Cloud gaming has way too many issues to ever go main stream. Latency is a big concern, streaming high end graphics and fast twitch gameplay over the internet will never provide the same level of performance as local processing and graphics power. By the time 1080P 60FPS gaming is widely practical for streaming play we will have gaming PCs that can render games at much greater rates. This issue is further complicated by the fact that not everyone in the gaming world has access to unlimited high speed internet. There is also no practical model for game streaming, unlike movies, TV and books there has never really been a PC game rental business. Even console game rentals were relegated to a back corner of the local video store. The model of paying per rental of movies or TV shows was supplanted by the service model because it is better for the consumer. One monthly fee gives access to a virtually unlimited amount of rentals, though the option still exists to buy a movie outright that is not tied to the service. What are the advantages to streaming games? If there was a service that allowed gamers to pay a low monthly fee and had unlimited streaming access to 1000s of titles then there would be a lot of interest. However I don't see this happening as it could cost game developers quite a bit of potentially lost revenue. Imagine how quickly Netflix would have folded if their streaming service required proof that you owned a physical copy of every movie/TV show you wanted to stream. The reason people rent movies is because they can watch them once or twice and then never again, the biggest reason for renting a game is to see if you like it enough to buy it or ignore it and try another game. There would never be a reason to rent a PC game if it had a decent demo, likewise there would be no need for demos if games could be rented or tried for free beforehand. In this way, introducing a successful streaming model would actually take something away from gaming culture. In fact, if streaming were a viable option that somehow worked out for gamers and developers, how likely would it be to get other options? Most games released today are Stream Only, how many of those would be Stream Only if that were feasible? I suppose cloud gaming is useful for those who game on low end machines, but realistically how many gamers have low end specs on their PCs? My old laptop still runs Windows XP and I can run almost my entire game library on it, and for the games it cant run; well gaming is my hobby and like all hobbies I spent the time, money and effort to build a suitable PC. When a game comes out that I can't run I find it better to simply upgrade than to consider a streaming solution. Finally, cloud gaming would be the beginning of the end for the modding scene.

Sure people pay for internet, water or electrical services, but there are also plenty of "off the grid" alternatives to these services without breaking any laws. If I were to use a similar alternative to avoid using a streaming service would that be considered software piracy like the alternative methods of playing Steam games?



Wait, that means I'm the same age as tinyE. It somehow feels dirty.

This sounds sorta stupid. I mean sure technically it makes sense, but in comparison let's say you wanted to use Playstation Now to play some PS2 game. Do you really think it's going to make any kind of difference using the cloud vs zero latency using a local PS2 that had no heating problems to begin with, where the games ran from the disc and almost instantly? I recall trying out Disgaea again recently and it booted up and loaded the game sections in a snap.

If you really want to save time nerves and money, use an older generation console. Or run the game from a ramdrive that isn't too CPU intensive (and there's plenty of those)

Easily abuse-able, and current companies are abusing it now. Insignificant benefits and cause latency.

I don't want to play a single player game that only respond to my command after 2 second.

Same for my area. plus I don't even care for cloud game installations

Gimmick.
Considering the biggest market for it has a shit internet framework and ISP-s (I'm looking at you USA).

Comcast :D

Data caps, consider how much faster you would burn through them.

Absolutely not!

For MMOs maybe. And I guess, at least in part, it mutates into that direction in the future for single-player games. I myself don't even invest my precious time (and money) in online drmd single-player games like those on steam and its ilk. So a SPG in the cloud only will be no different for me to generally ignore & occasional rant about.

Cloud gaming is about the worst form of gaming imaginable to me.

I already hate how little sense of ownership there is about PC gaming today (and digital content on consoles), the last thing I want is a game that only exists in the ether of the internet and is reliant on my ability to keep paying for said internet.

