Comments on: Streamed games – hype or hope? http://redkingsdream.com/2010/02/streamed-games-hype-or-hope/ reflective musings and retrospective mutterings Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:23:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Evan Stubbs http://redkingsdream.com/2010/02/streamed-games-hype-or-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-162 Evan Stubbs Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:09:07 +0000 http://redkingsdream.com/?p=780#comment-162 I think you've hit it - ironically, I think the biggest opportunity is actually in the expanded market, not in the core market. I don't think OnLive understands this; effectively, they're competing against Sony and Microsoft. I can only assume that they're hoping they'll be bought out, as there's no way they'll be able to compete. I mean, Sony and Microsoft haven't even made a return yet this generation! Here's my offbeat prediction for the week - OnLive is going to get bought by someone like PopCap. Don't think of it as a console, think of it as an alternative (and cheap) distribution channel. Because the processing requirements are low, the incremental cost of computation in the serverfarm is also low. Latency isn't a huge issue so they can create a more regionalised approach with their datacentres. And, if they use a subscription model in conjunction with someone like Big Fish (who release a game every day), they've got a watertight value proposition. Unlike others, I'm not so worried about the lack of physical goods - the number of collectors are very small. Think how many people subscribe to cable and you're onto a good indication about how much the majority of people care about "owning" their digital entertainment. It's a different model and lends itself more to subscription, but it's the future for the extended market (even if it's simply more of a leasing or check-in / check-out model). I think you’ve hit it – ironically, I think the biggest opportunity is actually in the expanded market, not in the core market. I don’t think OnLive understands this; effectively, they’re competing against Sony and Microsoft. I can only assume that they’re hoping they’ll be bought out, as there’s no way they’ll be able to compete. I mean, Sony and Microsoft haven’t even made a return yet this generation!

Here’s my offbeat prediction for the week – OnLive is going to get bought by someone like PopCap. Don’t think of it as a console, think of it as an alternative (and cheap) distribution channel. Because the processing requirements are low, the incremental cost of computation in the serverfarm is also low. Latency isn’t a huge issue so they can create a more regionalised approach with their datacentres. And, if they use a subscription model in conjunction with someone like Big Fish (who release a game every day), they’ve got a watertight value proposition.

Unlike others, I’m not so worried about the lack of physical goods – the number of collectors are very small. Think how many people subscribe to cable and you’re onto a good indication about how much the majority of people care about “owning” their digital entertainment. It’s a different model and lends itself more to subscription, but it’s the future for the extended market (even if it’s simply more of a leasing or check-in / check-out model).

]]> By: Fraser http://redkingsdream.com/2010/02/streamed-games-hype-or-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-161 Fraser Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:35:05 +0000 http://redkingsdream.com/?p=780#comment-161 It does seem unlikely that we'll see blockbuster action games in the vein of <i>Modern Warfare</i> streamed from a server. On the other hand, smaller, slower-paced games could be feasible. For example, <i>World of Goo</i> could be streamed without latency problems, since the graphics require less bandwidth and the game demands less instantaneous responses from the player. That would necessitate fewer server farms, which keeps the price down along with the relatively cheap development budget. It's not a long jump from what's playable from a web browser today, for free. I think you're right about high definition action games, and probably even slower-paced high definition games like <i>Dragon Age</i>, but I also think we could see something like a <i>Pokémon</i> game streaming before long. The lack of a physical copy of the game will be a concern, though. What happens if the server farm burns down? Or simply if the distributor goes out of business? The psychological satisfaction of possessing a game shouldn't be underestimated either; if people don't get the same consumerist thrill from acquiring something new and shiny, the economically rational decision might just not sway them. It does seem unlikely that we’ll see blockbuster action games in the vein of Modern Warfare streamed from a server. On the other hand, smaller, slower-paced games could be feasible. For example, World of Goo could be streamed without latency problems, since the graphics require less bandwidth and the game demands less instantaneous responses from the player. That would necessitate fewer server farms, which keeps the price down along with the relatively cheap development budget. It’s not a long jump from what’s playable from a web browser today, for free.

I think you’re right about high definition action games, and probably even slower-paced high definition games like Dragon Age, but I also think we could see something like a Pokémon game streaming before long.

The lack of a physical copy of the game will be a concern, though. What happens if the server farm burns down? Or simply if the distributor goes out of business? The psychological satisfaction of possessing a game shouldn’t be underestimated either; if people don’t get the same consumerist thrill from acquiring something new and shiny, the economically rational decision might just not sway them.

]]>