We hear that Google wants to launch its own streaming-based gaming platform. Sony and Microsoft are reportedly thinking of doing the same. Are the days of classic consoles over, or is the idea still too abstract?
Google has also gained valuable experience in the world of video games with "Pokémon Go" and, before that, with "Ingress". Niantic, the studio responsible, began as an in-house start-up before spinning off from Google in 2015. By hiring Phil Harrison in January, a former Playstation and Xbox executive and one of the industry's veterans, Google has also made its intentions clear.
Not much is known yet about Sony's intentions, but compared to the competition, the Japanese already have a games streaming service. It's called Playstation Now and offers more than 650 games from the PS2 era to the PS4. Not only can you play these games on the PS4 without installation, you can also play them on your PC. In particular, the company has this know-how thanks to its takeover of Onlive; one of the first companies to attempt video game streaming.
The success of game streaming requires that we no longer depend on physical media. With EA Play or Xbox Pass, Netflix-type services are already available for games. Digital purchases have already been part of PC gamers' daily lives for a long time, and console purchases are also growing every year.
If Google or anyone else is seriously considering a streaming-based console or gaming platform, they'll be faced with a difficult task. At least assuming it's real console and PC games that need to be streamed, not mobile games. With the current infrastructure, both on the manufacturer and consumer side, the conditions are only partially met.
There also remains the question of player acceptance. How will games be exchanged? The PS5 and Xbox Two will probably just be two classic consoles. A hybrid form would be conceivable, after all, the PS4 already does this. And as Google is notorious for abandoning some of its projects, we shouldn't get our hopes up too high either.
As a child, I wasn't allowed to have any consoles. It was only with the arrival of the family's 486 PC that the magical world of gaming opened up to me. Today, I'm overcompensating accordingly. Only a lack of time and money prevents me from trying out every game there is and decorating my shelf with rare retro consoles.
Interesting facts about products, behind-the-scenes looks at manufacturers and deep-dives on interesting people.
Show allThe rumours are once again in full swing. The culprit: Google. Or more specifically Jason Schreier, the well-known news editor at Kotaku, the website specialising in video games. According to him, Google is planning to launch its own gaming platform. The special feature: games will be streamed over the Internet instead of being loaded onto a local console. Google isn't the only (gaming) company to come up with this idea.
The first time we heard about Google's "Yeti" project was back in February, on US website The Information. Many expected to learn more about the subject at the Google I/O developer conference. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. That's why Schreier's latest article has really created a buzz. In it, he cites five sources claiming that Google is actively looking to develop a new gaming platform.
There's no concrete information on the hardware yet, but the platform should work a bit like Geforce Now. That means you play games on Google's servers and the end device only needs to play a video. Theoretically, this would even be possible in a browser tab on your smartphone. Instead of buying a new console, all you'd have to do is take out a subscription (or choose the ad-supported version?). YouTube is also said to be to be implemented: if you get stuck somewhere in a game, you could, with a single click, switch windows and watch the solution on YouTube.
According to Schreier, Google doesn't want to do things by halves with Yeti. The company wants to employ its own game developers. Whether by recruiting or taking over entire studios. At the Game Developer Conference (GDC) and E3, the search giant met with several major video game companies. Google's ambitions in the video games sector were already evident in 2014 when there was talk of acquiring Twitch. But as everyone knows, it was Amazon that won the game for a handsome sum of money.
If Google really has decided to revolutionise the video game industry, it's likely to make waves. However, the market leaders are not resting on their laurels. Yves Guillemot, CEO of Ubisoft, told US magazine Variety that he could still see a generation of classic consoles before they are replaced by streaming. Xbox chief Phil Spencer is also convinced that the future lies in streaming and that the boundaries between consoles will disappear. "It's not about having the right device for a particular game, it's about your favourite game being compatible with each of your devices," he told the magazine.
