The recent reports regarding Microsoft are getting more and more interesting by the minute. If murmurs in the industry are to be trusted, the company is currently engaged in designing not one, but two next gen conoles - a stand-alone box as well as a dedicated cloud-based console codenamed "Scarlett". Certain aspects of gameplay such as the controls, collision detection and simple game logic could be processed locally while the bulk of the processing would be offloaded to Microsoft's servers, enabling end-users to purchase a significantly cheaper system at the cost of being always online. Rumour has it that Microsoft has been working hard to diminish the obvious problems springing from lag and managed to provide an acceptable player experience on their new low-power hardware, similarly to how Sony delivers PS3 games over their PS Now streaming service. While not necessarily appealing to hardcore gamers, such a low-cost alternative would provide an entry level gaming device for those who only play a handful of games.

What are your thoughts? Would you trade your stand-alone box for an online only console provided it gave you the same experience at a fraction of the price? Have you ever used any game streaming services? Discuss!

Source

 

[Ericthegreat]

Controller commands still have to be sent to the server, then image can respond, leaving too high of latency for anything fast paced, especially at high res, due to more processing being required, also depends on your time from the server, lower paced games, rpgs ect would probably be fine.

 

[Xzi]

Controller commands still have to be sent to the server, then image can respond, leaving too high of latency for anything fast paced, especially at high res, due to more processing being required, also depends on your time from the server, lower paced games, rpgs ect would probably be fine.

This is a good point and a good reason why this is just a rumor for now. PS5/XB2 will have to be capable of 4K@60 FPS if they're going to be an improvement over Pro/Scorpio. Streaming 4K@60 would murder the bandwidth of your average household internet connection, without even considering adding multiplayer games to the mix.

 

[Ericthegreat]

This is a good point and a good reason why this is just a rumor for now. PS5/XB2 will have to be capable of 4K@60 FPS if they're going to be an improvement over Pro/Scorpio. Streaming 4K@60 would murder the bandwidth of your average household internet connection, without even considering adding multiplayer games to the mix.

4k 60 would require really expensive gpus currently, so if those consoles soon, going to be expensive. Running a game 4k on low settings is kind of cheating.

 

[Thulinma]

I've had this argument more times than I could count. Consoles and PC's have always used the same pool of parts, the PS4 and Xbox One are no exception and they are as custom as any other console. Your Gamecube is powered by the same ATi Radeon graphics technology your old PC was. Your N64 is basically a cut-down SGI Indy. In fact, your NES and the Apple II are distant cousins, they're both running on MOS 6520 derivatives. There has never been a time in history when PC's and consoles were not using the same hardware, this argument is moot.

While I totally see where you're coming from with this (and agree with the sentiment!), it's not entirely true.
Yes, recent consoles (especially Sony and MS) have been using exactly PC parts, sometimes with minimal modifications.
But older consoles (and still Nintendo to a degree) have always used a completely different set of parts from regular consumer PCs.
For most of history, consumer PCs have used x86-range processors, while consoles tended to use MIPS, PowerPC or ARM based processors. These have some fundamental differences that make for a completely different experience. Sound and video hardware were often custom-designed for the specific console as well, and not something you could simply put in a PC and have it operational (though the video chipsets were/are definitely closely related to the available PC versions). And yes, Mac used PowerPC for a while as well, but a completely different type than was found in consoles.

So... while what you're saying is still true, your reasoning behind it isn't sound. Generally, in the past, equivalent/identical PC parts and console parts weren't available at the same time for consumers. (Of course, I'd say the biggest difference is the operating system, but that's an entirely different discussion altogether.)

 

[sarkwalvein]

I can understand the draw of that, but only for someone who plays a ton of different games and has no preexisting library of their own, which I imagine is a very small segment of gamers. Even then, using Game Pass does not guarantee that a person would be interested in streaming-only hardware. The appeal of this thing will depend largely on price, so Microsoft has a good chance at fucking that up.

