The new generation of gaming

We have previously reviewed the proposal that Nvidia has been cooking, for 6 years now, to allow it to achieve its goal in the Geforce NOW project, which in summary is to go from 200 million gamers to a billion. We also know the reasons that the company argues for doing so.

Casually? Google has informed us of the state of development in which its equivalent project is located for such a need (to gain a giant market niche and that at the moment has no 'girlfriend') previously called Project Stream and that, after the announcement in the GDC 2019, we must stop glimpsing as a project in development to take it into account as an actual product and that will be launched this year as Google Stadia.

Opinion about the new generation of gaming

The figures offered by the companies are equivalent in what they mean for the market they aspire to, but much larger in the number of users they represent in the case of Google.

There is nothing particular about this, simply that, as a starting point, Nvidia manages 'high-end gamers' while Google manages 'users of all fur'. And it explains the different numerical projections of business growth in the event that their intentions materialize successfully (something that remains to be seen) for a common objective, in which they will have to compete for, after fighting, finally only one to monopolize it, or perhaps divide it into installments and coexist.

It does seem clear that the underlying model that each company intends to use is very different, in the end, to monetize the whole shed, which is what they are looking for while all those people on the planet play, either directly or indirectly.

Nvidia has made it clear that it will supply its equipment to create the links. Powerful RTX servers that can be grouped into pods and racks. It will also be in charge of the software that manages and synchronizes the content of the links and the network. You have to create the network. Those who decide that they want to participate, have to buy the infrastructure from Nvidia as well as pay the use and maintenance fees in addition to taking charge with the local telecommunications partner of the data traffic that is generated.

Global Telcos Join NVIDIA GeForce NOW Alliance to Deploy Cloud Gaming to New Territories

For its part, Google does not manufacture gaming hardware to deploy in the infrastructure, but it does have its own communications network interconnected with all the telecommunications operators on the planet. It makes it available to developers and consumers as with the rest of the services it traditionally offers to users, and it runs everything attributable to necessary equipment and operation, including expenses.

In exchange, she keeps 'the knowledge' of everything that happens there, she will be in charge of ensuring that it can have utility or usability for herself or any other company / s in the world. If you have to pay a monthly fee, or not, to access Stadia… we will see it shortly.

Instantly, when knowing the 2 previous business premises, the next thing we can face is, on the one hand the business and on the other the future monetization that Nvidia offers for third parties, compared to that announced by Google (which would be exactly the same that we are boring to watch on Chrome and Youtube).

Here, either Jensen Huang is keeping quiet, or there are no news that make us think that Nvidia –officially- is going to change from being a PC Centric company to a Data Centric, as Intel has been doing for years.

So Nvidia wants to bring in millions and millions by selling huge amounts of Turing GPUs to partners who want to participate in the Geforce Alliance, but it won't manage the data, or maybe it won't directly. Is nobody going to bid on that rough diamond?

I do not know Rick, it seems false… Didn't they just pay a higher price than AMD in the past for getting ATI Technologies (and in cash!) For taking the cat to the water in the bid for Mellanox? And do not pass all the data through the equipment of wild interconnection of servers of this manufacturer? Well think bad.

What do Nvidia partners achieve ? Do they spend money buying equipment… and how do they monetize? Will part of the Geforce NOW subscriber fee go to them? Seriously?

For its part, Google wants to convince us that third parties can be covered by participating in its Stadia, as is already the case with YouTube or thanks to the intelligent and completely personalized ads that can be built (for the benefit of the advertiser) thanks to the entire flow of Data that they capture from users throughout their global network on a constant basis during any use, whatever it may be, and that interconnect, feed back and consolidate, creating composite knowledge that is rooted not only in a single point of reference.

And yes, let's not forget: from time to time they remind us that 'the important thing' in all this is that, thanks to these charitable souls and their proposals to change the way in which they play (in a generic and majority way), all the least wealthy users on the planet will be able to play as if they had teams of € 10, 000.

In short, the reality is that we have companies to their own and with the usual, which is to invent ways of 'making' money. There will be people who do not care about this, another who does not let him sleep and another who does not care at all, since they neither know nor want to know.

And as long as a specific 'parameter' does not come into action, there should be no problem and each one to his own as before.

What parameter? The same parameter that ends the underground seed and the life that is nourished by it when it is decided to 'enlarge' the market niche that you can get to using the product without regard to the way in which the changes you make about it or its Marketing, while now content, appealing, and valid for billions, is no longer interesting to others, or you make it more complicated or expensive to acquire / play for those who insist on continuing to use it as usual (now formerly).

The same parameter that we could see with the world of video game consoles to expand it and that it would stop being good for hardcores, geek goggles or children, to catapult that of casuals, in which absolutely everyone can play and if need be the enemy does not succeed in shooting you in 20 minutes when you have left the controller on the table and gone to piss… well, everything is perfect.

Because before there were 1 million players in the world and now there are 2000 times more.

It doesn't matter that there are many games that are no longer challenging, fun, or nothing. They are a coñón de padre and very dear to me that a gamer of those from before will not hold playing more than 2 minutes, time that will be enough to make it clear that it is for those other players who are not going to try as hard as he is at the time of to play. They will enjoy it… but it is too small for him and it does not fulfill the function it demands: it does not entertain him. Come on, that almost requires you to strain to play. The world upside down.

