It's not really a new idea, but it's the gist of an article at
TomsGuides.* With prices of hardware skyrocketing --RAM is currently
getting the biggest hikes, but GPUs, HDDs, SSDs and CPUs are all
getting really expensive too-- maybe the 'solution' is just to cut out
the 'middle-man' and run everything on cheap, local processors that
stream game-data from servers on the cloud. After all, even with a
ten-year old processor and GPU with minimal RAM, you can get HD
visuals if the server on the other side is powerful enough. So why
spend $1500USD or more on a 'gaming PC' when a $200 Chromebook can get
you virtually the same results?
On 1/19/2026 6:08 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Bandwidth.
It's not really a new idea, but it's the gist of an article at
TomsGuides.* With prices of hardware skyrocketing --RAM is currently
getting the biggest hikes, but GPUs, HDDs, SSDs and CPUs are all
getting really expensive too-- maybe the 'solution' is just to cut out
the 'middle-man' and run everything on cheap, local processors that
stream game-data from servers on the cloud. After all, even with a
ten-year old processor and GPU with minimal RAM, you can get HD
visuals if the server on the other side is powerful enough. So why
spend $1500USD or more on a 'gaming PC' when a $200 Chromebook can get
you virtually the same results?
At least in the US the telecoms have resisted building fiber-optic
networks for years. Only recently have they started doing so and even
then the bigger companies are heavily choking the speed and setting the >prices too high.
It's not really a new idea, but it's the gist of an article at
TomsGuides.* With prices of hardware skyrocketing --RAM is currently
getting the biggest hikes, but GPUs, HDDs, SSDs and CPUs are all
getting really expensive too-- maybe the 'solution' is just to cut out
the 'middle-man' and run everything on cheap, local processors that
stream game-data from servers on the cloud. After all, even with a
ten-year old processor and GPU with minimal RAM, you can get HD
visuals if the server on the other side is powerful enough. So why
spend $1500USD or more on a 'gaming PC' when a $200 Chromebook can get
you virtually the same results?
Now, of course, pretty much everyone here laughs at this idea. I
already know your objections:
"What about the latency?"
"What about the artifacting from compressing the
video stream?"
"What about extra subscription costs?"
"What about having to be tethered to the Internet
to play?"
"What about making it so publishers can
shut down any of our games at their whim?"
And, look... I hear you. I agree with all these issues. I've
absolutely no interest in transitioning to cloud-only gaming. But this
really isn't about us.
It's about the hundred-million strong ordinary gamers, who wouldn't
know a GPU from an SSD, who don't really care if they're getting 60fps
or 120fps, who barely understand what latency is. What they care more
about is:
Can I play this popular game right now, and how much
will it cost me?
And if /our/ answer is $1500 for a good PC and $70 for a single the
game, and the streaming option is $300 + $30/mo for several hundred
games... well, which one do you think they'll pick?
And it's not like gamers will get much support from the publishers.
They'd LOVE the idea of streaming everything. Full control over their
games? Cutting the support costs because everyone would, essentially,
be running the same hardware? An endless subscription stream? All that
tasty personal data? Being able to shove old games into 'a vault' to
force people to play the newest games? And then making them buy the
old games anew in five or ten years? Maybe even throwing some
advertising in between gaming sessions? It's a bonanza!
It's not that I think all publishers are conspiring towards this goal
(though some of them are. Microsoft especially has bitten deeply into
the software-as-a-service vision, and Amazon's giant server farms are
perfect for this idea). But neither are any of the major (or even
minor) publishers that opposed to it either. It's just more profitable
and easier to develop for streaming services.
It's a scary vision, and one that increasingly seems likely to come to
pass. The average gamer just doesn't CARE about the loss of their
freedoms --just look how GOG is struggling because nobody really cares
about DRM-free software-- and ultimately the lower price will win out.
I always thought it was the inevitable future of gaming... but I
thought maybe we'd have a few more years of freedom. But with these
rapid increases in hardware costs, it seems the salad days of PC
gaming are coming to a close quicker than I expected.
What do you think; are the high prices going to push more gamers to
the cloud, to the point that local gaming will become the less popular option? Or will the market react against this and keep games installed
on our hard-drives and running on our hardware?
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 18:30:07 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2026 6:08 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Bandwidth.
It's not really a new idea, but it's the gist of an article at
TomsGuides.* With prices of hardware skyrocketing --RAM is currently
getting the biggest hikes, but GPUs, HDDs, SSDs and CPUs are all
getting really expensive too-- maybe the 'solution' is just to cut out
the 'middle-man' and run everything on cheap, local processors that
stream game-data from servers on the cloud. After all, even with a
ten-year old processor and GPU with minimal RAM, you can get HD
visuals if the server on the other side is powerful enough. So why
spend $1500USD or more on a 'gaming PC' when a $200 Chromebook can get
you virtually the same results?
At least in the US the telecoms have resisted building fiber-optic
networks for years. Only recently have they started doing so and even
then the bigger companies are heavily choking the speed and setting the
prices too high.
True, one should never underestimate the backwardness of USAmerican
telecoms. But I'm not sure that's such a limitation as it used to be.
Yes, there are corners of the country where getting broadband of any
type is either extremely expensive or downright impossible... but numerically, that's not as much of the population as it used to be,
and it's getting smaller every day. Video-streaming has seen to that.
You don't actually need super-fast broadband for streaming games.
GeForce Now suggests 15Mbps for 60fps HD; higher than what's needed
for video streaming, sure (I think netflix needs 10Mbps?) but not much higher.
Even in backwardstan-America, that's well within the majority of
American's reach (in fact, the average download speed in the US is
reported to be 200Mbps)*. And for the minority who don't have access
to that sort of bandwidth? Well, they'll be left behind, the same way
people still running Windows95 or using a Playstation connected to a
CRT have been forgotten.
