Gaming Game Cards for Game Streaming?

[LightyKD]

Curious about what people will think...

If for example, a company like Capcom says that they can't get Monster Hunter World running natively on Switch but will offer a streaming version of the game via game card, would Switch gamers be interested in that? How exactly would gamers like for the game to be priced?

Personally, I would be all for it. Maybe third parties could team up with GameFly's streaming service and offer cards that act as glorified links to the software on server. This could be a good way around the Switch's lack of graphical power. Hell I'd take things one step further. If there was some way to unlock the 4K output of the Switch's Tegra X1 chip, Nintendo could offer 4K outputting copies of their games for an extra 10 dollars per game or just by subscribing to their online service. Share your thoughts. This should be a good conversation.

 

[smileyhead]

It never happened as far as I'm aware, but if it did, it would be a service with multiple games offered, and would definitely be digital-only.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

It never happened as far as I'm aware, but if it did, it would be a service with multiple games offered, and would definitely be digital-only.

Most likely that. A cartridge version of a service like this would be kind of pointless

 

[HaloEliteLegend]

I've actually never considered that. Honestly, I would never do something like that unless the game was heavily discounted. First off, it'd mean you don't really own the game, and second, I have to always be connected to not just an internet connection, but a good internet connection. The Switch's main draw for me is portability. If I can't take Monster Hunter Worlds with me on the go, then I'm gonna buy it on PC, not Switch. No need to subject myself to game streaming while I'm at home with perfectly capable hardware to run the game locally.

 

[LightyKD]

It never happened as far as I'm aware, but if it did, it would be a service with multiple games offered, and would definitely be digital-only.

I can see it being easy to implement as an eShop app but the usage of low capacity game cards would be good for game stores that like the foot traffic and people that enjoy having box art. Having the option of both the card and the eShop app is good for everyone.

I've actually never considered that. Honestly, I would never do something like that unless the game was heavily discounted. First off, it'd mean you don't really own the game, and second, I have to always be connected to not just an internet connection, but a good internet connection. The Switch's main draw for me is portability. If I can't take Monster Hunter Worlds with me on the go, then I'm gonna buy it on PC, not Switch. No need to subject myself to game streaming while I'm at home with perfectly capable hardware to run the game locally.

I also get your point. Something like this might be better for games like an MMO or an online eSports shooter like Overwatch. With those types of games, you don't really "own" the game and you're pretty much at the mercy of the game's server anyway so it's not much of a loss.

 

[osaka35]

so more of an access card than a game card? odd, but I can see some folks liking it. It's more like a rental, or that snes satellite thing, so it'd have to be fairly cheap.

 

[Frezgle]

My initial thought is "oh god the input lag", but I guess if that's not really a thing (wouldn't know, never used this type of service before), then I'd... be ok with it?

 

[Pacheko17]

No. Just, no.

 

[Deathscreton]

No. Just, no.

Care to clarify?

 

[Pacheko17]

Care to clarify?

It would be a stupid idea.
-You need good internet for streaming, which not everybody has
-The game wouldn't be owned by you, if those servers go down, you're done for, no more game.
-Nintendo just simply wouldn't allow something like that, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense at all.
-It wouldn't be cost effective at all, streaming is way more expensive than just releasing the game in cartridge form, that's why streaming = subscriptions and if you're going to pay for a subscription anyway, why not just use a digital method?

It's just an insane idea, there is so much wrong with it.

 

[Meteor7]

Being a stickler when it comes to input lag, this would be a firm "no" from me.

 

[Deathscreton]

-You need good internet for streaming, which not everybody has

That's not a great reason to damn a possible solution. Just because a few people don't have reliable connections, everyone should be ignored in favor of keeping them happy?

-The game wouldn't be owned by you, if those servers go down, you're done for, no more game.

This is nothing new. MMOs work this way, certain streaming platforms work this way, hell, if I'm not mistaken, even the physical games you have in your possession are technically property of Nintendo, you're just paying for the right to play the game.

