Amazon's Luna cloud gaming platform coming to iPhone, iPad, Mac
At Amazon's release event on Thursday afternoon, the company announced the Luna cloud gaming platform, which the company promises will arrive at launch on the Mac, iPhone, and iPad.
Titles for Amazon's Luna cloud gaming service
Amazon says that the service will be browser-based, utilizing web apps for streaming. It also appears to be roughly the same technology base that Microsoft's Xcloud streaming service uses, utilizing H.265 streams to a user's device, and returning only user inputs.
Subscribers will be allowed to play Luna games on two devices simultaneously. Resolution will ultimately be 4K at 60 frames per second on what Amazon calls "select titles." All games at launch, and most games afterward will stream at 1080p at 60 frames per second.
More than 100 games will be available at launch, and the company has also announced a partnership with a dedicated Ubisoft gaming channel. Amazon and Ubisoft say that the channel will "will have access to their favorite Ubisoft titles in up to 4K resolution, mobile gameplay, and access to new titles" at launch. It isn't yet clear if the Ubisoft channel will cost extra.
Twitch integration will be included with the service.
On the Mac, the system can be played with the $49.99 Luna Controller. The Alexa-enabled controller connects directly to the cloud through a user's Wi-Fi, according to Amazon. Amazon claims that this cuts input lag by between 17 milliseconds to 30 milliseconds on the PC, Fire TV, and Mac. It isn't clear if the controller with work with iOS or iPadOS at this time.
At launch, the Luna service will cost users $5.99. Pricing after full rollout isn't presently available. US users can request early access starting on Thursday.
Mac users must be on macOS 10.13 or greater. Users the iPhone or iPad must be running iOS 14 or iPadOS 14.
The main difference between Microsoft's Xcloud and Luna is the delivery to the device. Microsoft's platform relies on an app, where Luna is streaming to a browser. Apple has recently delivered guidance on streaming gaming platforms, and Amazon's Luna is well within the allowed platforms, given the browser-centric nature of the service.
Titles for Amazon's Luna cloud gaming service
Amazon says that the service will be browser-based, utilizing web apps for streaming. It also appears to be roughly the same technology base that Microsoft's Xcloud streaming service uses, utilizing H.265 streams to a user's device, and returning only user inputs.
Subscribers will be allowed to play Luna games on two devices simultaneously. Resolution will ultimately be 4K at 60 frames per second on what Amazon calls "select titles." All games at launch, and most games afterward will stream at 1080p at 60 frames per second.
More than 100 games will be available at launch, and the company has also announced a partnership with a dedicated Ubisoft gaming channel. Amazon and Ubisoft say that the channel will "will have access to their favorite Ubisoft titles in up to 4K resolution, mobile gameplay, and access to new titles" at launch. It isn't yet clear if the Ubisoft channel will cost extra.
Twitch integration will be included with the service.
On the Mac, the system can be played with the $49.99 Luna Controller. The Alexa-enabled controller connects directly to the cloud through a user's Wi-Fi, according to Amazon. Amazon claims that this cuts input lag by between 17 milliseconds to 30 milliseconds on the PC, Fire TV, and Mac. It isn't clear if the controller with work with iOS or iPadOS at this time.
At launch, the Luna service will cost users $5.99. Pricing after full rollout isn't presently available. US users can request early access starting on Thursday.
Mac users must be on macOS 10.13 or greater. Users the iPhone or iPad must be running iOS 14 or iPadOS 14.
The main difference between Microsoft's Xcloud and Luna is the delivery to the device. Microsoft's platform relies on an app, where Luna is streaming to a browser. Apple has recently delivered guidance on streaming gaming platforms, and Amazon's Luna is well within the allowed platforms, given the browser-centric nature of the service.
Comments
I think if Epic and MS want to win the battle with Apple, they need to push for more advances in HTML (if it's not already adequate) to allow more features for online gaming.
Phase 1: streaming only to apps. This is likely because of the 720p limitation as it looks a lot better on small screens. This is why larger screen devices like TVs and PCs are not supported. Just phones and tablets.
Phase 2: streaming to Windows PCs using the XBox GamePass Windows PC app. It will probably still be limited to 1080p at this stage as - with all due respect to the 4K gaming rigs with $1000 Nvidia and AMD graphics cards - that is what nearly all laptops and monitors support. Microsoft has stated that this will happen in early 2021.
Phase 3: streaming to the browser. It is at this point that enough blades will be deployed to provide 4K streaming on large screens as well as support for browsers on heterogenous platforms (Microsoft recently released Edge browsers for Linux for example). This means XBox and Android TV devices that support 4K on large screens. It will also mean web apps for Safari.
Microsoft has publicized this road map of theirs several times. They really did want to bring xCloud to iOS via the app. But they don't have a PWA for this yet. Amazon is taking an entirely different strategy.
1. They are supporting PWAs and browsers during the beta stage.
2. They are providing 4K during the beta stage.
3. They aren't going to support Android apps - including on their own Kindle Fire tablets - until later.
4. They WILL support it on Fire TV devices during the beta stage.
I am a PWA-first guy so naturally I like Amazon's implementation better from a technology standpoint. I like their lineup of games more too. I signed up for xCloud (it was only $1 for the first month) but I am going to ditch it for Amazon's soon. I have an old Fire TV device and can use that.
