Well I'll say this, I'd be more interested. I can't say if I'd use it or not though.

If it was really that and pricing was right and of course game selection was good (not just cheap and old indies), I am sure many people would opt for such a service, either those who don't want to use money to buy fast enough PC (or even a console), and like to play lots of new-ish games.

Besides technical hurdles, pricing seems tricky, so that it would be low enough but still be enough to cover the costs of all the server farms, needed CPU/GPU power to run actual games (not just to play music or movies) etc.

Heck, last I heard Youtube is just making loss all the time, even with its ads.

Too many issues that need to be overcome, not enough benefits. Fact is that OnLive was offering an inferior product at a higher price, and for a number of legal and technical reasons there was no easy way to change those facts. Maybe if someone big like Microsoft, Sony, or Valve decided to throw their entire weight behind it they might be able to get it to work... but for a startup without the market clout to twist publishers into giving them good deals I don't see them getting off the ground.

Streaming is bad

and you should feel bad about it

Two points: companies control and data caps.

Looks like people are a lot more skeptical towards this than I thought, perhaps because I didn't explain it first. But that's cool, I enjoy the discussion. .)

On the whole, yes. Here on GOG? Probably not, so yes it's valid as I said. But this would also be an alternative and not replace buying games, as I also said.

Isn't Apple Music doing that? I don't think streaming would come in and replace new digital dl and physical releases, so the games would already be pirated when they're made streamable.

I think this is gradually changing; people are accepting of digital games now, the recently announced mini NES will probably sell well for example, and I can see a transition happening over a few years where people get more on board with streaming if it's done right.

Just had a look at PS Now and while the pricing isn't quite there yet, the streaming looks solid for 10Mb+ users.

Ownership rights.

I also watch SBH but I think he's being a bit paranoid here, and this was two years ago as well.

I am a bit on the fence on that one. I don't think it is an actual problem that there is some kind of monthly data transfer limit on the internet connection after which you have to pay extra. It actually makes sense, those who use more data pay more. Also it is understandable that especially mobile internet operators are going that way because suddenly they are becoming just content delivery services, while the content owners are who reap the real rewards, using those unlimited connections.

All that is needed is that there is competition, many internet operators available for users. Then the prices will settle to meaningful values, be it unlimited transfer for a fixed price, or a lmit after which you pay extra for extra data. I don't mind there is some limit and extra charge for more, as long as they are set somewhat sanely. If it was e.g. 1€ for 50GB more transfer, ok then.

I don't know how it is in US, are there commonly just one operator available for customers (regional monopoly), but at least here I have access to several options, both for fixed and mobile internet providers.

He goes through all the things you just described in the video.

a) Depends of the Internet provider services and the number of servers around the world from the company that makes that gaming streaming service. Besides, have you thought about those trolls that would ddos the service? Or the large amount of people using the service overloading the servers?

c) What will change from now to the future? Remember that Sony has to pay for servers, maintenance, publishers, etc. How are they going to make this a profitable business considering the costs vs low priced service?

d) $10 a month? PS Now is $20 a month, again, don't forget that companies will have costs and need to make profit. And the free account thing, yeah, it would be less than 30 minutes between ads otherwise who would actually pay for the service?

e) Simple, they need more paid accounts in order to cover the expenses, the service is popular indeed but it's because you can use it and have some ads here and there, it's almost the same as listening to radio but you're in control of the music that is being played. It's a weird spot they're on, they can't convert more people to the service by making the price lower (because it already doesn't cover the expenses) and they can't raise the price because it might lead to more people stopping their subscrition.

Sorry, could'nt post in this thread for a while for some reason.

" a) Depends of the Internet provider services and the number of servers around the world from the company that makes that gaming streaming service. Besides, have you thought about those trolls that would ddos the service? Or the large amount of people using the service overloading the servers?"

I have not, but would that be more of a problem here than with other services though?
I'm not sure overloading would be a problem here where I live, but we aren't that numerous and have it pretty good it seems when comparing to the US for example (the SBH video above). Only datacaps on mobile connections afaik, and we use the internet a lot in this country.

" c) What will change from now to the future? Remember that Sony has to pay for servers, maintenance, publishers, etc. How are they going to make this a profitable business considering the costs vs low priced service?"
These are fair points, sure. I currently don't have the answer, this is more of a speculation/wishful thinking thread from the consumer's point of view.

"d) $10 a month? PS Now is $20 a month, again, don't forget that companies will have costs and need to make profit. And the free account thing, yeah, it would be less than 30 minutes between ads otherwise who would actually pay for the service?"
I think you'd get sick of ad interrupts when playing a game pretty quickly even if it was 45-60 minutes, but that's me.
I don't think a large retro library should be underestimated though, and afaik PS Now does not have that yet.

"e) Simple, they need more paid accounts in order to cover the expenses, the service is popular indeed but it's because you can use it and have some ads here and there, it's almost the same as listening to radio but you're in control of the music that is being played. It's a weird spot they're on, they can't convert more people to the service by making the price lower (because it already doesn't cover the expenses) and they can't raise the price because it might lead to more people stopping their subscrition."
Well, they have made ads more frequent over time and made the interface more limited without a paid service. The paid userbase is growing from what I've read. In this article though there was something about royalties eating away at the profits as they're gaining paid subscriptions, I'm not sure how it works.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-21/why-spotify-and-the-streaming-music-industry-cant-make-money

https://www.gamesessions.com/en

they kinda offer a service like that, aswell as origin is trying to bring something similar

Streaming video games? Fuck no.

Sorry, I have to disagree on this:
"On the whole, yes. Here on GOG? Probably not, so yes it's valid as I said."
The whole BethsNet, Steam Workshop things, they are not niche. Some of the games played now are originally mods (thinking counter-strike for instance). It is a moderate percentage of PC gamers.

" Isn't Apple Music doing that? I don't think streaming would come in and replace new digital dl and physical releases, so the games would already be pirated when they're made streamable."
I don;t use Apple so can't say. What is the point of offering streaming and a physical release? The underlying principal of streaming is to replace physical media.

"I think this is gradually changing; people are accepting of digital games now, the recently announced mini NES will probably sell well for example, and I can see a transition happening over a few years where people get more on board with streaming if it's done right."
Unfortunately I think you are right, music, TV, film, in fact everything is moving to the net. I am not convinced by anything I have yet seen that this is a good thing however - as anyone who has anything Games for Windows Dead for instance will tell you, or when one of the networks gets knocked offline or just shut by the owner as its no longer profitable. Its also totally killed the second hand market, collecting etc. which again is a prime reasoning behind the move to the net, piracy is one "lost" stream, selling on second hand is another - couple this with the constant stream of remakes now released.

One other thing I don't think has been mentioned above is multiplayer. Now MMO's obviously only exist in terms of the net. Personally I don't play multiplayer so to me having that connection offers no benefits. I would imagine the younger generations find that to be quite a large percentage of the game appeal and so it would be a benefit there, however I still think that a halfway house will be the next thing until such time as the internet speeds are up to the task. Just thinking, did you buy Dead Light or DA:O off here - how long did it take you to download that? Even with my super quick connection it still took hours, wouldn't want that each time I wanted to play.

The about page is kinda vague; how long is the trial and what impact does the DRM have? Sounds kinda cool otherwise.