Jump to content
~*Please Support the GoFundMe Campaign for HardAct*~ Read more... ×

mikechorney

Members
  • Content Count

    6,393
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

mikechorney last won the day on June 25 2018

mikechorney had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

468 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

505 profile views
  1. Google stream requires at 20+ megabit internet connection -- which is faster than the average connection in the U.S. (and will use up most people's entire 1TB data cap in less than 100 hours of gaming). High speed internet penetration isn't particularly good, particularly among cost conscious gamers. And how much are people willing to pay extra for the streaming service (the service itself, not the content) -- you have to think they'll be a premium that would make it somewhat worthwhile for gamers to having the rendering done client side with the penalty of a 1-time hardware purchase.
  2. Sony has had a game streaming service for years. However, after experiencing the Google Stream. It's clearly NOT ready to replace a traditional console. The bandwidth requirements/introduced lag/lower fidelity may make sense for some users, but it won't be ubiquitous in the next few years.
  3. If game streaming becomes a real thing -- the software publishers don't need anyone else. EA/Ubi/Acti-Lizzar/Epic/anyone else can set up a streaming service and a unique client on your phone/tablet/$25 streaming box. The publishers want to get out of the royalty game, and get 100% of the revenue for themselves.
  4. That probably doesn't drive much incremental revenue. Most would have paid for the service just to play on Xbox -- the PC game selection on Game Pass is VERY limited. I can't imagine anyone would pay the $$$ to play just on PC.
  5. They have not demonstrated any ability to derive cross-platform revenue from games.
  6. They still have a long way to go to demonstrate that being hardware agnostic is a "financial winner" -- I haven't purchased a single PC game from the MS store that wasn't published by MS. They are getting $0 of my cross-platform spending ATM.
  7. I have to admit, that your feelings echo my own concerns. I had hoped that BioWare Edmonton's trademark storytelling would get into the game -- but it appears that it largely hasn't. But you're pretty brave posting in this thread. The Anthem defence force isn't open to anything but glowing praise about Anthem.
  8. As of Monday, my save wasn't there. I will see if it's there later today.
  9. I took advantage as well, and decided to buy the game because I didn't want my save locked behind an impassable wall. They later came out and promised people would be able to keep playing their saves -- which they haven't been able to deliver. And they promised an "update next week" -- not a solution in the next week. If you're playing a single player game, locking you out of your save for more than a few days really sucks. If they weren't going to take a long time to free up your save -- they shouldn't have promised to let you have it.
  10. I bought the game already... Having it unavailable for months doesn't really do anyone much good. Particularly, if they were actively playing the game. I can say that playing locally was noticeably better than streaming -- controller lag, framerate, image quality and stereo sound.
×