| This ideas are good as long as they have good game catalog and
| game development companies behind right? Dont think is a
| technology capacity problem anymore.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-24 23:00 UTC)