I am not sure if I wanted to pay $129 + monthly subs to play those titles on my Mac. I have already had most of the games listed and use bootcamp to play them in Windows without subs or additional hardware.
I agree, Playing games in Windows is just superior in my opinion. I have the same games on both Xbox and Windows and I always prefer to play in Windows. Not only is the keyboard/mouse combination better than the Xbox controller, but I can adjust then resolution to provide the best experience for my hardware. Many of my games play well in 4K. Furthermore, I don't have the have an Xbox live subscription to play online with friends.
What I find most interesting with this is the ramifications of being able to stream cloud-based, high end, 4k games on other aspects of networked, cloud computing.
Specifically: If it is possible to do something like this effectively (and apparently it is), then Google's Chromebooks can take on new levels of capability. So, why would schools and businesses purchase expensive laptops when they can get just as much or more from far cheaper Chromebooks?
I can hear the cries of "Chromebooks are crap" -- and I tend to agree. But, organizations likes schools and businesses care only about functionality and price. If they can get the same or better functionality for a lower price you better bet they will go for it.
This kind of streaming has been done for a few years. It used to be possible to run Windows on an iPad:
According to the CEO of OnLive, Apple was testing linking the Apple TV up to this service before cancelling it. Sony bought the major services to use for Playstation Now, which lets you stream Playstation games and can be used on PC:
All of these platforms have a similar setup in that they give you access to the games but you usually have to pay for the good games on top because they are made by 3rd parties and they don't always get access to DLC content. You also never own the games, you just rent access to the game. If the company goes down, the games are gone. The prices are rarely discounted with online services too.
The service was great for game demos because you just clicked a button and started testing a game. You could also watch other people playing and have others watch you with a click of a button. The stream is generated in the cloud so it's easy to send to multiple places. Youtube hosts a lot of game streaming so Stadia is an easy way to link everything up. The gamer can play on the platform and people can instantly watch the footage without a complex setup on the part of the user.
Streaming is good to have as an option, it can supplement other setups. Apple TV would have been much more popular for games if it had streaming of AAA games.
What I find most interesting with this is the ramifications of being able to stream cloud-based, high end, 4k games on other aspects of networked, cloud computing.
Specifically: If it is possible to do something like this effectively (and apparently it is), then Google's Chromebooks can take on new levels of capability. So, why would schools and businesses purchase expensive laptops when they can get just as much or more from far cheaper Chromebooks?
I can hear the cries of "Chromebooks are crap" -- and I tend to agree. But, organizations likes schools and businesses care only about functionality and price. If they can get the same or better functionality for a lower price you better bet they will go for it.
This kind of streaming has been done for a few years. It used to be possible to run Windows on an iPad:
According to the CEO of OnLive, Apple was testing linking the Apple TV up to this service before cancelling it. Sony bought the major services to use for Playstation Now, which lets you stream Playstation games and can be used on PC:
All of these platforms have a similar setup in that they give you access to the games but you usually have to pay for the good games on top because they are made by 3rd parties and they don't always get access to DLC content. You also never own the games, you just rent access to the game. If the company goes down, the games are gone. The prices are rarely discounted with online services too.
The service was great for game demos because you just clicked a button and started testing a game. You could also watch other people playing and have others watch you with a click of a button. The stream is generated in the cloud so it's easy to send to multiple places. Youtube hosts a lot of game streaming so Stadia is an easy way to link everything up. The gamer can play on the platform and people can instantly watch the footage without a complex setup on the part of the user.
Streaming is good to have as an option, it can supplement other setups. Apple TV would have been much more popular for games if it had streaming of AAA games.
What I find most interesting with this is the ramifications of being able to stream cloud-based, high end, 4k games on other aspects of networked, cloud computing.
Specifically: If it is possible to do something like this effectively (and apparently it is), then Google's Chromebooks can take on new levels of capability. So, why would schools and businesses purchase expensive laptops when they can get just as much or more from far cheaper Chromebooks?
I can hear the cries of "Chromebooks are crap" -- and I tend to agree. But, organizations likes schools and businesses care only about functionality and price. If they can get the same or better functionality for a lower price you better bet they will go for it.
This kind of streaming has been done for a few years. It used to be possible to run Windows on an iPad:
According to the CEO of OnLive, Apple was testing linking the Apple TV up to this service before cancelling it. Sony bought the major services to use for Playstation Now, which lets you stream Playstation games and can be used on PC:
All of these platforms have a similar setup in that they give you access to the games but you usually have to pay for the good games on top because they are made by 3rd parties and they don't always get access to DLC content. You also never own the games, you just rent access to the game. If the company goes down, the games are gone. The prices are rarely discounted with online services too.
The service was great for game demos because you just clicked a button and started testing a game. You could also watch other people playing and have others watch you with a click of a button. The stream is generated in the cloud so it's easy to send to multiple places. Youtube hosts a lot of game streaming so Stadia is an easy way to link everything up. The gamer can play on the platform and people can instantly watch the footage without a complex setup on the part of the user.
Streaming is good to have as an option, it can supplement other setups. Apple TV would have been much more popular for games if it had streaming of AAA games.
Geez! It just goes to show that so much of computing is dependent on communications rather than the CPU's and other related hardware that we usually focus on....
Comments
https://www.gamecrate.com/former-onlive-ceo-steve-perlman-explains-what-really-happened-cloud-gaming-company/22166
According to the CEO of OnLive, Apple was testing linking the Apple TV up to this service before cancelling it. Sony bought the major services to use for Playstation Now, which lets you stream Playstation games and can be used on PC:
https://www.cnet.com/news/sony-buys-onlive-streaming-game-service-which-will-shut-down-later-this-month/
https://www.engadget.com/2012/07/02/sony-buys-gaikai
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/playstation-now/
All of these platforms have a similar setup in that they give you access to the games but you usually have to pay for the good games on top because they are made by 3rd parties and they don't always get access to DLC content. You also never own the games, you just rent access to the game. If the company goes down, the games are gone. The prices are rarely discounted with online services too.
https://kotaku.com/playstation-now-prices-are-currently-insane-1594025919
The service was great for game demos because you just clicked a button and started testing a game. You could also watch other people playing and have others watch you with a click of a button. The stream is generated in the cloud so it's easy to send to multiple places. Youtube hosts a lot of game streaming so Stadia is an easy way to link everything up. The gamer can play on the platform and people can instantly watch the footage without a complex setup on the part of the user.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/05/29/why-google-killed-youtube-gaming-its-rival-twitch.aspx
Streaming is good to have as an option, it can supplement other setups. Apple TV would have been much more popular for games if it had streaming of AAA games.
I thought OnLive was still around??!!