Wii U VC

[Zechs Merquise]

It's frustrating that you either haven't the time or the aptitude to actually read my argument. I'm arguing that developing your hardware and strategy around VC, something that is perhaps under-appreciated but regardless is so, is not the best of ideas. The fact Wii U VC isn't helping drive console sales is not my attempt to say VC is shit, or 'don't bother with it at all', rather a point that VC is not important enough to make such a major focus for all future hardware.

 

I've never said don't bother with VC, or that it's not worth the time developing. I'm arguing there's a better way to go about it to preserve games for posterity, through streaming to everyone (IMO), rather than locking every single future console into this path and catering to only a small subset of gamers who continue to buy Nintendo home consoles.

 

Your point about streaming is poor though. There are so many pitfalls with streaming - the service going down, breaks in connection, latency and most of all ownership of the titles! If a service goes down or is withdrawn you are left with nothing.

 

People have articulated far better points than you have, especially about the backwards compatibility of the App Store, which has revolutionised the way software is developed and distributed.

 

I see a well developed VC being an important string to Nintendo's bow. It is part of their strategy and for me, owning a vast library of VC games that will carry over to every new system I own is an enticing prospect.Having a system where you have to subscribe to a streaming service to play a game is not enticing and has proved a commercial and critical failure in the past with Onlive.

 

No one is saying that Nintendo should pin their entire business strategy on the Virtual Console, but as part of their overall business strategy it's far better for them to have it and develop it than ditch it!

 

Finally, claiming that no one cares for the VC because the Wii U hasn't sold well is a silly argument. The Wii U has underperformed for many reasons and to pin it on the VC is silly. You could say, the Wii U has an excellent line-up of first party titles which have garnered huge critical acclaim and a fantastic back catalogue of classic games stretching back to the days of NES. Thus, I conclude that because the Wii U has underperformed in a commercial sense that the public are not interested in well made first party exclusives or classic games!

[Sheikah]

Your point about streaming is poor though. There are so many pitfalls with streaming - the service going down, breaks in connection, latency and most of all ownership of the titles! If a service goes down or is withdrawn you are left with nothing.

 

If console connectivity support is dropped, which it almost certainly will be after a time (the Wii is partway there), then you are left with only the games you have installed on the system. That's not preservation. That's what you already have by keeping old consoles lying around; games tied to the life of the console/disk. The argument from the beginning was about keeping games 'for posterity'. The games are not preserved in any way by this method unless you keep buying new consoles every so often.

 

Streaming with PS Now has, from what I have heard from the people here who have been demoing it, been brought up to standard. You talk about latency issues but I'd bet a considerable sum that you haven't tried PS Now in its current trial period. As I've said, keeping games available 'forever' is a long-term plan, so it makes sense to invest in something that will naturally improve in a very short space of time. We've seen what streaming TV episodes has done to renting physically, and even its effect on buying. To many the question is likely "why buy this boxset at £80-100 a pop when I can watch it all on Netflix at just £6 a month." I can think of reasons why I would prefer to own stuff, but generally, I can see such a service being very popular.

 

People have articulated far better points than you have, especially about the backwards compatibility of the App Store, which has revolutionised the way software is developed and distributed.

 

Not one person here has articulated anything better than I have. But don't take that to heart; I'm just very good at articulating points, if it's any consolation. Yet again, comparing this to phones and the app store is a mad joke because of the nature of the content being discussed. If Apple released a new update that rendered every previous app obsolete there would be chaos. PS4 launches with zero VC and look at that. To summarise: not the same, not a good comparison.

 

I see a well developed VC being an important string to Nintendo's bow. It is part of their strategy and for me, owning a vast library of VC games that will carry over to every new system I own is an enticing prospect.Having a system where you have to subscribe to a streaming service to play a game is not enticing and has proved a commercial and critical failure in the past with Onlive.

 

A string in Nintendo's bow? As in, without it, Nintendo couldn't fire their arrows? You act as if VC is an essential component that if they were without, they'd be stuffed. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. Again, dat PS4 with zero VC - the money is in the new games. Lastly, Onlive was shit, while PS Now apparently runs well. That to me suggests the technology is now at a point where it is worth taking forward, or at least developing for a little while and making something of it. People would definitely subscribe if it became cheaper to play this way than buy the games (+console!) separately. For many, I imagine they'd have a small spark of interest to play an old classic and then after that they might not play anything for a while. Why buy a whole console for that? I can see no good reason why such cheap, £2-5 games should be locked behind a several hundred pound paywall.

