Streaming Services Will Disrupt Nintendo's Handheld Dominance

  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for loco145
#1 Posted by loco145 (12134 posts) -

The biggest threat to Nintendo's position in the market in the future is cloud gaming services, which will allow high-end PC games to run on almost any device. If services like Google Stadia and xCloud work in the wild as they have been advertised, then the Nintendo Switch's status as a portable system will be threatened.

The fact that cloud gaming services work on smartphones means that the potential audience is so much bigger, as it's estimated that they are owned by over five billion people around the world. Not all of those people will have access to cloud gaming at first, but the big markets like the US will, which will act as the testing ground for these services in other regions in the future.

https://www.thegamer.com/nintendo-dominance-streaming-services-future/

Is nintendo doomed again?

Avatar image for phbz
#2 Posted by phbz (4657 posts) -

It will probably cause some kind of shift but their IPs are strong enough. The world can live without Halo or Uncharted, not so much without Mario.

Avatar image for dzimm
#3 Posted by dzimm (5561 posts) -

I think streaming services are going to flop (at least for now) because the technology simply isn't there to allow for smooth, lag-free gaming, and I think most people are going to find it frustrating to play anything that requires accurate timing. Playing at home with good WiFi might be acceptable, but playing "on the road" with spotty cell tower signals is going to be a nightmare.

Avatar image for Archangel3371
#4 Posted by Archangel3371 (28514 posts) -

I don’t see it being that different from the way people see them now compared to other systems. Their IP’s are a very strong draw plus they tend to do unique things with their systems. I also don’t think that streaming games is going to be all that appealing or capable for many people.

Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
#5 Posted by JustPlainLucas (79380 posts) -

No. Just... no. For once, you can't get a load of Switch exclusives on phones. For two, streaming is data intensive. Millions of people will not want to pay extra just to play games on their phones. For three, people don't want to drain their batteries. There will always be a place for Nintendo handhelds, that is, unless Nintendo puts out gaming phones.

Avatar image for Ant_17
#6 Posted by Ant_17 (12862 posts) -

They got mobile games so they will be ok.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#7 Posted by Sevenizz (4063 posts) -

@phbz: Speak for yourself. I was a die hard Mario fan for years. That all changed when Halo launched and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Nintendo’s ignorance of online multiplayer plays a huge roll in that. Nintendo has a problem with keeping their fans happy and continue to chase younger gamers. That doesn’t fly with everyone.

Avatar image for Jag85
#8 Posted by Jag85 (13627 posts) -

Nintendo is a cockroach. It will survive no matter what comes its way. They've been doing it for 130 years.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#9 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19846 posts) -

LOL, no! Streaming services will all vary by your Cellphone provider and the limited cap space you have. Nintendo will live on regardless.

Avatar image for X_CAPCOM_X
#10 Posted by X_CAPCOM_X (8701 posts) -

@phbz: mario is cool but I'd rather play some mp halo tbh.

Avatar image for Gatygun
#11 Posted by Gatygun (1586 posts) -

@Archangel3371 said:

I don’t see it being that different from the way people see them now compared to other systems. Their IP’s are a very strong draw plus they tend to do unique things with their systems. I also don’t think that streaming games is going to be all that appealing or capable for many people.

Are there IP's strong?

Because why did the wii-u not sell like at all?

Avatar image for Archangel3371
#12 Edited by Archangel3371 (28514 posts) -

@Gatygun: Their IP’s are definitely strong but like anything else not infallible. The Wii U was a mess of a launch and marketing and it’s failures weren’t the fault of Nintendo’s IP’s.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#13 Edited by lundy86_4 (53800 posts) -

Nah. Nintendo has an incredibly strong exclusive lineup, as well as offering the fact that you don't have to stream shit on the go. Rogers in Canada only just got unlimited data, and even those speeds drop off a cliff after 10gb's. I wouldn't be all that worried.

Avatar image for getyeryayasout
#14 Edited by getyeryayasout (12490 posts) -

They will probably lean into one of the Switch's biggest advantage over cloud based gaming. That playing natively will always trump streaming due to the inherent lag gamers will encounter when playing streamed games.