I think services like Netflix has shown there is a big market for people that "consume a lot"(?) and they may or may not have their own pre-existing libraries, yet they don't seem to care too much and usually will just stream from the service instead of getting up and looking for the better quality(?) blue ray version in their own library.
A market for users that value convenience over raw performance is out there, it is very clear to me.

 

[Xzi]

4k 60 would require really expensive gpus currently, so if those consoles soon, going to be expensive. Running a game 4k on low settings is kind of cheating.

Despite persistent rumors of Sony and Microsoft working on new hardware, I wouldn't expect any actual announcements until the next generation of GPUs is out. Even then, I'd bet next gen consoles will launch at $499 minimum.

I think services like Netflix has shown there is a big market for people that "consume a lot"(?) and they may or may not have their own pre-existing libraries, yet they don't seem to care too much and usually will just stream from the service instead of getting up and looking for the better quality(?) blue ray version in their own library.
A market for users that value convenience over raw performance is out there, it is very clear to me.

The big difference with games is of course interactivity, and that's where you really notice the degradation in quality when it comes to streaming. A little pixelation in a Netflix movie or a decline in audio quality for a couple seconds when streaming music isn't going to be noticeable, but blocky pixels and 50ms input lag while fighting a Dark Souls boss could potentially be the cause of a mass murder IRL.

 

[Foxi4]

While I totally see where you're coming from with this (and agree with the sentiment!), it's not entirely true.
Yes, recent consoles (especially Sony and MS) have been using exactly PC parts, sometimes with minimal modifications.
But older consoles (and still Nintendo to a degree) have always used a completely different set of parts from regular consumer PCs.
For most of history, consumer PCs have used x86-range processors, while consoles tended to use MIPS, PowerPC or ARM based processors. These have some fundamental differences that make for a completely different experience. Sound and video hardware were often custom-designed for the specific console as well, and not something you could simply put in a PC and have it operational (though the video chipsets were/are definitely closely related to the available PC versions). And yes, Mac used PowerPC for a while as well, but a completely different type than was found in consoles.

So... while what you're saying is still true, your reasoning behind it isn't sound. Generally, in the past, equivalent/identical PC parts and console parts weren't available at the same time for consumers. (Of course, I'd say the biggest difference is the operating system, but that's an entirely different discussion altogether.)

You're limiting your range of what constitutes a PC (personal computer) to IBM-Compatible x86 computers when, throughout history, people have used a variety of architectures. Even the IBM-Compatible standard, what we consider a "PC", isn't that restrictive.

As you yourself state, Macs have only recently switched to x86 - they formerly used PowerPC, the same architecture that powers the Gamecube, Wii, Wii U, the Xbox 360 and, to a certain extent, the PS3, and it was not a "different type" at all, the console versions were simply customised. The PowerPC CPU's in Nintendo's consoles are in the exact same PPC7xx family as the PowerPC in the Apple iMac G3. In fact, initial Xbox 360 demos were actually ran on two Macs connected into one unit since it was easier to demo the software this way. I already mentioned the NES which uses the same family of CPU's as the Apple II, and while we're at it, the Ricoh 5A22 that powers the SNES is also derrived from the same family. The Z80 is another processor popular in both consoles and personal computers, and then there's ARM CPU's which not only power your portable consoles, they also power your smartphone, which is effectively a portable personal computer. "PC" in the sense of an x86 IBM Compatible personal computer didn't even exist until the mid 1980's and wasn't proliferated until the 1990's, before that the PC space was the wild west, so it's your post that's misinformed.

All console hardware is customised, but it stems from the same roots. Console manufacturers order customised parts for a specific purpose, but those parts are using the exact same technology as personal computers, servers and workstations do, they're just designed with a specified purpose in mind. There's no difference between a custom CPU from 20 years back and a custom CPU today, the principle is the same.

I feel that you're misunderstanding my position - I'm not saying that you can build all of those consoles with off-the-shelf components - you rarely can. That being said, they do use the same technology, they simply have a custom internal structure and use different elements on-die. You can't build an Xbox One or a PS4 with off-the-shelf components either, so I don't see the difference - both contain customised hardware that's unavailable to the public. With that said, they both use microarchitectures that are. Naturally the manufacturers themselves will sometimes design special sauce that they want baked into the die, but that was as true in the past as it is right now.