I don't think the bandwidth requirements are really going to be the
major hold-up.
On a related note, Microsoft has recently reported* that they're
making their XBox app so it runs on ARM PCs (that is, PCs that use an ARM-based CPU and chipset). Right now it's limited to Windows 11 ARM
PCs but there's little to prevent them from making the app also run
on, say, Android or Apple Silicon (which itself is based on ARM).
Microsoft is increasingly pushing for people to move to
Software-as-a-Service (SAAS) subscriptions, where you stream games
from their servers; it's been their end-game for decades. And while Microsoft's star is dimming, they still remain a *major* influence on
PC gaming. The question isn't /if/ streaming/SAAS will become the
norm, but when. Microsoft wants it sooner rather than later. The high hardware costs only are helping in their achieving that goal.
I'm not sure even the high costs of the primitive American telecom
system will be enough to resist that move. For one thing, it's (for
most people) 'good enough' already, especially since they're already
paying for the bandwidth to stream Netflix or Amazon, or whatever. A
lot of gamers also aren't playing on high-end hardware where UHD (and
thus super-fast broadband) are required; if you're playing on an 8"
mobile screen (like SteamDeck) or even a 12" Chromebook, a 720p stream
(and an 8mbps interconnection) is sufficient. Instead, these people
will look at the relative costs... and at least now, in the
introductory period**, the SAAS cost looks a lot less.
"Good enough", "lower cost" and all the major players are pushing you
in that direction? It's hard to see streaming games /not/ catching on
in a major way. "Real Gamers" (like us! ;-) will resist, of course...
but when you have 500 million gamers going the streaming route, and a
few million saying, 'No, I wanna play the game on my own hardware',
it's easy to guess which route developers will follow.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 18:30:07 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2026 6:08 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Bandwidth.
It's not really a new idea, but it's the gist of an article at
TomsGuides.* With prices of hardware skyrocketing --RAM is currently
getting the biggest hikes, but GPUs, HDDs, SSDs and CPUs are all
getting really expensive too-- maybe the 'solution' is just to cut out
the 'middle-man' and run everything on cheap, local processors that
stream game-data from servers on the cloud. After all, even with a
ten-year old processor and GPU with minimal RAM, you can get HD
visuals if the server on the other side is powerful enough. So why
spend $1500USD or more on a 'gaming PC' when a $200 Chromebook can get
you virtually the same results?
At least in the US the telecoms have resisted building fiber-optic >>networks for years. Only recently have they started doing so and even >>then the bigger companies are heavily choking the speed and setting the >>prices too high.
True, one should never underestimate the backwardness of USAmerican
telecoms. But I'm not sure that's such a limitation as it used to be.
Yes, there are corners of the country where getting broadband of any
type is either extremely expensive or downright impossible... but numerically, that's not as much of the population as it used to be,
and it's getting smaller every day. Video-streaming has seen to that.
You don't actually need super-fast broadband for streaming games.
GeForce Now suggests 15Mbps for 60fps HD; higher than what's needed
for video streaming, sure (I think netflix needs 10Mbps?) but not much higher.
Even in backwardstan-America, that's well within the majority of
American's reach (in fact, the average download speed in the US is
reported to be 200Mbps)*. And for the minority who don't have access
to that sort of bandwidth? Well, they'll be left behind, the same way
people still running Windows95 or using a Playstation connected to a
CRT have been forgotten.
I don't think the bandwidth requirements are really going to be the
major hold-up.
* at least that's what this self-serving website says https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/fastest-slowest-internet
On 1/22/2026 8:46 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On a related note, Microsoft has recently reported* that they're
making their XBox app so it runs on ARM PCs (that is, PCs that use an
ARM-based CPU and chipset). Right now it's limited to Windows 11 ARM
PCs but there's little to prevent them from making the app also run
on, say, Android or Apple Silicon (which itself is based on ARM).
Microsoft is increasingly pushing for people to move to
Software-as-a-Service (SAAS) subscriptions, where you stream games
from their servers; it's been their end-game for decades. And while
Microsoft's star is dimming, they still remain a *major* influence on
PC gaming. The question isn't /if/ streaming/SAAS will become the
norm, but when. Microsoft wants it sooner rather than later. The high
hardware costs only are helping in their achieving that goal.
I'm not sure even the high costs of the primitive American telecom
system will be enough to resist that move. For one thing, it's (for
most people) 'good enough' already, especially since they're already
paying for the bandwidth to stream Netflix or Amazon, or whatever. A
lot of gamers also aren't playing on high-end hardware where UHD (and
thus super-fast broadband) are required; if you're playing on an 8"
mobile screen (like SteamDeck) or even a 12" Chromebook, a 720p stream
(and an 8mbps interconnection) is sufficient. Instead, these people
will look at the relative costs... and at least now, in the
introductory period**, the SAAS cost looks a lot less.
"Good enough", "lower cost" and all the major players are pushing you
in that direction? It's hard to see streaming games /not/ catching on
in a major way. "Real Gamers" (like us! ;-) will resist, of course...
but when you have 500 million gamers going the streaming route, and a
few million saying, 'No, I wanna play the game on my own hardware',
it's easy to guess which route developers will follow.
I think they'd need to be making games specifically for streaming for it
to really work, to account for the lag etc. maybe just by making the
games less twitch based, essentially easier. I'm sure that's coming.
PS+ cloud has some AI prediction for input but it doesn't really work
and the AI is playing the game itself at that point.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 20:52:15 |
| Calls: | 117 |
| Calls today: | 117 |
| Files: | 367 |
| D/L today: |
559 files (257M bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,875 |
| Posted today: | 26 |