 

No one is saying that Nintendo should pin their entire business strategy on the Virtual Console, but as part of their overall business strategy it's far better for them to have it and develop it than ditch it!

 

Locking in future Nintendo hardware/OS development in order to be able to continue to play these games, pretty much 'for the foreseeable' (as Dcubed said), is what I object to. Not because I wouldn't make use of it, but where is the money? Let's say Nintendo continue to struggle because let's be honest, third parties aren't exactly going to land in their lap. Nintendo continue on with their staunchly loyal but dwindling fanbase who have bought Super Metroid back on the Wii U. Now what? In 20 years time the same fans might still be playing this with their kids but at no extra cost to Nintendo. Yet Nintendo have to provide this download to people every time they get a new system, and they have to keep making their system able to play these games, all for no extra money. Sure, every console they get a new generation of games to start adding to the database, but realistically there is not much of a financial incentive for them to do this! The closest comparison to this would be Steam but in this case the availability of old games to download is obviously subsidised by the considerable amount of money they constantly have coming in from the multitude of developers who put their content through Steam.

 

Finally, claiming that no one cares for the VC because the Wii U hasn't sold well is a silly argument. The Wii U has underperformed for many reasons and to pin it on the VC is silly. You could say, the Wii U has an excellent line-up of first party titles which have garnered huge critical acclaim and a fantastic back catalogue of classic games stretching back to the days of NES. Thus, I conclude that because the Wii U has underperformed in a commercial sense that the public are not interested in well made first party exclusives or classic games!

I'm sorry, but this is just completely untrue. Nowhere did I say the VC was to blame for the failure of the Wii U! Where are you even getting this? It's like you see some words on a page and rearrange them into something to make you suitably incensed with which to work with. What I said was that VC was not critically important enough to Nintendo's success as new games are (in the case of the competition, with zero VC and all new/spruced up games). And I demonstrated that by arguing no amount of VC is doing a jot to help turn around Wii U's fortunes.

 

To answer the other part. Most gamers, that is the mainstream, have little enthusiasm for Nintendo's current first party output. That's just the way it is. Their games review well, but play out pretty much the same. Mario Kart 8, Mario Party 10, Zelda 6, or whatever. Many casual gamers that like Mario Kart would probably turn to their Wii before seeing point in reinvesting in a new console. You and I are going to disagree here, but the fundamental truth is that Nintendo's games alone (plus their VC catalogue) are not desirable enough on their own for suitably large numbers of gamers to adopt the console; hence, the console is not selling well. Even if you argue this is down to their graphics or online infrastructure, that still ties into this point because those negatives leave their marks on those games.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Sheikah

[david.dakota]

If console connectivity support is dropped, which it almost certainly will be after a time (the Wii is partway there), then you are left with only the games you have installed on the system. That's not preservation.

 

I'm sorry to be so frank, but that's bullshit. Which company ensured you carry your content over because it sure the heck wasn't Sony. I think most people are more confident in Nintendo delivering a solution to preservation than Sony. Whether or not that's with current Wii U architecture I can't tell you but whatever is next i'll be playing Super Mario Bros from my Wii/Wii U license which transfers to NX and long into the future. Nintendo respects it's heritage has always attempted to ensure new gamers can play classic titles.

 

On the subject of streaming you've inherent issues which will hinder it's long term progress - issues like latency and video compression will undoubtedly put gamers off (and as we see time and time again, it's thsee core gamers who set the trend; unless you harness that market you're dead in the water). Sadly, no one will be able to solve the issue of latency so I don't believe you'll grab those trend setters.

 

You're over estimating the future of streaming - it will not be a ubiquitous thing and for the foreseeable future it's all Sony. By purchasing Gaikai AND OnLive they've assured they have a streaming future but locked others out - do remember significant cloud gaming patents were held by Onlive. A strategy Nintendo will not adopt is paying a competitor royalties, except in essential circumstances. Not going to happen.

 

My views out of the way, I cannot believe we're discussing the best way to deliver classic titles.

