this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
49 points (87.7% liked)

Gaming

20006 readers
15 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I still have an OnLive console from the second time they tried games-as-a-service.

The market isn't big enough to justify the distribution at scale it'd take to make this tech profitable.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You talked about console hardware, but then mentioned distribution. I’m going to guess you mostly mean servers - as these days people don’t really need any special local hardware aside from any controller.

The major cities generally already have those servers distributed and working. It’s true certain edges of the world don’t have a good experience, but that sort of just fits in the 70% of scenarios where you wouldn’t want a cloud game.

There’s still this weird expectation it would replace your home den where you have lots of space and disposable income for multiple consoles - it doesn’t. It’s really more for the convenience of getting your games from a web browser.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 8 months ago

I’m going to guess you mostly mean servers

Yep.

It’s really more for the convenience of getting your games from a web browser.

Exactly, it's a niche service that only appeals to a fraction of the folks who play games, but it also requires the operator to purchase servers with graphics cards and set them up in datacenters near everyone who has an account in order to minimize latency. It's not viable for people who have slow internet or live in a rural area, especially when so much of their income goes to licensing game titles for use in the service.