1) Microsoft has consistently stated that they have no problem paying the 30% fee
2) Microsoft has consistently stated that the 30% fee is not an issue with xCloud
3) Microsoft has tons of apps (Office 365 hello?) that already comply with Apple's payment policies and has never complained about them
4) Microsoft has not sued Apple or joined any antitrust actions against them or testified against them in Congress
5) Microsoft has already all but stated that they will bring their own PWA solution for xCloud to iOS next year
6) Microsoft's not willing to support a PWA at this time on iOS is no different from that of Google or Nvidia
7) Amazon's supporting a PWA solution for iOS will force Google, Microsoft and Nvidia to come out with their own PWA solutions earlier than they intended. (Well not so much for Microsoft as they have technical limitations forcing them to focus only on mobile apps at this stage. Google and Nvidia already support browsers on other platforms so they have no good reason not to support PWAs on iOS).
Stop throwing everyone who doesn't say how high when Apple says jump into Epic's category. Epic is the only one pulling this nonsense, and lest we forget they are suing Google too and also pulled similar PR tactic nonsense against Steam back in the day. They are an unusual case and should be treated that way.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/11/microsoft-says-loosened-app-store-gaming-rules-still-make-for-a-bad-experience <--
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/07/microsoft-fires-back-at-apple-accusing-it-of-treating-gaming-apps-differently <--
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-president-brad-smith-its-time-for-apples-app-store-model-to-be-probed/ <--
Please notice that Microsoft DOES object to the 30% fee, contrary to your claims, as shown in my third link. I stopped reading your post after realizing that your #1 claim was wrong. But I always appreciate when people try to provide arguments against me. I'm right only 80% of the time.
Microsoft's president recently said, "I do believe the time has come, whether we're talking about Washington, DC, or Brussels, for a much more focused conversation about the nature of app stores, the rules that are being put in place, the prices and the tolls that are being extracted and whether there is really a justification in antitrust law for everything that has been created." That means Microsoft's president wants government regulators to completely tear apart the rules of the App Store using antitrust laws. So, yes, I do group Microsoft in the same kettle as Epic.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/21/microsoft-remains-committed-to-bringing-xbox-game-pass-to-iphone
MS, as many other developers, may not agree with the Apple fee, but they still respect the rules and keep publishing their apps in the App Store . I agree with @cloudguy , I'm not seeing MS battling Apple as you said, specially when compared to Epic and other developers.
The head of Luna engineering at Amazon said Apple and Amazon worked together on Safari improvements (as reported per Engadget in https://www.engadget.com/luna-amazon-cloud-gaming-interview-pwa-apple-173948922.html). So to any posts asking whether Apple or Amazon knew this was coming the answer looks to be a plain yes.
The article also states Epic attempted something similar to circumvent the Google Play store, but eventually they had to cave in to Google Play to get some traction on Android. The article goes on stating that both Epic and Microsoft are aware of PWA approach. For the time being it does not appear to be a viable solution for them. The article also goes on stating an example where Luna seems to be exempt of a rule which Epic and Microsoft would be held to, with Microsoft affirming that it was a bad user experience. But if there is indeed favorable treatment then certainly it is no surprise that fairness is brought into question. In fact even Amazon rep stated they'd love to have a native experience in the longer term.
Interestingly, I'm not seeing the usual stance that development and support work doesn't come for free. It appears that in some cases Apple is willing to do some work without a perpetual percentage of the overall revenue. Engineering-wise this effort seems to me more effort than merely hosting something on the app store. Without speculating, one can still wonder why that is the case.
So many unanswered questions. I need more info to form an opinion.
The head of Luna engineering at Amazon said Apple and Amazon worked together on Safari improvements (as reported per Engadget in https://www.engadget.com/luna-amazon-cloud-gaming-interview-pwa-apple-173948922.html). So to any posts asking whether Apple or Amazon knew this was coming the answer looks to be a plain yes.
The article also states Epic attempted something similar to circumvent the Google Play store, but eventually they had to cave in to Google Play to get some traction on Android. The article goes on stating that both Epic and Microsoft are aware of PWA approach in iOS. To my understanding of the text: it does not appear to be a viable solution for them. The article also goes on stating an example where Luna seems to be exempt of a rule for which Epic and Microsoft would be held to, with Microsoft also affirming that it was a bad user experience. If there is indeed favorable treatment then certainly it is no surprise that fairness is brought into question. But even Amazon rep stated they'd love to have a native experience in the longer term.
Interestingly, I'm not seeing the usual stance that Apple development and support work doesn't come for free. It appears that in some cases Apple is willing to do some work without a perpetual percentage of the overall revenue. Engineering-wise this effort seems to me more effort than merely hosting something on the app store. Without speculating too much, I am left wondering why that is the case.
With so many unanswered questions, there is definitely more to learn before forming a strong opinion.
However I will say this one thing against Apple: Apple could score a lot of political points by allowing users to replace iOS with Android. Apple doesn't object to users replacing macOS with Linux (and instructions for doing so are on discussions.apple.com). There would be some issues because neither Linux not Android use the Secure Enclave or the T2 chip, but those are minor technical issues.
Being able to access all those iOS devices through PWAs and bypass the App Store completely destroys that theory.
I don't believe Apple should sabotage their own inventions over something so dumb.