 

A string in Nintendo's bow? As in, without it, Nintendo couldn't fire their arrows? You act as if VC is an essential component that if they were without, they'd be stuffed.

 

I'm sure this saying refers to a bow being a musical instrument. You're adding more strings to your bow to create a greater range of notes and therefore more beautiful piece of music. You've played too much Zelda

[Sheikah]

I'm sorry to be so frank, but that's bullshit. Which company ensured you carry your content over because it sure the heck wasn't Sony.

 

While you can port over your games and play them in Wii mode for Wii U, that's really just a temporary measure, don't you think? Unless they're being tied to an account it seems like that will be dropped quicker than a stone come next gen (as in, I'd imagine you can't redownload them as you currently can't redownload them for free on Wii U anyway as non Wii mode titles). Even if I am wrong on that, see the next paragraph I make. With regards to comparisons to Sony; If you bought digital PS1 or PSP games on PSP, you can download them again at no extra cost on Vita, or just the PS1 games on PS3. I agree that this is hardly inclusive of all their stuff though, and generally why I am against a complete hardware backwards compatibility solution in general (too much effort to achieve for something that I think is less important than many people here make of it). Where Nintendo do come across a bit stingy though is in getting cross-buy deals with developers; games on both Wii U and 3DS are not typically cross buy between consoles, a bonus more commonplace on Sony consoles. The latest example of that is Shovel Knight.

 

Anyway, the whole point to this comment was to point out that ultimately games are not really preserved this way, because eventually those consoles will be cut off from the net, meaning you can't download games to it any more and your access to 'the catalogue' is cut off. And if your console busts (which goes back to the original argument here - the best way to 'preserve' games) then you're locked into buying a new console to continue to play your games. For many, who might want to splash out a few quid on Mario Bros 3, that £200-300 entry cost just seems so counter-productive. It seems wiser to support devices people have anyway like Smart TVs so there is no extra cost. I take on board that a streaming service can also go down, but really the reasons for that seem harder to imagine providing the service works well and the plans are reasonably priced. To me, that'd be like arguing (assuming PS Now matures) that Netflix could also go down so watch Breaking Bad soon. Not likely though, is it?

 

I think most people are more confident in Nintendo delivering a solution to preservation than Sony.

 

lol, what? Why would you think such a thing? Nintendo are all about software and nothing about logistics/common sense in this day and age. We are talking about the company who won't give people voice chat or modern graphics here. Nintendo's home console future also looks less certain due to tenuous third party relations and that uncertainty extends to any preservation strategy too.

 

On the subject of streaming you've inherent issues which will hinder it's long term progress - issues like latency and video compression will undoubtedly put gamers off (and as we see time and time again, it's thsee core gamers who set the trend; unless you harness that market you're dead in the water). Sadly, no one will be able to solve the issue of latency so I don't believe you'll grab those trend setters.

 

Going on feedback from the PS Now beta, they pretty much got the tech to the point that even tech-savy people on this forum with decent connections are happy with it:

 

Yeah well impressed by the quality of gameplay so far, played Beyond: Two Souls which I missed last generation. Ran so smoothly, really felt like I was just playing the game natively. I did have the audio stream mess up once but a restart fixed it. I have 100MB fibre so can't fault latency so far.

 

The selection would need to be a fair bit better for me to spend much on the final product.

 

I'm not sure if you can sign up and I did it so long ago I can't even remember where. (Edit: Oh right, the link is on the previous page.)

 

It works perfectly, though. Just tried out Homefront - which is awful - and Saints Row 3 and it works perfectly. No lag at all, from what I could tell.

 

My mind is kind of blown.

 

I'm not completely naive as I know there will be latency issues for some, and performance can depend on your line, but this is something that's only going to improve over time (both the service and broadband in general). To see people that I know who are quite discerning about technical quality happy with the service tells me that the Average Joes who might take this up will probably not be phased in the slightest by it being a streaming service. I think we'd be pretty blinkered to completely rule out streaming in future based on what we perceived of streaming over the past few years.

 

You're over estimating the future of streaming - it will not be a ubiquitous thing and for the foreseeable future it's all Sony. By purchasing Gaikai AND OnLive they've assured they have a streaming future but locked others out - do remember significant cloud gaming patents were held by Onlive. A strategy Nintendo will not adopt is paying a competitor royalties, except in essential circumstances. Not going to happen.