By combining this starting situation with the PS5's supposed hardware, Sony could become a pioneer in the streaming race. The next Playstation will use an AMD graphics processor called Navi. Navi is based on the 7nm production process. According to PCGamesN, this graphics processor is in the mid-range segment and therefore weaker than the Radeon Vega or Nvidia's 10 series. This means that the PS5, which isn't expected until 2020, wouldn't be any faster than a current PC. However, if the console is primarily intended for streaming and just needs to compute games itself, this hardware would of course be more than sufficient.
Amazon, which bought Twitch for $980 million, is not at all badly placed when it comes to streaming. Amazon Web Services is one of the biggest providers of cloud computing. Its customers include Dropbox, Netflix and Reddit. With Double Helix, which is now also part of Amazon Game Studios, the online mail order company also already has a good games developer on hand. Should the company decide to get into game streaming, with the FireTV, it would even already have the appropriate hardware in circulation.
The industry seems to be in agreement about the direction it's heading. Instead of buying ever more powerful PCs and consoles every few years, we're outsourcing computing power and streaming games directly to our end device. In theory, it all sounds great. In reality, there's still a lot of work to be done. With Geforce Now, Playstation Now, or the French service Shadow, which Kevin Hofer, my work colleague, is currently testing, you can already try out the principle. If you don't want to play in Super Nintendo quality, you'll need a fast internet connection.
For Geforce Now, Nvidia recommends at least 50 Mbit/s if you want to play in Full HD and with 60 fps. But we're a long way behind the quality of the PS4 Pro, Xbox One X or a powerful PC that can achieve higher resolutions and/or more fps. For 4K/60fps, you'd need a 200 Mbit/s line. In Switzerland, the average internet speed is only 38 Mbit/s. Even if we assume that players tend to place more importance on fast lines, most of them do not currently meet the requirements. This could be totally different in a few years' time when the PS5 or the Google console come out. Compared with other countries, Switzerland has one of the fastest Internet connections. So we're not the worst placed.
Let's turn to the second problem: availability. Not every gamer in the world has an internet connection. When Microsoft announced at the presentation of the Xbox One that it was still online, it caused a general outcry. And not just in emerging markets or third world countries, which would be particularly hard hit. In many parts of the US, high-speed internet is far from the norm. Added to this is the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of soldiers who are not entitled to the latest fibre-optic line at their military bases. We don't even have to look that far. According to the Federal Statistical Office, almost one in two people in Switzerland does not have a broadband connection. Unfortunately, the statistics do not take households into account, so they should not be taken literally.
The third problem is the huge amount of data. As games are no longer installed for streaming, they consume data continuously. Based on the 50 Mbit/s recommended by Nvidia for Full HD with 60 fps, 22.5 GB of data per hour of gaming would pass through the line, which quickly amounts to more than 100 GB per week. While in Switzerland we only know the data limits for mobile phones, in many countries, such as the US, a download limit is often set. If we increase this to higher resolutions, it becomes even more dramatic.
The fourth problem: data centres. Google and Amazon have the best prerequisites here. To stream games to millions of players around the world without delay, you need a bunch of servers as close as possible to the place of use. The further away you live, the longer the delay. Nvidia has six data centres around the world for Geforce Now. For example, if today's 80 million PS4 users were to play without an expensive console, the infrastructure would have to grow significantly. PC gamers, who play with a mouse and keyboard, also immediately experience small delays, which result from high distance or overload on the line.
The success of a pure streaming game console or platform requires a fast Internet connection, unlimited data volumes and huge server farms capable of handling the traffic. No wonder even Jen-Hsung Huang, CEO of Nvidia, has put his foot on the brake. A year ago, at the announcement of quarterly figures, he said that Geforce Now was still a long way from a final version. With the experience I have, I can say that even the streaming you use at home is nowhere near as smooth as it could be - and that's where a Gigabit network comes in.
Will the next generation of consoles rely on streaming?
The competition has ended.
Samsung Odyssey G9 G95C
5120 x 1440 pixels, 49"