General Gaming 83% of gamers potentially interested in streaming services

[Pikachu]

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-06-14-83-percent-of-gamers-potentially-interested-in-games-streaming-services

 

Quote

A new study has found that a majority of gamers are interested in using streaming services like Stadia or Xbox's Project xCloud -- but some will be unable to use them.

 

The news comes from a study conducted by Broadband Genie and our sister site Eurogamer, which found 83% of 3,142 people were keen on playing games via streaming.

 

Of these Eurogamer readers, only 21% were "absolutely" interested, while another 17% would "probably" use such a service. A further 17% expressed no interest, leaving 45% potentially interested depending on a number of factors.

 

Looking into those factors, the most common (71%) was concern that performance or visual quality might be compromised by the reliance on a solid internet connection. 34% said they prefer a tangible product, while 26% doubted their broadband would be able to handle such a service.

 

Just shy of half the people surveyed reported they were on fibre optic connections, with a further 22% specifically on Virgin Media fibre. However, 20% of people were still on ADSL broadband, with a further 2% reliant on 4G.

 

Google has previously said players will be best served on Stadia with a 35 Mbps connection, which will deliver 4K streaming at 60 frames per second. The minimum requirement is 10 Mbps for 1080p resolution, with Google warning this will be scaled down to 720p on slower connections.

 

ADSL broadband averages at around 10 MBps, although they can often fall below this, depending on how many devices and users are using yur connection at the time. This means players would be unable to experience Stadia as its minimum setting unless they upgrade to fibre optic.

 

2,138 of the respondents also took part in a speed test, which shows the majority (71%) were running speeds of 35 Mbps or more. A further 12% reported speeds of 20 to 35 Mbps, putting them comfortably in the realm of 1080p streaming, while 10% were at the lower end of 10 to 20 Mbps.

Only 7% reported speeds lower than 10 Mbps, meaning they would be unable to experience Stadia smoothly.

 

Our North American editor Brendan Sinclair debated the availability of Stadia's required internet speeds earlier this week, including the drain on mobile data for streaming away from home.

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I guess I'm in the 17%.

[Hurdyb1]

Put me in that 17% that has no interest either.

[Keyser_Soze]

I'm interested, that doesn't mean I'm going to use it.

 

Could be cool to see like flawless RTX stuff streaming off of a super computer if your setup can't handle it.

 

[HGLatinBoy]

No real gamer would ever want to deal with that level of input lag. fuck that shit. I am the 17%!

 

[Bacon]

I am interested in seeing it fail. 

[Mercury33]

I have zero interest in it at all. 

[skillzdadirecta]

yeah I'm a 17%-er too.

[crispy4000]

9 hours ago, Pikachu said:

 

Just shy of half the people surveyed reported they were on fibre optic connections, with a further 22% specifically on Virgin Media fibre.

 

 

My bullshit sense is tingling.  Even in Europe, there's no way that half of gamers are on fiber optic connections.  Are they accessing Eurogamer from their work?

It sounds very much like unrepresentative sample audience.

[LazyPiranha]

Look, am I POTENTIALLY interested?  Sure.  If you could deliver a service where I can play certain games instantly with minimal input lag and I could play things on my phone or tablet, why the hell not?  I'm not going to use it to replace my current PC/Console setup, but if a service allowed me to have a local copy and also stream it to my phone or Switch when I'm not at home for a less awesome but still totally acceptable experience, what's the harm?

[Paperclyp]

It’s a weird metric to go after IMO. I’m interested  - as would be the vast majority in here, I’m betting - if I know 100 other things that put it in context. 

 

I imagine somewhere in the past the and survey could have been done about streaming video and the reactions would be similar. “I’m not interested in that chicanery!”

 

And now essentially everyone uses it without much of a thought.

[darkness35]

Quote

The news comes from a study conducted by Broadband Genie and our sister site Eurogamer

 

Yeah, I'm gonna have to need to see how this study was conducted. 

[SimpleG]

7 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

My bullshit sense is tingling.  Even in Europe, there's no way that half of gamers are on fiber optic connections.  Are they accessing Eurogamer from their work?

It sounds very much like unrepresentative sample audience.

A lot of Broadband providers in the EU have FTTC or Fiber To The Can, which is not a full fiber connection but they market it as a "Fiber" connection.

[XxEvil AshxX]

Right now, as i sit in a cabin with no tv (but excellent wifi), i am 100% interested.

 

Wont give a shit once i get home though.