 

This might be a message worth saving for future "I told you so" purposes.

 

I'm sure this saying refers to a bow being a musical instrument. You're adding more strings to your bow to create a greater range of notes and therefore more beautiful piece of music. You've played too much Zelda

 

If it does then that makes more sense.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Sheikah
Automerged Doublepost

[Zechs Merquise]

My views out of the way, I cannot believe we're discussing the best way to deliver classic titles.

 

You're arguing with a guy that could start an argument with a paper bag! Whatever Nintendo do is wrong - WRONG, whatever Sony do is right. Hence, if:

 

Sony makes a system that completely locks out backward compatibility and consumers are faced with all their old purchases being locked to their old hardware - that's cool.

 

Nintendo have a system that offers full backward compatibility and they want to allow users to transfer previous generations of game purchases to a new system for future use and somehow they're getting it wrong!

 

Nintendo may get stuff wrong - but the VC is not one of those things, neither is their commitment to backwards compatibility which is far better than that of MS or Sony. In that way, Nintendo are far more consumer orientated.

[Sheikah]

You're arguing with a guy that could start an argument with a paper bag! Whatever Nintendo do is wrong - WRONG, whatever Sony do is right. Hence, if:

 

And you're arguing with a guy who you often resort to insults against because you can't actually refute what he's saying. I think that says quite a lot about your character, but then I think you know the faults with your character already.

 

Sony makes a system that completely locks out backward compatibility and consumers are faced with all their old purchases being locked to their old hardware - that's cool.

 

Except, that's not what I'm really saying, is it? I appreciate a good VC (who wouldn't?), but at the same time I don't believe their future hardware and OS should be limited to this decision. As nice a feature as VC is, it's not something that's going to pull in the customers in any real number, and as we all know it's new games that sell systems. I think for people who would like to pick up an old VC title every now and then, it's better to not have to front £200-300 on a console to do so. Streaming is also a better method of distribution - to everyone with a TV/smart device versus just a small and loyal number of Nintendo fans.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Sheikah

[V. Amoleo]

I really don't like streaming, because it's moving us even further away from owning the games we buy, but it's hard to argue it's not the way forward for backwards compatibility.

 

I also agree that backwards compatibility shouldn't hamper whatever Nintendo's next hardware is. Plus, when it comes to their next hardware, I thought we had a thread to do crystal ball predictions about it.

 

And I've had the argument on here before that Nintendo's method of distributing old games isn't as good as Sony's method. Nintendo make us pay per platform, while Sony doesn't. In that way Nintendo are the ones locking their games to old hardware. If you include having to pay again, Sony have released PS2 games on the PS3 and PSP games on the Vita. The usual response to this is that Nintendo's emulators are less glitchy. This might be true but I'm yet to experience the glitches on the Sony consoles.

[Blade]

I really don't like streaming, because it's moving us even further away from owning the games we buy, but it's hard to argue it's not the way forward for backwards compatibility.

 

I also agree that backwards compatibility shouldn't hamper whatever Nintendo's next hardware is. Plus, when it comes to their next hardware, I thought we had a thread to do crystal ball predictions about it.

 

And I've had the argument on here before that Nintendo's method of distributing old games isn't as good as Sony's method. Nintendo make us pay per platform, while Sony doesn't. In that way Nintendo are the ones locking their games to old hardware. If you include having to pay again, Sony have released PS2 games on the PS3 and PSP games on the Vita. The usual response to this is that Nintendo's emulators are less glitchy. This might be true but I'm yet to experience the glitches on the Sony consoles.

 

I don't see a virtual console service on the PS4 so for me Nintendo's VC service is far superior, obviously.

[Sheikah]

I really don't like streaming, because it's moving us even further away from owning the games we buy, but it's hard to argue it's not the way forward for backwards compatibility.

 

I also agree that backwards compatibility shouldn't hamper whatever Nintendo's next hardware is. Plus, when it comes to their next hardware, I thought we had a thread to do crystal ball predictions about it.