Obviously this mutation is not instantaneous (we have already seen it in previous cases) and there will always be underground redoubts, not to mention that it remains to be seen if technologies will really allow what they are supposedly announcing to us (I say yes), but it is certain that more and more of the total will focus on the proportion of users who have more weight (that of casuals, who do not want to know how, when, or why), refining products, and platforms for their needs, which will allow any company to obtain results according to the use of its resources.

This is so. It is annoying to recognize it, but that's the world we live in. Raw and bleeding. In the same way, it will justify that the prices of the products that cover the needs of minorities have to bear much higher prices to be included in the income statements of each quarter and year. Premium Product -> Premium Prices. Another option is… stop offering them.

That at the moment 'gamers pata negra' or people who simply play as it has been doing for 50 years can ignore something as' little remarkable 'as it may be that Google communicates that' it is going to change gaming, or that it is going to produce a generational change ', yes. At the moment.

The prudent thing will be to watch out of the corner of your eye how they progress and that you do not have to apply to yourself that of 'When the beards of your neighbor you see peel, put yours to soak'.

Will it cost 50% more in 2 years a physical edition of a video game to play it offline than access it for 1 year via stream ? How much does physical Office cost for you to install it the way you want on your computers and how much does it cost to license the use of the components of this suite through Office 365 with the advantage of being able to use it on any machine and the cloud (from Microsoft in this case) involved?

In the event of a positive deployment of the gaming business by Stream, will the companies involved in the monetization of this new formula not go to work to make the previous options increasingly cumbersome or uncomfortable for customers who intend to choose them or insist to continue choosing them?

Have you had your copper removed once there is fiber? Have you been killed by analog television once you have DTT?

Do we make money by letting people play offline, or does the opposite happen and we really lose it?

The balance will clearly say whether what is generated by allowing users and hardware to acquire hardware and software to continue as before, is more or infinitely less than what would come out (not obviously, but from third-party payments that bid for the data that they are obtained thanks to the use) if they are forced to leave their beloved platform (which if they need to become obsolete, become obsolete or shut down) and are forced to add to the use of stream.

Think that in the traditional way, there is only one time in which the user pays, against infinite times that in the 'new generation' someone may have an interest in paying to access data generated all the time, of all kinds and everywhere and that are stored by the company that offers the network to connect to and which it carefully monitors.

I remind you that underlying the video game Stream is all related to the monetization of the data, which appear as blood plasma every millisecond and from which they can extract juice as vampires, not once (when the user actually generates them in that connection concrete and tangible), but indefinitely times in time once registered and added to all others and future ones.

Sooner or later a piece of information that might not have value, happens or be interesting and is the one that for a long time was collected without taking advantage of it, which now everyone uses to refine their shot based on the existing history they have. Data can be converted into information. And time removes or gives value to the data depending on the relevance that accessing or not could have according to what information at each moment.

Surely you all know the curious history of this chrome and how the one who at the time obtained it would assign a value (null), but that the passage of time has been in charge of granting a much higher value, and therefore, the one that have today, you can ask whoever wants to do it with him much more.

But of course, if you do your things as before, without providing them at all times and every time with 100% of the possible data that could be extracted from everything you do, playing or while you play, because you do not feed them and what is worse, you generate 'whites'.

You are a source of corruption within a system that is increasingly consolidated because it has feedback on everything, all the time. It is no longer that they have to raise the prices, it is that you do not collaborate and harm them, being able (for the moment) to play underground, without embracing the stream. Do you think they could come after you?

This is the crux of the matter. Gamers: will they let you continue playing with your ultra low latency even though the game by Stream backs off considerably more than acceptable and you think that precisely this technical aspect matters something and should have its weight to stop the attempt to impose it as standard and desist in a hypothetical intention to 'turn off' the rest of traditional platforms?

Perhaps, greed can and they forget the premise they use to disguise this matter (that everyone 'poor' can play with virtual teams comparable to those of the richest freak) and the lambskin does not cover the wolf, What is it:

They want 'the game' to also start 'to work' in the current business of the world , which is the capture of data, to be exploited by the one that monopolizes them all (a few).

If in the next few months something does not fit you or seems to make little sense from a logical point of view in the development of gaming, either in its traditional facet or in which they announce that it is going to become its new generation, do not forget to Keep this point in mind, in addition to the technical data that could support whether this formula or the other slaps the others and yet it seems that the weak one takes the cat into the water.

It is difficult for something to have more potential to generate money competing against pure technical characteristics and gross performance figures. They are two different worlds facing each other in which the only common thing is the money they generate, some thanks to the use and reuse of the data that is 'created' without the option of not being so, and others thanks to the money that must be previously disbursed to Acquire the product or the respective one related to maintaining the usage fees and who have the option of not generating the slightest usage data.

Not leaving any trace that can be used to become data to add to the collection, hoping that together with millions more, it will be able to offer forceful information in the future to someone who will pay to be able to use it and have some option of succeeding in it. to try, since going blind, today is suicidal and will be more and more. It is the whiting that bites its tail and there is also a lot of interest in consolidating that this is precisely the case. They create the need for use by making being out of the ecosystem equivalent to having no options.

It would have been nice to let people just play, like always. Truth? Of course, before there was no method of increasing the number of consumers of your product, without necessarily having to scratch their pockets to 'buy' your product. Now, you can simply put them 'to produce' by allowing them access to the product and the clink of money ($$$) will start to sound.