this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
41 points (82.5% liked)

Technology

59135 readers
6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LoafyLemon@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Oh, because Google Stadia was such a roaring success, I'm sure that Netflix will totally not turn that into a sinking ship either.

[–] warmaster@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Stadia failed because of their business model. Xbox cloud gaming is working fine. If Netflix can offer a good catalog at no additional cost, it will become mainstream in no time.

[–] GigglyBobble@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it will become mainstream in no time.

And that's when they'll raise prices.

[–] warmaster@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Exactly. Just like XCG.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Stadia was really good. I'd prefer to pay a bit more to avoid the vendor lock-in and have some portability, but what they offered was fairly priced.

In fact the only reason I stopped using Stadia - or any cloud gaming for that matter - is that I like to build and have my own machine and was fortunate to be able to afford one.

[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stadia was amazing, google couldn't fucking wrap their head around the fact they needed to package it with other things. Why I. The flying fuck they didn't have a storage + stadia + YouTube + music plan k have NO fucking idea but if they did it would have been a roaring success

Anyone that used it can tell you the service was immaculate - they just would never stick to a fucking plan or properly advertise it.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google doesn't understand products that don't 'change the world'. There are no decent successes to them, there's YouTube, then there's Google play music, even though the second is good it doesn't get widespread acclaim so it's garbage to them.

[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

YouTube music is amazing - if it had mir podcasts, it would be my goto player for everything. I can get real weird music on YT music I can find anywhere else

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Google play music was better imho, had everything, better interface, none of the annoying youtube-ness, it literally just worked.

And when yt music came out many of the files were at terrible quality because they were basically reencodes of uploads instead of official releases.

My library went from sounding beautiful to painful to the ears overnight. It's gotten better but I havent forgotten, that's a dick move.

[–] thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IIRC, you had to buy the games to play them. A subscription service would work much better

[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That was the perfect thing about stadia - there was no subscription needed. You bought the game. You could play the game. That was it. No need to have monthly fees, you just got to play the games you owned.

[–] _finger_@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Anyone remember OnLive?

[–] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I just still don't get how you avoid the problem of physics causing latency that just isn't great for gaming.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

I think it’s about getting more subscribers and then canceling it like google.

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

If you've got a decent enough connection, it's honestly not as detrimental as you might think. I played on Stadia from its launch day up until it closed earlier this year. I was able to fairly consistently place top of the scoreboard in my cross-platform PVP matches in Destiny 2, during both the skill-based and connection-based matchmaking metas. I think I'm something like 500+ miles from the closest Google datacenter, too.

[–] AnusBesamus@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In Europe good connected homes (basically cities) can have a ping of 10-20 ms. Most people won't notice mich of a lav when they casually play on their couch.

[–] Un4@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah was getting 3ms for stadia. GeForceNow is 15ms right now. During game play there is absolutely no fealing of lag at all. The only way to notice it is to move a mouse in cricles in the menus, where very slight ruberbanding can be felt.

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

1 or 2 frames of delay is noticeable. Sure the layman won’t realize it without comparison.

[–] JohnEdwa@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

If the service is decent enough with servers close by, it really isn't bad at all. In a PCgamer test, the input latency for Metro Exodus and Destiny 2 went from 46ms and 51ms local to 96ms and 75ms from GeForce Now, and 179ms and 129ms from Stadia.

For comparison, back when Tekken 7 was released on the PS4, it had 120ms of input lag.

[–] ijeff@lemdro.id -1 points 1 year ago

It can be surprisingly decent depending on your connection. I've wirelessly streamed VR from my home computer in another city and it was very comfortable and playable.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Every game stream platform has been a failure. I have no idea why they think this will be any different. Is this where the raised prices and blocking account sharing money has gone?

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


In a blog post today, Mike Verdu, vice president for games at Netflix, states that the streaming content company is rolling out "a limited beta test to a small number of members in Canada and the UK on select TVs starting today, and on PCs and Macs through Netflix.com on supported browsers in the next few weeks."

Given the mess that Linux users encounter with web-based DRM, and Netflix's peculiar device support, it's not a likely bet, at least for now.

As we noted a few months ago, Netflix Games is poised in some ways to succeed beyond the limited impact Apple Arcade or Google's Play Pass have made.

This is not a value judgment, as there are some well-regarded titles in the mix that may make their way to streaming, including Moonlighter, TMNT: Shredder's Revenge, Laya's Horizon, World of Goo Remastered, Shovel Knight, Immortality, Desta: The Memories Between, Reigns, and Into the Breach.

Netflix seems to have big ambitions for games, recently investing heavily in its studios and third-party titles.

Its latest ploy for even more access could mean the entry of a new, quirky competitor for our already highly sought-after screen time.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If. And this is the biggest if in history. But if Netflix and other streaming sites had the bandwidth and computing power to take on Nvidia.

Fuck. Just new era of Gaming. If you could stream games to Netflix Disney apple whatever. Play games on tvs everywhere. That would be an enormous change. I doubt it would happen as Nvidia is still struggling to get games on its service as devs just refuse.

But hopefully with a shake up we the consumers can finally get a bit of price parity.

Stop locking games behind consoles or overpriced gaming rigs. Far more competition in the gaming world would be epic.

Plus you could rock up anywhere with a controller in hand. Sign in and play to your hearts content.

Bandwidth restrictions may be enforced

[–] Crozekiel@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

The problem is we've already kinda seen what that brings to the industry through mobile gaming, and it's been universally terribly not just for mobile but for the entire gaming industry.

I dunno, maybe this would be different, but to me it is just another test-bed of innovating new ways to dick down the consumers that will eventually spread to the rest of the world again.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What's in it for the developers?

It works for the streaming tv because they pay for the content but as far as I understand it with the games they want to just give you a cut rather than a straight purchase price.

If they just buy some 10,000 licences off me for X amount of money that would be fine. But when they're like, oh you'll get 70% of the profit your game makes at $0.30 per hour of play, developers are less interested.

It's not the technology, it's the deals.

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Similar system for GeForce now. You buy game and subscribe to GeForce. Both get in on the deal. It's not cheaper but it's convenient.

Maybe if Netflix did a deal to cut game prices to $25 bucks.

You are right that devs would never go for current Netflix platform. Netflix wins and devs lose.

[–] Phanatik@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

As someone who likes to preserve games, this is just another form of gatekeeping. They get to hold onto all the games and once the platform decides a certain game isn't worth keeping around, there it goes and good luck seeing it again if someone like me hasn't backed up a copy. So many games locked to the PS3 that will never see a resurgence. I struggle to see a situation where Netflix's service will be any different.