 

And I've had the argument on here before that Nintendo's method of distributing old games isn't as good as Sony's method. Nintendo make us pay per platform, while Sony doesn't. In that way Nintendo are the ones locking their games to old hardware. If you include having to pay again, Sony have released PS2 games on the PS3 and PSP games on the Vita. The usual response to this is that Nintendo's emulators are less glitchy. This might be true but I'm yet to experience the glitches on the Sony consoles.

Sense and reason.

 

In a way I like to own games, but we're talking about the future and maybe 30 years or more down the line here. True preservation of games; not just for us guys who have the consoles but for anyone who might want to experience those games, and not have to pay £200-300 up front just to do so. And who knows, maybe you got rid of your consoles or they're kaput by then, and could also benefit from this.

 

I think it's pretty mad to assume that everything from gamecube era onwards will be compatible with the console of the time in 30 years. The cost to keep that up and the effect that would have on curtailing their hardware/OS decisions would be pretty huge. And by then I imagine broadband and the streaming services will be considerably improved over now.

[Shorty]

I really don't like streaming, because it's moving us even further away from owning the games we buy

The same thing was said about Netflix, and look what happened there :p They put Blockbuster out of business in about 12 months and they're bigger than HBO and CBS. Streaming games sounded like a gimmick to me, until I tried the PS Now beta.

 

Sure, in 15 years you won't be able to sell your collection or lend a mate a title you streamed. But that probably won't matter, because you'll be able to stream it on whatever you're using then...

Edited April 28, 2015 by Shorty

[Blade]

Isn't the problem with PS NOW that you have to pay for a separate device? Rather than Netflix that I can watch on a wide range already bought devices.

 

If I could stream retro game through my PS4 I would do but sadly I can't.

[Kaepora_Gaebora]

The same thing was said about Netflix, and look what happened there :p They put Blockbuster out of business in about 12 months and they're bigger than HBO and CBS. Streaming games sounded like a gimmick to me, until I tried the PS Now beta.

 

Sure, in 15 years you won't be able to sell your collection or lend a mate a title you streamed. But that probably won't matter, because you'll be able to stream it on whatever you're using then...

 

Thing is, you still get issues with Netflix even now. Prime example being last night watching Bloodline (cracking show BTW) and the HD got replaced by some fuzzy pixels. It was still just about watchable, but you can still follow what's going on. If a game does that and starts to slow down/become obscured and you lose a life/can't work out what you're doing, it directly impacts the enjoyment a lot more.

 

There is clearly room for both approaches, but Sony's susceptibility to being hacked would also leave me worried, if that service gets shut down and I can't play a game I've payed to stream, then what? At least if I've payed a flat sum and bought my copy then I can play it when I like

[Serebii]

The same thing was said about Netflix, and look what happened there :p They put Blockbuster out of business in about 12 months and they're bigger than HBO and CBS. Streaming games sounded like a gimmick to me, until I tried the PS Now beta.

 

Sure, in 15 years you won't be able to sell your collection or lend a mate a title you streamed. But that probably won't matter, because you'll be able to stream it on whatever you're using then...

There's a difference between watching a streamed movie and streaming something interactive though, and latency/laws of physics make it so it will never be a decent replacement.

 

It's probable streaming will exist with standard distribution where you can pay for instant but flawed gratification or you can buy the game to get top quality, no issues etc., but streaming will not replace anything in gaming and every attempt so far has failed, and I have no doubt that PS Now will fail

[Sheikah]

There's a difference between watching a streamed movie and streaming something interactive though, and latency/laws of physics make it so it will never be a decent replacement.

 

It's probable streaming will exist with standard distribution where you can pay for instant but flawed gratification or you can buy the game to get top quality, no issues etc., but streaming will not replace anything in gaming and every attempt so far has failed, and I have no doubt that PS Now will fail

 

Does anyone find it kind of strange that the people who have not trialled the PS Now beta are telling the people who have that there are problems with it, despite never having used it and being told how well it works? Funny how many experts there seem to be here!

 

Saying it will never be a suitable replacement means that you know everything about the future? People with regular fibre right now who have trialed the PS Now beta are telling you it works great and is just like the real thing. We can only imagine at how much better it'll get in say 10 years if this is what it's like now.

 

Also, when you're saying it'll never be a good replacement, you're using your own judgement criteria. The truth is, it can be way less impressive than 'perfection' or whatever you personally see needs to be achieved. Netflix shows that people are happy to shave off some visual fidelity for convenience and cost. In this case, they can remove the need to buy a several hundred pound console to play these games, which is a massive boon.

