To all the Stadia haters, Blockbuster passed on streaming content because they didn't think it was viable

To all the Stadia haters, Blockbuster passed on streaming content because they didn't think it was viable.

Attached: Blockbuster_logo.svg.png (2000x1199, 151K)

Other urls found in this thread:

technologyreview.com/s/400710/the-end-of-moores-law/
youtube.com/watch?v=7F6hX3NctYc
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

they passed on it a good 5-10 years before it would be commercially viable

False equivalent. Movies/shows are passive entertainment where videogames are not.

Attached: 1553042535736.jpg (182x268, 29K)

Movie streaming is way less resource intensive on the servers, sorry OP, but it seems you're still a faggot.

This. And games require an obscenely high amount of data.

So you're telling me movies are video games, and video games don't require attention to important aspects like latency and input lag?

Video games really don't work as a streaming service yet. Perhaps visual novels, but any game that requires precise quick reactions will fall behind. OnLive already tried this.

Streaming will be viable once the average internet connection in the country is 100mbps and sub-10ms ping

reminder that television and movie piracy is on the rise again

people still wanna own their games
people don't really care all that much about owning movies and tv shows

But why?

netflix started streaming in 2007. right when blockbuster started dying

netflix started out as a mail order DVD distribution service

i keep forgetting I'm too old for this place

Netflix doesn't need to stream 20gb/hr even today.

>b-but guys muh applels and oranges
please take your idiocy elsewhere

>wait for everyone's connections to catch up before you release a service into a crowded market
>be the first service on the market

>because profits = good games.

Attached: Gamers-Today.jpg (588x617, 100K)

Because there's 10000 different streaming services who each has exclusive shows/movies and it's going to be even worse when Disney launches their platform.

Not just that but the technology in terms of lines isn’t there yet
Unless you’re living across the street from a node center, you’re looking at anywhere from 100-200 milliseconds if Input delay
The issue is that nearly any game that’s actually hard that isn’t turn based requires sub 10 milliseconds of input delay AT LEAST
And that’s to say nothing of how bullshit online play will be. Aside from how first-see will determine basically everything in shit like FPS games, it will make fighting games fucking impossible
In other words, Stadia will only be for the most baby-mode mainstream gamers

Movies don't require player feedback to keep progressing, moron.

cause there's too many streaming services
when it was just only Netflix, piracy went down

"...AND YOU KNOW WHAT I SAY TO THE ""PHYSICAL COPY"" CROWD? WELL.. LET'S JUST SAY BLOCKBUSTER DIDN'T THINK NETFLIX WOULD DO VERY WELL, EITHER. AND, WELL... YOU CAN ALL SEE WHERE BLOCKBUSTER ENDED UP!"

Attached: TRUST ME.png (504x360, 69K)

Yeah, in 1997, but they started their streaming service in 2007.

based

> Different things are different you see

thanks for the insight

what the other guys said

glad i could help

Attached: tenor.png (640x360, 151K)

Maybe it will suck at first, but technology will catch up and Google will already have their service in place.

You guys are right. Game streaming is never gonna work
...until it does. Once it's easy enough, the input lag won't matter

Is that Bandersnatch movie actually a real choose your own adventure?
Anyways, 4K must take up a lot of data too.

Because Jews want to jew and now they want the same fragmentation in the PC market

No, in fact at one point it presents you with a decision and then rubs it in your face that both paths lead to the same consequence. Not even sure about the reasoning behind how overtly deliberate they were about having no control in a piece of media marketed as having control over decisions.

Because people will pay money for thousands of shows on one streaming service, but even if another service also advertised thousands of shows, most of those will be exactly the same shows that the first service already provides so you would be paying another subscription for only a handful of shows. That problem only increases with the more services available, where there's only a handful of exclusives that you're getting extra and thousands of shows you can already watch on what you already have.

And almost went bankrupt several times. Google also has a collection of failed devices under their belt, many of them recent. You don't know which way the wind is blowing, squirt.

so, how hard is googlegames gonna flop?

Did it turn profit yet?

Too many streaming services, and they still don't have the shit that I actually want to watch. Like what the fuck?

no matter how hard western developers want it to be true, video games and movies are not the same thing

Movies =/ videogames

Fucking idiot.

because people don't mind paying a sub for one thing, but make them pay for two though and they're likely to pay neither. Nevermind that right now it's more like they have to pay for seven or eight.

The concept of stadia is not bad.
It is a neat idea.

Its just an idea that has been proven to not work cause its more fantasy than reality.

Attached: tfw.png (645x773, 7K)

Disney is buying Hulu.

Like Google Glass.

We have switched from TV packages and Cable Provides to streaming services.

Video Rental was actually the best method possible. If there is a good rental store, support that shit. Pirate TV shows.

>"Stadia is going to work because we have invested heavily into it"

Attached: e7db9e4e33592de521b23e955084488e.jpg (601x508, 39K)

>technology will catch up
technologyreview.com/s/400710/the-end-of-moores-law/

which also sucks shit and only paid shills say otherwise?

Dude everyone wants streaming to work.


BUT THE INTERNET IS TOO SHIT RIGHT NOW

so then what was OnLive?

But does it hover over your shoulder and make games on its own with Wakandan technology?

youtube.com/watch?v=7F6hX3NctYc