Android Gaming + In-Home Game Streaming - Replacement for Consoles?

[Antares]

Historically, the main reason to own a console as an alternative to PC is to sit on your couch and play on the TV. Not everyone wants to play video games while sitting at the desk, using a mouse and keyboard, and for a lot of people, that justifies a $400+ investment in a separate piece of hardware like a Playstation or a Nintendo.

However, in this day and age we're seeing interesting devices like the Nvidia Shield coming out, and Smart TV's running Android. Not only do they have the ability to play an increasingly large library of big titles, but thanks to Android, and applications like Moonlight, they also have the capacity to stream video output from your PC. For those who don't understand: your PC could be running say, The Witcher 3, but the output could be wirelessly projected through your local network to your Smart TV/Nvidia Shield.

Bearing this in mind, are the days of $400+ consoles numbered? The advantage of playing games on your TV is diminishing more and more by the day, if it's not completely diminished already. All that's really left are proprietary exclusives and brand loyalty from the fanboys, but can that really hold up? The Nvidia Shield is the most expensive Android TV solution right now, and you can buy it for $200. You'd be able to play the entire Android games catalog, anything your PC can play provided you have a good enough network (or an ethernet connection) and as if all that isn't enough, it provides pretty excellent performance in emulation, even with Dolphin (Gamecube/Wii):

 

[dwwaino]

Are you talking about the reasoning for PC gamers to own a console or everyone? For the common Joe the biggest factor is cost and until they can fit the power of a console into a phone then consoles won't be redundant or their advantages diminished any time soon. The Shield alone is about $250 then it's a lot more than $500 for a PC to run anything comparable. These are just niche toys for PC gamers. Been thinking of grabbing one myself soon though to try out as I play a lot of games, including non-Steam, with a wireless controller as opposed to KB/M.

 

[Gralin]

Consoles are a lot cheaper than PCs though

 

[Antares]

Are you talking about the reasoning for PC gamers to own a console or everyone? For the common Joe the biggest factor is cost and until they can fit the power of a console into a phone then consoles won't be redundant or their advantages diminished any time soon. The Shield alone is about $250 then it's a lot more than $500 for a PC to run anything comparable. These are just niche toys for PC gamers. Been thinking of grabbing one myself soon though to try out as I play a lot of games, including non-Steam, with a wireless controller as opposed to KB/M.

It actually doesn't cost too much to build or buy a PC that can offer similar performance to a console, particularly if you're willing to delve into the used market. Assuming you already have a PC as most people do for many purposes besides games, the only thing you really need to invest in is a GPU.

The Shield alone without a PC is still the most powerful Android machine, capable of playing any Android game (which are still mobile focused, but expanding) along with emulating an absolute ton of older games from the Gamecube/PSP/N64/Dreamcast etc. Also the Shield is just one option; Android TVs are only getting better, as are phones.

 

[dwwaino]

Consoles are a lot cheaper than PCs though

A lot cheaper than GPUs at the moment too, and if you're investing in anything worthwhile to justify upgrading your potato machine to ditch the console then good chance it's going to be bottle necked anyway. Steam Link is probably still the better option with Nvidia on the nose. TVs are coming out with Freesync so if AMD do anything in the upper range with Navi then Shield will be moot. Consoles are pretty decently optimised for their price and I reckon the next ones will pack a bit of punch on Ryzen, 16gb ram and freesync compatibility.

 

[Antares]

A lot cheaper than GPUs at the moment too, and if you're investing in anything worthwhile to justify upgrading your potato machine to ditch the console then good chance it's going to be bottle necked anyway.

What? The vast majority of CPUs released in mainstream PCs for the last 5-6 years are more than capable of supporting a GPU that blows away every console not called the Xbox One X. Pretty much anyone with a quad core will be fine.

Steam Link is probably still the better option with Nvidia on the nose.

They don't even manufacture those anymore. Valve is now focusing on Steam Link software for Android.

TVs are coming out with Freesync so if AMD do anything in the upper range with Navi then Shield will be moot. Consoles are pretty decently optimised for their price and I reckon the next ones will pack a bit of punch on Ryzen, 16gb ram and freesync compatibility.

Freesync?... Huh? What does refresh rate have to do with the Shield? Half the people who bought Shields for their TV probably don't know what Freesync is.

Something tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[dwwaino]

K

 

[Gralin]

A lot cheaper than GPUs at the moment too, and if you're investing in anything worthwhile to justify upgrading your potato machine to ditch the console then good chance it's going to be bottle necked anyway. Steam Link is probably still the better option with Nvidia on the nose. TVs are coming out with Freesync so if AMD do anything in the upper range with Navi then Shield will be moot. Consoles are pretty decently optimised for their price and I reckon the next ones will pack a bit of punch on Ryzen, 16gb ram and freesync compatibility.

They are easy as well which cant be discounted.
Plug it in, turn it on and play. No drivers, no tweaking settings, no worrying about viruses or malware
Game store built in and its also a bluray player and netflix box etc
For most people that want to game its a no brainer
Then you have the switch which is such a cool little device

 

[LukasTheGreat]

Streaming boxes are absolutely the future, but expect Sony and Microsoft to still dominate that market. The natural progression for these companies is to simply have an app that can be played on everything.

Xbox have already announced a xbox without a disc drive which will naturally serve as a streaming box in the future also.

 

[Antares]

Streaming boxes are absolutely the future, but expect Sony and Microsoft to still dominate that market.

Why?

The natural progression for these companies is to simply have an app that can be played on everything.

Huh? Do you mean to say dominate the software or hardware market?