Plus you can play when Internet is down, even when power is down thanks to the Switch's battery.

Plus, Nintendo likely has Streaming plans of their own in the future. They've already dipped their toes in the water with Resident Evil 7 and a couple other games I can't think of.

Anyway, the competition the streaming services will bring to the big three is a welcome addition to gaming, imo.

That's about all I have to say about that.

Avatar image for ProtossRushX
#15 Posted by ProtossRushX (5694 posts) -

Ninty will fucking destroy streamers, ONLIVE ain't shit on nintendo

Avatar image for ajstyles
#16 Posted by AJStyles (1073 posts) -

Streaming sucks and will continue to suck for the next 10 years.

Avatar image for briguyb13
#17 Edited by briguyb13 (3151 posts) -

Just like Steam boxes destroyed consoles...

Avatar image for vaidream45
#18 Posted by Vaidream45 (2034 posts) -

I disagree. Switch can be played anywhere anytime. Cloud gaming can’t because of the requirements to be connected to the internet in order to play. Until this world has some kind of global satellite internet cloud gaming will be for home use only.

Avatar image for NathanDrakeSwag
#19 Posted by NathanDrakeSwag (12939 posts) -

People buy Nintendo consoles for the exclusives. You're not going to steal their fanbase with 3rd party games lol.

Avatar image for Pedro
#20 Posted by Pedro (35602 posts) -

Its interesting how most of the responses ignore the potential threat of game streaming to Nintendo's handheld business. We are going to see Blockbuster all over again. Game streaming is a potential threat. Ignoring this is foolish. Hopefully Nintendo isn't as shortsighted as some of the responses.

Avatar image for nirgal
#21 Posted by Nirgal (51 posts) -

Well people are already playing all kind of mobile games before streaming is popularized. The problem is that mobile games are sh it from a control and monetizing model perspective. I frankly do not see streaming changing that. Nintendo has quality games that don’t work like slot machines and that control great. Steaming will also not change that.

Avatar image for nirgal
#22 Posted by Nirgal (51 posts) -

Another problem is that streaming is mainly made to bring a lot of graphic power to low end devices. But most modern phones already have much more power than a switch.

So what do you get with streaming ?

1. Same crappy mobile games

2. More data consumption

3. Same crappy monetizing model

4. Even less ownership of the games

5. Lack of availability in places with no internet or bad internet, or most outdoor places If you don’t want to over spend on your data plan .

Yes you may get some pc and console games on your phones butt:

1. Most people that play on mobile are not willing to pay upfront for games

2. Controls are still shi t

4. Most of those games can still be ported to Android if they think they will really be popular

Avatar image for Pedro
#23 Posted by Pedro (35602 posts) -

@nirgal: Reads like the arguments levied against video streaming services. We all know how that worked out.

Avatar image for nirgal
#24 Posted by Nirgal (51 posts) -

I don’t agree. Before video streaming services most people rented video anyway. So property was never an issue.

Controls were never an issue either

And the monetizing system was not either since it was the same between physical and steaming: both are a renting system.

I don’t see that as the same situation at all.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#25 Edited by KungfuKitten (26793 posts) -

Nintendo could make use of one of the available streaming services too. I think they're in a position to make a good deal, if one of the streaming services starts to actually deliver. It does change the landscape a little. But you'd have to be on WIFI to game when using streaming.

I think a streaming service would boost Nintendo sales rather than stifle them. (At first, anyway.) I don't know what would be the best way to capitalize on it though.

Avatar image for hiphops_savior
#26 Posted by hiphops_savior (8474 posts) -

Some people cannot tolerate the dip in quality when music streams. How many people can tolerate slight lag even on fibre optic connection?

Avatar image for pyro1245
#27 Posted by pyro1245 (5240 posts) -

Wow a lot of people here are dismissive of streaming.

Consider the fact that most people play Fortnite, an FPS, on phones - Fortnite on iOS alone passed 100M downloads in 5 months. My bet is these people don't care about quality and just want to play games on their phone in school.

Yeah I think streaming will do well in that market.

