• 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do we need gaming?

      It’s not a need thing, it’s just more options for people that want it.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Options are great, but generally speaking companies tend to sunset options that are less profitable, regardless if it provides a better experience.

        Case in point, once movie and TV streaming got popular, selling that content in physical or even digital form died off but it didn’t die completely. Plenty of people still like to own the media they pay for, plenty of people still like physical media collections that can never, ever be taken away when a server gets shut down. Having that option is great, too.

        But it’s a less profitable option. So, to spite what some want, certain content is just streaming only now, while the prices rise. And that’s the new world we allowed ourselves to be shepherded into. While we were blinded by convenience, they discreetly shut the door behind us, and now there’s no going back (without piracy).

        So yes, game streaming itself is a great option to have for many. That’s not the problem.

        The trajectory is the problem.

        It’s also worth pointing out any direction that furthers our dependence on the ISPs not being awful is asking for trouble. For example, remember when Charter was allowed to acquire Time Warner Cable and become Spectrum? They promised regulators they would not impose bandwidth caps for 7 years, and as of today it’s been 7 years and 30, days.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Going from dumb terminals to beefy individual networked computers and back a few times was a thing for a while and eventually it has settled into a use case specific balance because it is a balance between costs of centralizing the computing, networking, and people managing both. Throw networking connection issues for many locations and it is clear that everything cloud doesn’t work for everything.

        Centralized gaming has already shown the same complexities and can never be fully put into the cloud even if that will work for a large portion of games and uses.

      • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        10 years from now, at an Applzonooglsoft Developers Conference: the new cloud… is YOU!

        crowd gasps and then immediately is turned into fluffy little floating data center server racks

        You: I FORETOLD THIS DAY!

    • Voltage808s@kerala.party
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you only use beefy computers for gaming the subscription seems very reasonable actually.

      You pay for the internet anyway. Geforce now monthly sub costing 9$ a month it will take 16 years for you to spend a total of 1800$ the price of a good gaming computer. It is enough years for tech to improve significantly that the computer if you had brought it would have been obsolete by then