 

Thing is, you still get issues with Netflix even now. Prime example being last night watching Bloodline (cracking show BTW) and the HD got replaced by some fuzzy pixels. It was still just about watchable, but you can still follow what's going on. If a game does that and starts to slow down/become obscured and you lose a life/can't work out what you're doing, it directly impacts the enjoyment a lot more.

 

There is clearly room for both approaches, but Sony's susceptibility to being hacked would also leave me worried, if that service gets shut down and I can't play a game I've payed to stream, then what? At least if I've payed a flat sum and bought my copy then I can play it when I like

Sony's recent downtime was a DDoS attack, not a hack. That could easily happen to anyone, but given the number of people it would affect it makes sense they would target actual PSN for the publicity/lulz (hence it was done on Christmas day for maximum impact) than the PS Now service. Tbh, I would be more concerned that Nintendo's home console presence would disappear on account of its third party situation and a feeling that its next home console won't fare too much better because of it.

 

Regarding the pixelation issue, since getting 80Mb broadband I haven't had that issue once, but I got it pretty regularly when I was on what was roughly 4Mb. That tells me that as line speeds improve then so will the experience - speed fluctuations on an 80Mb line aren't going to drop you out of HD as easily. Of course, if your line is unreliable and drops from 80 to 1 often then it could still happen, but for me at least that's never happened.

 

Isn't the problem with PS NOW that you have to pay for a separate device? Rather than Netflix that I can watch on a wide range already bought devices.

 

If I could stream retro game through my PS4 I would do but sadly I can't.

Completely the opposite. Their plan is to get it working on multiple devices starting with Sony games consoles (including the PS4) and smart TVs and Blu Ray players that people already have anyway so that people shouldn't have to stump up cash for extra devices (the same as Netflix is going for).

Edited April 29, 2015 by Sheikah

[Serebii]

I have 154mbps broadband, and it is very reliable and seldom drops, and even I had pixilation issues while watching Daredevil on Netflix and it happened at least once per episode. It's not an issue that goes away suddenly. It exists. It's a massive issue with streaming content and if it were to happen with games, you'd be screwed.

 

Also, waiting 10 years won't change the fundamental issues with streaming interactive entertainment. You cannot change the laws of physics and that's what will hold it back

Edited April 29, 2015 by Serebii

[drahkon]

I have 1.6mps on average and never had a quality problem with Netflix, Youtube, Watchever, Skygo, etc. etc.

Even when my roommates stream simultaneously.

 

I've used Shareplay with someone who has a similar internet connection and we barely noticed any lag.

 

Interesting that you always have problems unless when it comes to Nintendo :p

[Sheikah]

I have 154mbps broadband, and it is very reliable and seldom drops, and even I had pixilation issues while watching Daredevil on Netflix and it happened at least once per episode. It's not an issue that goes away suddenly. It exists. It's a massive issue with streaming content and if it were to happen with games, you'd be screwed.

 

Also, waiting 10 years won't change the fundamental issues with streaming interactive entertainment. You cannot change the laws of physics and that's what will hold it back

 

People here with the same speed broadband as you have reported no issues with PS Now. And I have reported no issues with Netflix with only an 80Mb line. Maybe you just have a shitty line or are being throttled, because your service shouldn't be pixelating on that kind of line.

 

Either way, you haven't tried PS Now and they have, so I'll take their word for it over yours.

[Kaepora_Gaebora]

Does anyone find it kind of strange that the people who have not trialled the PS Now beta are telling the people who have that there are problems with it, despite never having used it and being told how well it works? Funny how many experts there seem to be here!

I know right, because if any one who hasn't used it themselves was basing points on other people's experiences of the service, rather than first hand, it would be strange too!

 

Oh wait...

[Sheikah]

I have 1.6mps on average and never had a quality problem with Netflix, Youtube, Watchever, Skygo, etc. etc.

Even when my roommates stream simultaneously.

 

I've used Shareplay with someone who has a similar internet connection and we barely noticed any lag.

 

Interesting that you always have problems unless when it comes to Nintendo :p

 

And look at this, someone with a 1.6Mb line has no pixelation while Serebii has issues with his 154Mb connection. Funny that!