Avatar image for Gatygun
#28 Posted by Gatygun (1586 posts) -

@Archangel3371 said:

@Gatygun: Their IP’s are definitely strong but like anything else not infallible. The Wii U was a mess of a launch and marketing and it’s failures weren’t the fault of Nintendo’s IP’s.

I honestly wonder if there IP's are that strong really, we saw it multiple times even gamecube area when people just ditched them entirely same for n64.

I think the portability makes it a creat addition towards PC and consoles but once that is no longer a plus point they will be in the same spot again where they where before.

Pokemon is strong tho, but from what i know not owned by nintendo so yea they could also shift away from nintendo at some point.

Avatar image for xantufrog
#29 Edited by xantufrog (11685 posts) -

IMO, streaming services will strengthen Nintendo's design direction. I've said it before - I believe traditional consoles are going to go the way of the dinosaur as streaming improves. Devices like the Switch are the future - they will be able to enable gaming to continue on the road+offline, but at home or near a hotspot stream higher fidelity content to your TV than their internal hardware is capable of. What's better than a streaming box without a screen, controller, and gaming hardware built in for offline play and portable gaming? One that does have those things.

I don't want this to be how things go, but IMO the writing is on the wall.

Avatar image for Pedro
#30 Edited by Pedro (35602 posts) -

@xantufrog said:

IMO, streaming services will strengthen Nintendo's design direction. I've said it before - I believe traditional consoles are going to go the way of the dinosaur as streaming improves. Devices like the Switch are the future - they will be able to enable gaming to continue on the road+offline, but at home or near a hotspot stream higher fidelity content to your TV than their internal hardware is capable of. What's better than a streaming box without a screen, controller, and gaming hardware built in for offline play and portable gaming? One that does have those things.

I don't want this to be how things go, but IMO the writing is on the wall.

Devices like the Switch are not the future because the trend of devices are multi purpose, the Switch is not. The trend of the industry is to always be connected. How often are people in the modern world offline? The long term goal of game streaming is that any device with a connection can have access to games. This includes smart TVs, smart phones, tablets, laptops, PCs and consoles. It also open the door to the elimination of mandatory hardware upgrades because everything is running remotely. I don't expect this to take over the current space soon but its an inevitability. Any of the three gaming companies that ignore this would be left behind.

One device to rule them all.
One device to rule them all.

Avatar image for xantufrog
#31 Posted by xantufrog (11685 posts) -

@Pedro: The Switch isn't super multi-purpose, but there's no reason that its sequel - either from Nintendo or one of the other big 3, can't be. What's it need? A browser and a Netflix and Amazon app? I definitely enjoy it a lot more than my PS4 at this point - Sony and MS stick to that line of design philosophy for too many more generations and they will lose a customer, frankly.

Avatar image for Archangel3371
#32 Posted by Archangel3371 (28514 posts) -

@Gatygun: I don’t doubt the strength of their IP’s myself. The sales of Mario Kart, Super Mario games, Smash Bros., and other are typically always good. However it’s not the only thing either but it’s definitely one of Nintendo’s biggest strengths.

Avatar image for speeny
#33 Posted by Speeny (1960 posts) -

I don't think this will end up affecting Nintendo all that much. Cloud gaming really isn't something I'm for, as I think a lot of people can agree with. Will it be a thing of the norm in the future? Most probably.

Avatar image for hrt_rulz01
#34 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (19252 posts) -

@xantufrog said:

@Pedro: The Switch isn't super multi-purpose, but there's no reason that its sequel - either from Nintendo or one of the other big 3, can't be. What's it need? A browser and a Netflix and Amazon app? I definitely enjoy it a lot more than my PS4 at this point - Sony and MS stick to that line of design philosophy for too many more generations and they will lose a customer, frankly.

I'm starting to feel the same way tbh... I just love the flexibility of the Switch. It's why I play Switch the most nowadays.

I'm still going to get a Scarlett eventually, but who knows how much I'll actually use it.

Avatar image for YearoftheSnake5
#35 Posted by YearoftheSnake5 (9158 posts) -

The infrastructure won’t be in place for widespread, reliable game streaming for a while. Some areas are still spotty with normal cell reception. Even in areas you probably wouldn’t expect it to be. I’d say Nintendo is safe, especially with their IPs.