[Xbob42]

I'm very interested!

But mostly in the tech improving and improving. Streaming CAN get to the point where it's essentially indiscernible from playing at home. At least for you fucks who have been going on and on for years about how you can't tell the difference between 8 and 740 FPS, and massive resolution drops don't bother you, and all that shit. If none of that bothers you, nothing about streaming will, either! I just hope it continues to improve beyond the people-who-have-no-standards phase.

[Biggie]

On 6/14/2019 at 7:59 PM, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I guess I'm in the 17%.

 

On 6/15/2019 at 1:51 AM, Hurdyb1 said:

Put me in that 17% that has no interest either.

 

On 6/15/2019 at 2:31 AM, HGLatinBoy said:

No real gamer would ever want to deal with that level of input lag. fuck that shit. I am the 17%!

 

 

On 6/15/2019 at 2:33 AM, Bacon said:

I am interested in seeing it fail. 

 

On 6/15/2019 at 4:09 AM, Mercury33 said:

I have zero interest in it at all. 

 

On 6/15/2019 at 4:12 AM, skillzdadirecta said:

yeah I'm a 17%-er too.

 

23 hours ago, Man of Culture said:

83% of gamers are retarded. This is a well known fact.

THIS ^^^^^^^^

[EternallDarkness]

less than zero interest

[Dre801]

Zero interest and the day this becomes the main way to play games, that's the day step away from gaming.

[ByWatterson]

This sounds like a self-selected survey, and not a random sample. 

[Paperclyp]

58 minutes ago, Dre801 said:

Zero interest and the day this becomes the main way to play games, that's the day step away from gaming.

Quoted for later. 

[Keyser_Soze]

27 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Quoted for later. 

 

The day this becomes the main way to play games is going to be way after the d1p reboot 2.0.

[Firewithin]

17% are on the right side of history

[Dodger]

I’m “potentially interested” in a lot of things. Put it like that sure I’m part of the 83%. Most interested in just being able to stream to a second tv in the house from one box.

[gamer.tv]

I’d be in for it, but not for big budget games that most (not yet I) are looking to play in 4K. Give me a selection of smaller, indie games however that usually cost £5-15 on a streaming basis, I could be keen.

[JosephManderley]

I would be interested if I had a super-amazing internet connection, but I don’t...  

[Brian]

Got the Stadia’s Founder Edition preordered. 

[Dexterryu]

People preferred DVDs and disks for TV and movies until Netflix streaming took over. The same will happen with games. In several years when practically the whole globe will be covered in low orbit high speed/low latency satellite internet much of the lag, bandwidth, and availability will be solved. 

 

I love putting together my own top end PC rig but just streaming whatever I want, whenever I want and always playing at max settings is going to be damn nice. No patching, no compatibility, no closed networks or exclusives. Just subscribe to the games/devs etc... that you want and you can play. All of these are good things.

[legend]

Oh I'm "interested." I'm just deeply skeptical it will work well enough.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Dexterryu said:

People preferred DVDs and disks for TV and movies until Netflix streaming took over. The same will happen with games.

 

It's not quite the same. People were were resistant to change when it came to video streaming and people were also unsure how they felt a bout a business model in which they didn't own anything. 

 

In this case, the issue isn't resistance to change or concerns about the business model. People are excited by the prospect as evidenced by this very poll! It's concerns about whether the technology is up to the task of the dream they're selling.

 

Quote

In several years when practically the whole globe will be covered in low orbit high speed/low latency satellite internet much of the lag, bandwidth, and availability will be solved. 

 

Satellite is high latency; it's not a good solution to this problem. The best bet is many more distributed data centers. One in every city might be good enough.

 

Quote

I love putting together my own top end PC rig but just streaming whatever I want, whenever I want and always playing at max settings is going to be damn nice. No patching, no compatibility, no closed networks or exclusives. Just subscribe to the games/devs etc... that you want and you can play. All of these are good things.

 

I agree! The dream of game streaming sounds pretty awesome to me if they can get it to work well.

[DarkStar189]

I have gigabit internet so of course I'm going to try it. 

[Slug]

I'm interested if it works well.  I have a nice PC gaming rig setup at home.  But if I can also play competent versions of my PC games with little to no input lag on my Chromebook or something when I'm away from home?  I'll do that.  I'd probably never do anything competitive on such a service, but I have plenty of adventure and RPG games I'm working through in my PC library that I'd be happy to play lower fidelity versions of on the road.