 

I concur with how this all whiffs a little! Do you remember when Serebii tried to pass off having played Destiny in order to call it shit? I then asked him what his PSN was so we could check he had played it and then he admitted to never having actually played it! And then there's those other times where he claims he played specific games at a friend's or in a shop in order to make his opinions seem like they were based on more than just rabid fanboyism.

 

I know right, because if any one who hasn't used it themselves was basing points on other people's experiences of the service, rather than first hand, it would be strange too!

 

Oh wait...

 

Oh wait, let's actually have a bit of a closer look at what's going on here...

 

Someone who hasn't used it is deferring to the judgement of people here who have (that's me!).

 

Other people here who haven't used it are claiming they know it won't work or will have issues, disregarding the views of people who have used it.

 

Who has the highground? I'll give you a hint; it's not you!

Edited April 29, 2015 by Sheikah
Automerged Doublepost

[Happenstance]

[Kaepora_Gaebora]

If you're aiming for "the higher ground" then that's the end of the discussion, because this shouldn't be about winning, it's an open conversation with different point of views.

 

My friends with PS4's had bad experiences with Now, but I only used my concerns based around Netflix as I haven't tried it. Those friends aren't on this forum so I can't quote them, but I'll happily get some if it will make my opinion valid

[Serebii]

I have 1.6mps on average and never had a quality problem with Netflix, Youtube, Watchever, Skygo, etc. etc.

Even when my roommates stream simultaneously.

 

I've used Shareplay with someone who has a similar internet connection and we barely noticed any lag.

 

Interesting that you always have problems unless when it comes to Nintendo :p

 

It could be because your Internet speed was determined so they put it at a lower bitrate which didn't fluctuate whereas mine, due to being a higher speed, went to a higher bitrate which then dropped.

 

It was very frustrating when it happened. I was sceptical about streaming beforehand, but the issues with Netflix just confirmed my suspicions and with that and my network certification, with latency I can see how gaming can have many issues with it.

 

And look at this, someone with a 1.6Mb line has no pixelation while Serebii has issues with his 154Mb connection. Funny that!

 

I concur with how this all whiffs a little! Do you remember when Serebii tried to pass off having played Destiny in order to call it shit? I then asked him what his PSN was so we could check he had played it and then he admitted to never having actually played it! And then there's those other times where he claims he played specific games at a friend's or in a shop in order to make his opinions seem like they were based on more than just rabid fanboyism.

 

Nice revisionist history you have

Edited April 29, 2015 by Serebii
Automerged Doublepost

[Sheikah]

If you're aiming for "the higher ground" then that's the end of the discussion, because this shouldn't be about winning, it's an open conversation with different point of views.

 

Woah woah woah. Let's cut the crap here. This isn't about a clash of 'different points of view', it's a straight up dick move on your part.

 

You just called me out for something that was totally unjustified. I'm arguing that we should listen to the views of people who have tried it rather than pretend to be experts on how well it will run ourselves. If you're going to make poor points like that then don't get all social warrior on me when I call you out over it.

 

My friends with PS4's had bad experiences with Now, but I only used my concerns based around Netflix as I haven't tried it. Those friends aren't on this forum so I can't quote them, but I'll happily get some if it will make my opinion valid

 

Yeah and my friend's dog tried it and thought it was tantamount to its own testicles. I'm sure you'll forgive me for not taking your conveniently surfacing words over the people here who have tried it first hand.

[drahkon]

I have 154mbps broadband, and it is very reliable and seldom drops

 

whereas mine, due to being a higher speed, went to a higher bitrate which then dropped

 

I don't get it. It seldom drops but when you use Netflix it drops? Just to prove a point?

[Mr-Paul]

Maybe streaming is the future of gaming, but it's a long way off being viable on a worldwide scale - yes it may be good enough in the UK, USA and Japan, but the market is bigger than that.

When/if streaming becomes a viable option, surely all gaming would be through it, not just used for backwards compatibility. And when/if streaming is the solution, surely they still actually will need hardware on the other end to run retro games, so baking it into their systems now is a sensible option? For now, hardware based backwards compatibility provides the better service for the consumer, and probably easier and cheaper for Nintendo too, so for the foreseeable future, it probably won't change.