 

[Allikat]

I have an overly powerful computer, but that hasn't made consoles redundant for me. I don't play consoles because they look better than my pc games - because they don't. I play consoles because they have a different experience, different titles, and different game style to what I play on PC. I can play my PC on my tv now if I wanted to, but that's not going to stop me using consoles. Just look at the popularity of the Nintendo Switch. It has none of the Android app functionality that apparently "makes consoles redundant". It's merely a gaming machine that provides unique game play, portability, and a hell of a lot of fun.

 

[Gralin]

I haven't had a gaming rig for 10 years. I'd like one but i just don't get enough time to game to justify the cost.

Consoles in theory up until this generation were a 5 year or more investment, and with BC now a thing even better value

 

[beta_condition]

Why?

Huh? Do you mean to say dominate the software or hardware market?

Because people don't play console for graphics, unless you can get first party Nintendo and Playstation games on pc there's a good reason still to buy consoles, every year the best games developed are form first party studios.

 

[Antares]

Because people don't play console for graphics, unless you can get first party Nintendo and Playstation games on pc there's a good reason still to buy consoles, every year the best games developed are form first party studios.

I didn't say it was for graphics.

But wait, you're trying to suggest a company's first party catalog is enough to justify a $400+ hardware investment? Just to play games like Uncharted, God of War, Spiderman?

Was GTA a first party studio? Red Dead Redemption? Elder Scrolls? Fallout? Fortnite? Fifa? Idk, it's a pretty subjective statement to say all the best games are first party.

 

[Antares]

I have an overly powerful computer, but that hasn't made consoles redundant for me. I don't play consoles because they look better than my pc games - because they don't. I play consoles because they have a different experience, different titles, and different game style to what I play on PC. I can play my PC on my tv now if I wanted to, but that's not going to stop me using consoles. Just look at the popularity of the Nintendo Switch. It has none of the Android app functionality that apparently "makes consoles redundant". It's merely a gaming machine that provides unique game play, portability, and a hell of a lot of fun.

Missing the point. This isn't a PC vs Consoles debate.

 

[Gralin]

I didn't say it was for graphics.

But wait, you're trying to suggest a company's first party catalog is enough to justify a $400+ hardware investment? Just to play games like Uncharted, God of War, Spiderman?

Was GTA a first party studio? Red Dead Redemption? Elder Scrolls? Fallout? Fortnite? Fifa? Idk, it's a pretty subjective statement to say all the best games are first party.

Last i saw RDR and RDR2 aren't on PC.
God of War just won game of the year

How do you justify spending over $1k on hardware to play games you can play on a $400 console and miss out on the exclusives to boot?

 

[Allikat]

Missing the point. This isn't a PC vs Consoles debate.

I don't think you get the point. I'm not debating pc's v consoles. I'm saying I like having the variety of multiple ways to game. And that the availability of exclusive content is a strong reason why consoles will remain relevant.

Unless of course the point of this thread is for you to come up with one theory, and refuse to acknowledge anyone elses opinions?

 

[Allikat]

How do you justify spending over $1k on hardware to play games you can play on a $400 console and miss out on the exclusives to boot?

Because $900 of that was for the RGB lighting. Can't do that on your playstation!

 

[dwwaino]

I haven't had a gaming rig for 10 years. I'd like one but i just don't get enough time to game to justify the cost.

Consoles in theory up until this generation were a 5 year or more investment, and with BC now a thing even better value

Given the next gen will remain on x86 architecture then there is a good reason that at least current gen games will be playable. They will probably just need a patch from the developers to makes sure they're compatible with the newer APIs and firmware and stuff. So at least there is some potential of mass BC going forward. Even if the console cycle thing is replaced by iterations like phones every few years they're still great value as a plug and play gaming box.

 

[Antares]

I don't think you get the point. I'm not debating pc's v consoles. I'm saying I like having the variety of multiple ways to game. And that the availability of exclusive content is a strong reason why consoles will remain relevant.

Yes you are.

I have an overly powerful computer, but that hasn't made consoles redundant for me. I don't play consoles because they look better than my pc games - because they don't. I play consoles because they have a different experience, different titles, and different game style to what I play on PC. I can play my PC on my tv now if I wanted to, but that's not going to stop me using consoles. Just look at the popularity of the Nintendo Switch. It has none of the Android app functionality that apparently "makes consoles redundant". It's merely a gaming machine that provides unique game play, portability, and a hell of a lot of fun.

Unless of course the point of this thread is for you to come up with one theory, and refuse to acknowledge anyone elses opinions?

No, you're entitled to your own reasons.

I just doubt most console owners make the $400 investment for the exclusives. I believe it's for the couch + tv gaming experience.

 

[dwwaino]

Because $900 of that was for the RGB lighting. Can't do that on your playstation!

I recently spent nearly $500 on new RGB lighting on mine to replace the old RGB lighting. This is to a rig that already cost in the ballpark of $3.5k 12 months ago and as of right now struggles to run Just Cause 4 at highest settings at 1440p around 60-80fps because it's yet another shitty console port. But... Take that PS4!!

 

[Ry009]

I recently spent nearly $500 on new RGB lighting on mine to replace the old RGB lighting.

Pics matey!

 

[Gralin]

Because $900 of that was for the RGB lighting. Can't do that on your playstation!

Well no, I don't have a playstation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting a console can keep up with a decent PC, but with the cost of the hardware and OS on the console being subsidized, building a new rig including windows and monitor is a significantly higher entry point, assuming you have the desk and chair already

The idea that console gamers are going to stop being console gamers because you can stream PC games to a TV is pretty flawed. I know its not your argument by the way

I find it funny that the premise is peole wont spend $400 because they all own gaming PCs and will spend $200 to stream to their tv instead

Also I have no idea what RGB lighting is or why I'd even want it, its been that long since I looked at GPUs

 

[dwwaino]

Pics matey!

Spoiler

 

[beta_condition]

Spoiler

View attachment 593668

That looks like a killer rave.