Avatar image for Pedro
#36 Posted by Pedro (35602 posts) -

@xantufrog said:

@Pedro: The Switch isn't super multi-purpose, but there's no reason that its sequel - either from Nintendo or one of the other big 3, can't be. What's it need? A browser and a Netflix and Amazon app? I definitely enjoy it a lot more than my PS4 at this point - Sony and MS stick to that line of design philosophy for too many more generations and they will lose a customer, frankly.

This is why smart phones and smart tvs would infringe on both handheld and home consoles with game streaming. It just have to be good enough. I also find this notion of games being more enjoyable on the Switch routed in some emotional aspect because its the same games.

Avatar image for jaydan
#37 Posted by jaydan (2473 posts) -

@Pedro said:
@xantufrog said:

@Pedro: The Switch isn't super multi-purpose, but there's no reason that its sequel - either from Nintendo or one of the other big 3, can't be. What's it need? A browser and a Netflix and Amazon app? I definitely enjoy it a lot more than my PS4 at this point - Sony and MS stick to that line of design philosophy for too many more generations and they will lose a customer, frankly.

This is why smart phones and smart tvs would infringe on both handheld and home consoles with game streaming. It just have to be good enough. I also find this notion of games being more enjoyable on the Switch routed in some emotional aspect because its the same games.

It might just be who I am but these days I just want to find those games that have impacted me one way or another - a game that I can enjoy revisiting. It's just the same way I am with my love and appreciation for movies and music as well. When I find forms of entertainment/art/media that resonate with me, of course I want it in my collection and for it to be in my collection, I surely plan to revisit it someday. I really am not fond of the attitude these days of "one-and-done" game experiences which players find a game to play over a weekend and then never again, and maybe it's not entirely the consumer's fault but entire generations of developers and publishers that fostered these sorts of games. I personally want the games with return value.

I think the thing about Switch and why some ports are very desirable despite arguably being inferior to other counterparts, is because for the first time ever, many of these ported games were never playable on a handheld device before. You might not be a handheld gamer yourself, but that is a major draw for so many.

One of my favorite games ever is the original Dark Souls, and it was one of the few games I double-dipped for the Switch. It runs perfect on the system and I played it out and about numerous times while in a public space. I had a number of people tell me "are you actually playing Dark Souls? on a handheld?" And when they registered it actually was Dark Souls on a handheld, their eyes just lit up and admitted how amazing that was because they up until that point, never knew you can play Dark Souls portable. That's the appeal for some ports, there is an advantage when such ports have become timeless revisits over the years, and the fact you can play them handheld possibly for the first time ever.

Switch is not just a port machine anymore. It's 2019 now and the Switch has without any doubt been establishing its own library of games, and it's beneficial it has ports to go with it too.

Avatar image for Pedro
#38 Posted by Pedro (35602 posts) -

@jaydan: So, you are saying that when people realize they can play all these high fidelity games on their mobile phone via game streaming they would be sold? Because that's what you are saying with regards to the Switch. Game streaming would allow for any game to be available on any video capable device, effectively encroaching on the Switch.

Avatar image for nirgal
#39 Posted by Nirgal (51 posts) -

Any game that can run on the switch can already run in most phones. I would say that that most phones already have more power than the switch.

But the switch continues to sell very well.

Power is not everything.

Avatar image for sakaixx
#40 Posted by sakaiXx (6053 posts) -

I personally still think switch is just a gimmick.

Avatar image for nirgal
#41 Posted by Nirgal (51 posts) -

The thing that I don’t get is that streaming is suppose to kill the switch just because it can provide more power to mobile devices.

But mobile devices already have more power than the switch.

It doesn’t make any sense. Clearly people are not buying the switch because they want more power.

I want to know will streaming address any of the weakness of mobile devices?

Will games control better ? Will mobile users start paying for 60 dollars games upfront without micro transactions ?

If you think about it the most popular mobiles games right now are all battle royals and dota- like games. What do you win by running those game on remote servers ? Mobile games already run them just fine and they are free so I don’t see many people paying subscriptions to play them.