[AbsolutSurgen]

What is the use case that this works well with (today)?

1)  On the go with cellular -- Nope most people's data caps make this difficult

2)  Avid gamers -- Only if you have an unlimited data cap, and you're also likely to want to enjoy the benefits of locally rendered games

3) Casual gamers who play less than 20 hours per month --- absolutely.  Lower investment costs, and gaming should easily fit in data caps.

 

I don't really see using stadia as "one of my platforms" -- if I have hardware that works better, I have very little incentive to use streaming.

[Brian]

Google really needed a Game Pass equivalent built into their Premium beyond one game a month. I am interested enough in the technology to jump in and test it out but I doubt it will become my platform of choice. 

 

 

[TwinIon]

I'm certainly interested in streaming games, even if I'm unlikely to use Stadia or similar products anytime soon.

 

The thing that interests me most about streaming is the portability of the experience, even just in my own home. I've got a decent home theater setup where I can watch movies from 4K Blu Rays, but I still watch Netflix in the kitchen or in my office, or stream a football game to my iPad if I'm only half paying attention to it. I like having that flexibility to watch almost everything everywhere, even if I have a "premium" experience available to me. That's what I want from game streaming. I want to be able to play a couple missions downstairs while my wife has friends over to watch Drag Race.

 

From what it sounds like, Xbox local streaming might be all I need for that kind of thing, but if games ever had a "digital copy" model like movies do, I'd use it from time to time. I imagine the best experience will be locally rendered for some time, but if the overall experience can improve and I can get that ability to play anywhere, I'll be interested.

[AbsolutSurgen]

16 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I'm certainly interested in streaming games, even if I'm unlikely to use Stadia or similar products anytime soon.

 

The thing that interests me most about streaming is the portability of the experience, even just in my own home. I've got a decent home theater setup where I can watch movies from 4K Blu Rays, but I still watch Netflix in the kitchen or in my office, or stream a football game to my iPad if I'm only half paying attention to it. I like having that flexibility to watch almost everything everywhere, even if I have a "premium" experience available to me. That's what I want from game streaming. I want to be able to play a couple missions downstairs while my wife has friends over to watch Drag Race.

 

From what it sounds like, Xbox local streaming might be all I need for that kind of thing, but if games ever had a "digital copy" model like movies do, I'd use it from time to time. I imagine the best experience will be locally rendered for some time, but if the overall experience can improve and I can get that ability to play anywhere, I'll be interested.

We've been able to do that with PS Remote Play and Steamlink for years. 

[Dexterryu]

4 hours ago, legend said:

Oh I'm "interested." I'm just deeply skeptical it will work well enough.

 

 

 

 

It's not quite the same. People were were resistant to change when it came to video streaming and people were also unsure how they felt a bout a business model in which they didn't own anything. 

 

In this case, the issue isn't resistance to change or concerns about the business model. People are excited by the prospect as evidenced by this very poll! It's concerns about whether the technology is up to the task of the dream they're selling.

 

 

Satellite is high latency; it's not a good solution to this problem. The best bet is many more distributed data centers. One in every city might be good enough.

 

 

I agree! The dream of game streaming sounds pretty awesome to me if they can get it to work well.

I don't think you're looking at all the facts and technology progress. For instance, I agree with the sentiment of people owning something but also early on it was the same... people wanted "dvd" quality at the time and didn't think streaming could deliver it. As we all know a little time and technology progress and now it far exceeds it. Now most people prefer it. The same will likely be true of game streaming. Physical media for films (non-compressed 4k blu ray) is still the best, but for most people streaming 4k60hz content off of youtube is damn near indistinguishable.

 

As for satelites, you're a little off the mark here. Current satellite technology does in fact introduce a lot of lag. That's because of the distance of the satellite orbit (very high) and the fact that your backhaul is back down and across wires. The Starlink and OneWeb satelites are going to be much lower orbit and use laser connections between them as their backbone/backhaul. This is actually testing out to be faster than fiber: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/spacex-low-latency-starlink-satellite-network-will-be-massively-profitable.html

 

With the majority of hosting moving to massive AWS / Azure / GCP datacenters scattered across the world latency is going to drop significantly due to the combination of data gravity (data being on extremely fast SSD arrays near directly attached to storage) and laser based satellite backbones. The stuff that clouds can deliver are already outperforming almost anything you can build in a datacenter. It only gets faster once you move client processing (aka streaming) to be hosted along with the server processing.