 

[pedro702]

this will be a bigger flop than xbox one x sales lol.

 

[tech3475]

There will likely be a market for this, but personally I still prefer locally rendered games as it avoids certain issues game streaming can have.

I still remember the xmas day DDOS.

 

[sarkwalvein]

The big difference with games is of course interactivity, and that's where you really notice the degradation in quality when it comes to streaming. A little pixelation in a Netflix movie or a decline in audio quality for a couple seconds when streaming music isn't going to be noticeable, but blocky pixels and 50ms input lag while fighting a Dark Souls boss could potentially be the cause of a mass murder IRL.

That's kind of true but also subjective.
The same way there's people that would get really annoyed about some input lag* there are people that really gets annoyed by the reduced video quality of streaming and the lack of extra content and they would go for a high bitrate blu ray.
In the other hand sure many gamers won't give a fuck about some input lag, and quite probably those won't be playing dark souls. If you don't want to call them gamers due to some ideological conflict then call them consumers. The point is there is a market out there that would give up performance for convenience.

* input lag would be a problem but not just a mere 50ms of lag, I mean, the Switch pro controller already has 64ms lag natively.

 

[Foxi4]

Input lag is less a matter of hardware or cloud computing and more a matter of software, ping and throughput. It would be relatively easy to simply prioritise input packets at the cost of the display packets if necessary, especially in the era of dynamic resolution. Modern controllers already introduce a degree of input lag, but the problem would obviously be more prominent with streaming or virtualisation. That being said, Microsoft's virtualisation software is market-leading, so I wouldn't dismiss them without seeing the final product in action first.

 

[Bladexdsl]

did they not see what happened to the OnLive? no of course not it's Microsoft they are blind they keep thinking a console is going to sell with just beefy hardware and no games

 

[AdamFX990]

I'm getting the feeling this'll be the SEGA "Neptune" of the next generation.

 

[sarkwalvein]

did they not see what happened to the ouya? no of course not it's Microsoft they are blind they keep thinking a console is going to sell with just beefy hardware and no games

But they are planing to sell it without the beefy hardware this time and actually with a lot of games. That is the selling point I guess? Having a gigantic library Netflix style for a fixed (cheap/reasonable?) monthly subscription?

 

[DarthDub]

I won't buy it.

 

[sarkwalvein]

I won't buy it.

To be honest, I wouldn't buy it either.
But that is just us. Who cares about that kind of shortsightedness?
I am positive there is a big market for this type of thing out there, and probably either Microsoft or Sony could pull it off (or any other company with a big catalog of games).

 

[grossaffe]

You have to give Microsoft credit where credit is due - Xbox Live revolutionised online gaming on consoles. They took the legacy of the Dreamcast to the next level by providing an actual online experience to console gamers. Each company adds a little bit to the overall gaming basket, without Microsoft's contribution we wouldn't be playing games the same way we are today. It's also hard to imagine how graphics would look like without DirectX - like it or not, solutions like OpenGL or Vulcan came to be in order to compete with Microsoft's closed source API and without it they would probably be much more primitive than they are today. I say competition breeds innovation, the more players the better.

OpenGL predates Direct3D by 4 years.

 

[x65943]

To be honest, I wouldn't buy it either.
But that is just us. Who cares about that kind of shortsightedness?
I am positive there is a big market for this type of thing out there, and probably either Microsoft or Sony could pull it off (or any other company with a big catalog of games).

Especially if they sell this thing for like $100 with a cheapish subscription.

I could easily see streaming taking over as the dominant gaming platform.

 

[AxlSt00pid]

Let's see when companies get the "Streaming only" thoughts out of their mind.
How do they want that to be a success when there's lotsa people who, like me, do not have a good and fast internet connection, preventing them using these kind of devices?
Way to go modern era, way to go indeed

 

[Foxi4]

OpenGL predates Direct3D by 4 years.

You're right, my point was the competition element. 3D API's existed before both. I guess I worded that point poorly.