Ah, they didn't invent it.....They bought a company that did. Along with onlive.

"Ah, they didn't invent it"

False. remote play was working early in PS3's life. Long before OnLive.

Well said.

Bullseye

On that note, where is the Verge article on how wise and pro-consumer is MS for avoiding Xbox VR since its not ready yet?

Exactly, they offered a service that was in addition to, and not a replacement of physical media. It's an option, another choice rather than the 'only' option

totally agree! and not because I'm a PS fanboy or anything but if we're talking about the "Netflix of gaming", no other service comes close to PS Now. and just like Netflix, it's totally optional and I applaud Sony for not forcing it down its consumers' throat every chance they got!

I hope PS Now will remain as an option for the foreseeable future because I still want to have great contents that I can buy and enjoy even when I don't have internet. this digital focus future is too fragile and volatile and is all up to the provider's discretion. giving publishers and devs too much power over what we play and things we we already paid for is a dangerous gamble. I can already get games dirt cheap on Steam or the used market. there's definitely no need to go lower.

There are countless gamers share this sentiment.

A for effort though.

Red

So basically, streaming is rubbish now. Improvements may upgrade it to just bad. That easier for you?

@Rice

Oh, well that explains everything.

@Gangsta

No I didn't say the improvements will be bad. Improvements are always a good thing if you didn't know that.

But what he's saying is that even with improvements it can still be bad. Less bad but still bad.

It really isn't that difficult to understand.

How many of you have even played a streaming service? Xcloud runs on a phone only. I got in the free preview, but what gives. It is the exact same as PSNow. We were streaming games for years now. XCloud is not any better - and so far it has no PC version. Stadia? Same thing. Not any better the PSNow. Whatever fancy candy paper those companies try to wrap it in. XCloud runs off a souped up XBox One (!) - not even the X version. So how is this supposed to be any better than the original XBox One - which is simply the tail end of the ladder. Sony streams 720p, but renders full 1080p - and thus still has better fidelity than just running at 720p (for PS4 games). I am pretty sure those PS Now blades will see some upgrades down the road. Google is plain stupid - by connecting the controller directly to WiFi you simply can never remove WiFi latency - where if you'd have a high speed controller to a wired physical device, you pretty much have the lowest lag.
The idea that those games will run on phones is BS. Console games are not designed for that small screen. Beating a dead horse here. Not sure why MS and Google just didn't get the memo. Streaming in the house to some other device might be nice, or when traveling (from the hotel). But streaming from a cell phone will not happen. Nintendo is laughing to the bank every day about this...

@Master
"No I didn't say the improvements will be bad."

LMFAO...So with the improvements that won't be bad...what will still be bad...IN WHAT WAY?

I seriously can't believe I have to reiterate that.

Maybe if you could explain what would be bad (even when I said it could be improved for the better) it would help instead of constantly echoing vague, hatred for a service that hasn't even taken off yet.

@gangsta

"LMFAO...So with the improvements that won't be bad...what will still be bad...IN WHAT WAY?"

Input lag will still be worse than consoles. Stadia has already proven that. Plus PSNow is being updated to 1080P in the future which can be bad on a 4K televisión. There's also compression that will affect the IQ which is a bad thing.

* hatred for a service that hasn't even taken off yet."

PSNow has been in the market for a while and it doesn't have millions of subscribers like GamePass does because it's a bad service. If your talking about Google Stadia the reason why not many are invested in it is because there's alot of problems with the service. There's plenty of reviews that I submitted that points out the flaws and why the service isn't popular yet. If they don't do what's right with it, it will never take off and will be another one of Google's failed products.

Things could be better in the future but at the moment it's pretty bad and that's why many are staying away from it.

Also it isn't hate. It's called being logical. People who hate on things constantly get put on restrictions here. That didn't happen to me because I'm not trolling with my opinions. Which is why my criticisms against streaming services can't be attributed to hate.

@MasterCornholio

"Things could be better in the future but at the moment it's pretty bad and that's why many are staying away from it."

I even said in my original comment that streaming isn't where it should be to take off but later with improvements it could get better. And all I heard was no, no, no with no explanation and now you're telling me is what is being experienced right now, which wasn't the point.

"That didn't happen to me because I'm not trolling with my opinions."

No where did I accuse you of trolling and hating something doesn't automatically mean your trolling or constitutes a marking. You're hating streaming because of where it's at right now but not recognizing that like all things with technology can improve and become better. The same thing with VR, which I find interesting, how people say to wait for that to improve to gain traction with the masses but can't do the same for streaming.

@gangsta

" not recognizing that like all things with technology can improve and become better. "

Everything has it's limits. Streaming can be improved but it will never be as good as gaming natively on a console/PC.

Some people want to believe science fiction and I really want some of that stuff to be true. But the truth is that some stuff just isn't possible.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could just bend space and travel to the other side of the universe?

What’s wrong with Astrobot https://www.metacritic.com/... ? I don’t have PSVR but if I did that’d be the first thing I’d buy after the Spider-man/Batman/Iron Man apps.

Already have Until Dawn: Rush of Blood free from PS+ and some VR modes to try in Concrete Genie, RotTR and Intruders. After that I’d consider Inpatient, Farpoint. Blood & Truth.

@shadow

"So, Sony's first party Japan Studios didn't make Astrobot or Everybody's Golf?"

No Killzone, Uncharted, TLoU, GoW...you know a game from Sony's first party that would actually make people excited to want to get VR.

"Who are you to decide which first party developers make what?"

Where did I say I had to decide what they made? But I am the consumer who's not convinced that VR is worth getting and with Sony's own lack of compelling titles for it and you're own small list of titles that consist of only one that was praised I think that makes for a good decision to not focus on VR.

"Sony didn't push streaming because it didn't need to be forced."

Wrong, Sony didn't push it because it wasn't completely ready for prime time. But now as I keep saying Jim Ryan himself says they're going to push it hard next gen. This is why we're seeing MS, Google, Verizon and others all entering the market now.

I know you and others like to think Sony had your best interest in mind by "not pushing streaming" but that's not true. As I said way before, they purchased Gaikai and On Live as the foundation of what's coming.

@Mastercorn

"Maybe in fantasy land but not in reality."

Yeah, I remember saying the same thing back when online gaming was becoming a thing and playing Dreamcast on a 56k, I also remember struggling to play Pac-Man on a cell phone when colored screens first came out.

All that also said Fantasy Land! No way could any of that be improved and take off with the way tech is constantly improving.

**even if none of their own first party studios put out anything noteworthy for their own system**

That's what you said. And I named two first party studios that made quality titles for VR. And both were well received and Astrobot was nominated for a 2019 Bafta award but lost against GOW obviously. It did win best game in the children's category
https://www.bafta.org/games...
https://nerdy.games/astro-b...
But won here too
https://www.google.com/amp/...

And Blood and Truth was nominated for VR game of the year against 12 other games but lost to A Fisherman's Tale.
https://www.google.com/amp/...
It did win a heritage award at Tiga and was the first VR game to hit #1 in UK retail
https://www.google.com/amp/...

But you said "anything noteworthy." Obviously there was being they were nominated.

You were wrong about first party and about noteworthy. And I did it with two titles without looking for more proof. Sure, it would be nice that all their first party studios supported the headset. But Sony's doing fine on both ends of AAA and VR compared to their lack of competition.

@Gangsta

It will never be as good as playing a game natively on a console/PC.

You just have to accept that science can't fix everything. Some things just are not possible. Like expecting Stadia to work just as well on a plane as a Switch does. Oh and I submitted an article on that just a short while ago.