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

 

[Carnelian]

I hope Microsoft fails this shit and i also hope they stop making their shitty console forever... They ruined the video games enough...

 

[osaka35]

I mean, how much bandwidth would this take? bout the same as streaming videos with a bit of added overhead? I can't imagine the speeds required or the data caps would be terribly forgiving.

 

[Foxi4]

I hope Microsoft fails this shit and i also hope they stop making their shitty console forever... They ruined the video games enough...

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.

 

[xpoverzion]

"Microsoft Reportedly Working on new, "streaming only" console."

What this article really means to say... "Microsoft (and, next Sony) are desperately trying to kill piracy with a new, streaming only console."

 

[Foxi4]

"Microsoft Reportedly Working on new, "streaming only" console.

What this article really means to say... "Microsoft (and, next Sony) are desperately trying to kill piracy with a new, streaming only console."

A lot of piracy going on on their platform, the Xbox One is just buckling under the pressure of all of those modchips and ISO loaders.

 

[the_randomizer]

Yeah, no, I'll pass.

 

[dontay0100]

NO THANKS

 

[Xzi]

If its hardware is only capable of streaming, it's no longer a console. Even Shield TV is capable of playing games locally. And if that wasn't a big enough drawback on its own, online-only is pretty shitty too. The device is a paperweight if you stop paying Microsoft a monthly fee.

 

[ZachSZ]

Microsoft straight shot themselves in the foot this generation with the always online garbage, did a complete 180, and now they want to do this? Lmao.

 

[CORE]

All this hate for Microsoft The PS5 has some rumors going round about the same thing.

 

[Foxi4]

If its hardware is only capable of streaming, it's no longer a console. Even Shield TV is capable of playing games locally. And if that wasn't a big enough drawback on its own, online-only is pretty shitty too. The device is a paperweight if you stop paying Microsoft a monthly fee.

It depends on your definition of the word - you're still playing video games, you're just using the cloud and virtualisation to do it.

All this hate for Microsoft The PS5 has some rumors going round about the same thing.

I don't see why we have to rely in the PS5 rumours when the PS4 already does it. PS Now has been around for a while, there's no doubt that the PS5 will also support cloud gaming.

 

[Deleted User]

Judging by the PC market the days of disc-based console software are numbered either way and streaming for 50 million users at the same time is not a sustainable business model, it would require a tremendous amount of processing power and Microsoft would have to eat that cost. I see streaming as an alternative to local computing and I'm certainly not a fan of cloud computing for domestic purposes myself. Moreover, I don't think this is going to be a particularly successful product. What I do think is that it opens a cheaper avenue for gamers that exclusively play FIFA and only buy a console to play that one game, or for parents who are buying young children their first system and don't want to spend a fortune on the latest gadget when they don't know if it'll work out. It's good as an alternative, but it won't replace the stand-alone box, we're not quite there yet.

Console sales are 70% physical 30% digital.

It's not changing anytime soon.

 

[Xzi]

It depends on your definition of the word - you're still playing video games, you're just using the cloud and virtualisation to do it.

Of course it depends on your definition of the word. Smartphones are capable of game streaming, doesn't mean they qualify as consoles.

I don't see why we have to rely in the PS5 rumours when the PS4 already does it. PS Now has been around for a while, there's no doubt that the PS5 will also support cloud gaming.

"Support" is one thing, going all-in on a device capable only of streaming is entirely another. The majority of people will continue to want to own their games, even if in a digital format. It's really a regressive move to "rent" these games out digitally after forcing all the Blockbusters and rental stores out of business.

 

[Deleted User]

Of course it depends on your definition of the word. Smartphones are capable of game streaming, doesn't mean they qualify as consoles.


"Support" is one thing, going all-in on a device capable only of streaming is entirely another. The majority of people will continue to want to own their games, even if in a digital format. It's really a regressive move to "rent" these games out digitally after forcing all the Blockbusters and rental stores out of business.

this will just be another pstv

 

[Foxi4]

Console sales are 70% physical 30% digital.

It's not changing anytime soon.

So the sales of digital games went up to 30% within two generations, since they only really entered the scene on the PS3/360/Wii? Yeah, they are going the way of the dodo bird.

Of course it depends on your definition of the word. Smartphones are capable of game streaming, doesn't mean they qualify as consoles.

"Support" is one thing, going all-in on a device capable only of streaming is entirely another. The majority of people will continue to want to own their games, even if in a digital format. It's really a regressive move to "rent" these games out digitally after forcing all the Blockbusters and rental stores out of business.

A video game console is simply a dedicated piece of hardware created specifically for gaming, there's no requirement of local processing. As for going all-out, they're not - they're rumoured to be releasing two platforms, a local stand-alone and a cheap streaming box that both run the same games, it seems perfectly reasonable to me and gives users a choice.

 

[Deleted User]

So the sales of digital games went up to 30% within two generations, since they only really entered the scene on the PS3/360/Wii? Yeah, they are going the way of the dodo bird.
A video game console is simply a dedicated piece of hardware created specifically for gaming, there's no requirement of local processing. As for going all-out, they're not - they're rumoured to be releasing two platforms, a local stand-alone and a cheap streaming box that both run the same games, it seems perfectly reasonable to me and gives users a choice.

Casual have always existed, digital is casual. Nothing has really changed those people are just not going to the store to buy NFL 47 anymore.

 

[Xzi]

A video game console is simply a dedicated piece of hardware created specifically for gaming, there's no requirement of local processing. As for going all-out, they're not - they're rumoured to be releasing two platforms, a local stand-alone and a cheap streaming box that both run the same games, it seems perfectly reasonable to me and gives users a choice.

That sounds more like a trap than a choice, since one of the two is useless without a monthly fee. I don't trust Microsoft to make the distinction clear enough, either. Assuming this rumor pans out, anyway.

 

[Foxi4]

this will just be another pstv

The PSTV was a way to offload Vita hardware, it wasn't a particularly well-planned product, rather a form of recycling.

Casual have always existed, digital is casual. Nothing has really changed those people are just not going to the store to buy NFL 47 anymore.

There's nothing casual about digital copies, some people just don't care for juggling discs. If you find no value in collecting games, discs hold no advantages and are in fact a hindrance. I prefer my games to be on my shelf, but many gamers genuinely don't care.

That sounds more like a trap than a choice, since one of the two is useless without a monthly fee. I don't trust Microsoft to make the distinction clear enough, either. Assuming this rumor pans out, anyway.

Many gamers find the prospect of instant access to hundreds of games, which is the core principle behind Microsoft's Game Pass, very alluring, not to mention the lack of the usual worries like constant patches, updates or DLC. If the rumours turn out to be true, I can see a segment of the market that would benefit from such a device and service, although it's certainly not for me.

 

[sarkwalvein]

I'm fine with this.

 

[Xzi]

Many gamers find the prospect of instant access to hundreds of games and no worries about constant patches, updates or DLC very alluring, which is the core principle behind Microsoft's Game Pass.

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.