Also, the feeling of your system actually rendering a game in realtime adds to it's quality for me, it feels tangible, there's a sense of awe as your system directly works to show you something amazing. An FMV does not do that, and all streamed gaming does is make me feel like I'm renting something intangible. Plus it'd be a needless waste of my limited bandwidth.

Especially considering that for the service provider like Netflix or Spotify, it is much cheaper to offer movie and music content in a streaming model, than gaming content. The former require very little computing power from the service provider (they basically just provide the media online to you), unlike streaming games which they have to run for you on their servers.

Think of cloud computing as a fart emanating from the ass of bad ideas. That's my opinion on the cloud.

Someone's trying to convince you to let them put wings on you in order to help you fly. That person is failing to mention to you that those wings are made of very thin paper.

Does that mean that all the bandwidth should be reserved for your gaming session alone? What if your wife and kids want to watch some HD Netflix at the same time, listen to high quality Spotify, call their relatives with Skype etc. Oh and someone wants to download all their GOG games too with gogrepo.py while you want to play Onlive games!

There are merits to streaming gaming (not needing a beefy computer, and not needing downloading and installing a game locally before running it), but I think the main problem still is with pricing. I think Onlive failed because it cost them a lot of money to keep up the server farms for all the CPU power to run the games, but not enough people were not ready to pay premium prices for the luxury of not having to buy a $150 PS3 console to play the same games locally.

Plus, especially with mobile devices people do often play games on places where they don't have that 10-50Mbps wifi connections available...

Besides that, for me the idea that the service provider might remove a game from their selection even as I am playing it, sounds very unattractive. That's what Onlive did, from time to time they removed some games to make room for newer arrivals. I'd hate to play some old RPG for 50 hours, and then the service provider removing the game just before I have finished it.

When I look at the gaming trends, e.g. free to play games (which you have to install locally, but you still need to be constantly connected to the publisher in order to play it) seems much bigger trend than streaming gaming. Team Fortress 2, World of Tanks etc. I think that will be the cloud gaming that most people will see, not full streaming gaming. For most people the biggest problem for gaming isn't the initial price of buying a console, or even a PC. Especially if you are wealthy enough to have a 50Mbps internet connection at home.

You'll lose your nerves when they uninstall the game from you, without asking you. :) I think when you "bought" a game from Onlive, you never received a license to the game itself, like you do when you buy a game from GOG, Steam, retail etc. Only a license to the service to run the said game, as long as it existed in the service. From time to time, Onlive removed older and less popular games to make room for newer arrivals. Also in the long run, sometimes updating their gaming servers to newer models might make some of their older games non-functional, at which point they would also be removed from the service. You can play only what they offer you at any point of time.

I'll repeat: people who don't want to use money on a gaming PC, buy a console instead. It is not like the only options are either to buy a $1500 gaming PC, or go full streaming gaming. Also, how often do people have a 50Mbps internet line at home, while not having enough money for a local gaming system, even a mere console?

And as I keep saying, the games you "buy" from streaming services tend to be priced much higher than buying games you install locally. After all, the service provider has to get the extra money somewhere for the server farms to run the games for you. Nothing comes free. So the money you may save for buying a low-end PC or Android tablet (for streaming games) instead of a gaming PC or a PS4, you'll spend it quite fast on the premium priced streaming games.

Pricing is the major hurdle for streaming gaming, much more so than for streaming movies and music which don't need similar computing power on the server farms.

Definitely it's not for me.

I think DRM is a way to not own what you've bought and cloud gaming/saving is even worse. It feels like I wouldn't even own my saves!

I wouldn't use cloud platforms in general not only for games.

I hope so.

Just want to clear things up. Cloud saving is optional (for example on Steam and Origin). You don't have to use it. Even if you use it the savegames are stored on your PC too. If there is no connection to the internet you can play with your offline savegames. Next time you have a connection your savegames will get synced up.
I really hope GOG will add cloud saving as optional service soon.
Edit: In short: Cloud saving is just an online backup for your savegames.