-Nintendo just simply wouldn't allow something like that, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense at all.

Oh really? Do you have insider information on what Nintendo is planning at all times? No? Okay, well do you have any information based on their historic releases or policies that help support the claim that they wouldn't provide some type of streaming service?

-It wouldn't be cost effective at all, streaming is way more expensive than just releasing the game in cartridge form, that's why streaming = subscriptions and if you're going to pay for a subscription anyway, why not just use a digital method?

A lot of things regarding the game industry isn't cost effective. 3DS, Wiis, PS3 and PS4s along with the 360s if I'm not mistaken were all sold at cost or under the cost of production, relying on game sales, SUBSCRIPTION BASED SERVICES like online modes and other microtransactions to support their income. Also, how is streaming the game way more expensive? Do you have numbers? Any related information?

Streaming = subscriptions isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor does it equal a digital method. We're not comparing digital to physical and which is more cost effective for 'us', we're talking about methods of getting a game that would not natively run on the Switch via other distribution methods such as a subscription based streaming service. Hell, they could tie this into the annual cost for online. How would that be bad?

 

[smileyhead]

That's not a great reason to damn a possible solution. Just because a few people don't have reliable connections, everyone should be ignored in favor of keeping them happy?



This is nothing new. MMOs work this way, certain streaming platforms work this way, hell, if I'm not mistaken, even the physical games you have in your possession are technically property of Nintendo, you're just paying for the right to play the game.



Oh really? Do you have insider information on what Nintendo is planning at all times? No? Okay, well do you have any information based on their historic releases or policies that help support the claim that they wouldn't provide some type of streaming service?



A lot of things regarding the game industry isn't cost effective. 3DS, Wiis, PS3 and PS4s along with the 360s if I'm not mistaken were all sold at cost or under the cost of production, relying on game sales, SUBSCRIPTION BASED SERVICES like online modes and other microtransactions to support their income. Also, how is streaming the game way more expensive? Do you have numbers? Any related information?

Streaming = subscriptions isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor does it equal a digital method. We're not comparing digital to physical and which is more cost effective for 'us', we're talking about methods of getting a game that would not natively run on the Switch via other distribution methods such as a subscription based streaming service. Hell, they could tie this into the annual cost for online. How would that be bad?

Oh boy, here we go.
Let me grab my popcorn.

 

[Deathscreton]

Oh boy, here we go.
Let me grab my popcorn.

If you're inferring that this is going to turn into a flame war, I assure you that I'll quit before it gets to that point. He just seems passionate and very sure of his claim. I just wanna see where he's coming from.

 

[Mnecraft368]

Your better off waiting/hoping for rainway to release on the eshop and play PC games that arent on the Switch that way.

 

[Deathscreton]

Your better off waiting/hoping for rainway to release and play PC games that arent on the Switch that way.

Rainway is already released.

 

[smileyhead]

Rainway is already released.

No, it's in beta.

 

[Deathscreton]

No, it's in beta.

Okay, I wasn't aware that we were being specific with stages of release.

Yes, you are right, Rainway is a Beta, a public Beta. However, the keyword is "public". Meaning it's released. His comment made it seem as though you could not access it.

 

[Mnecraft368]

Okay, I wasn't aware that we were being specific with stages of release.

Yes, you are right, Rainway is a Beta, a public Beta. However, the keyword is "public". Meaning it's released. His comment made it seem as though you could not access it.

You can access it through the switch browser, but my post was unclear. I was referring to the application supposedly releasing on the eShop. The browser would most likely lag alot (google REMx Launcher)

 

[Deathscreton]

You can access it through the switch browser, but my post was unclear. I was referring to the application supposedly releasing on the eShop. The browser would most likely lag alot (google REMx Launcher)

Ahhh, there stems my confusion. The launcher for the Switch would most definitely be a welcome addition. It would literally solve most of the problems I have with the Switch library. I could play Skyrim/Stardew Valley with all my mods!