Avatar image for jaydan
#42 Posted by jaydan (2473 posts) -

@Pedro said:

@jaydan: So, you are saying that when people realize they can play all these high fidelity games on their mobile phone via game streaming they would be sold? Because that's what you are saying with regards to the Switch. Game streaming would allow for any game to be available on any video capable device, effectively encroaching on the Switch.

The main difference between a phone and a Switch: is Switch is an actual dedicated gaming machine, fully equipped with a controller that can handle a wider variety of gameplay styles.

I have never been much of a mobile gamer, but I have given it a try some odd years in the past - and I tried a couple of those console-esque titles on a mobile and was instantly turned off by the lack of controls beyond touch-screen input. Mobile gaming just does not work outside casual play when they lack dedicated controllers to play a wider range of games.

Now I'm sure they sell mobile gaming controllers out there, or at least I assume they do - but the average consumer is not going to go out of their way to buy peripherals like that for their phone.

Now the Switch on the other hand, is completely dedicated to gaming. Right out of the box you have respectable controller capabilities that are not limited the way mobile is, and because anyone that buys a Switch already KNOWS it's a gaming console and not just a phone, that's why more people will be buying Switch controllers over anyone buying a mobile controller. One is actually dedicated towards gaming and it already has the brand recognition as such to the average consumer.

I am actually not against game streaming. I actually look at the bright potential of streaming and I am not one of those conspiracy scaredboys you see a lot around here against streaming. I also look at the possibility if streaming got brought to the Switch. Google can just as well make a partnership with Nintendo and host Stadia on the Switch as well.

Avatar image for davillain-
#43 Posted by DaVillain- (38002 posts) -

@Pedro said:

@jaydan: So, you are saying that when people realize they can play all these high fidelity games on their mobile phone via game streaming they would be sold? Because that's what you are saying with regards to the Switch. Game streaming would allow for any game to be available on any video capable device, effectively encroaching on the Switch.

Your missing the point. The Switch is a dedicated gaming machine mainly for good controller of your game's movements and Mobile touchscreen is a nightmare. I have only played 2 mobile games and trust me, they are nothing like handhelds at all.

I don't like the idea of streaming your games, but I won't go my way of telling anyone to not dive into streaming. I'm not looking forward to in the future but even then, I know it's coming, it's just a matter of when?

I recommend try playing Pokemon Go vs Pokemon handheld, totally differences playing style.

Avatar image for Litchie
#44 Edited by Litchie (24304 posts) -
@nirgal said:

Any game that can run on the switch can already run in most phones. I would say that that most phones already have more power than the switch.

No, dude. Unless everyone buys phones for over 600 bucks. Which, to me, is a fucking insane thing to do. Plus, such a phone wouldn't be able to play games as good as Switch anyway, since phones do lots of more things than play games.

Avatar image for Pedro
#45 Edited by Pedro (35602 posts) -

@davillain- said:

Your missing the point. The Switch is a dedicated gaming machine mainly for good controller of your game's movements and Mobile touchscreen is a nightmare. I have only played 2 mobile games and trust me, they are nothing like handhelds at all.

I don't like the idea of streaming your games, but I won't go my way of telling anyone to not dive into streaming. I'm not looking forward to in the future but even then, I know it's coming, it's just a matter of when?

I recommend try playing Pokemon Go vs Pokemon handheld, totally differences playing style.

What point am I missing? Phones can support traditional controllers in fact it will be supporting both PS4 and Xbox One controllers if not already but in the future. There are already attachments to enable standard controls for phones. When game streaming is demoed on phones they are not using the touchscreen.

Pokemon Go and Pokemon handheld at not the same games.

Avatar image for jaydan
#46 Edited by jaydan (2473 posts) -

@Pedro said:
@davillain- said:

Your missing the point. The Switch is a dedicated gaming machine mainly for good controller of your game's movements and Mobile touchscreen is a nightmare. I have only played 2 mobile games and trust me, they are nothing like handhelds at all.

I don't like the idea of streaming your games, but I won't go my way of telling anyone to not dive into streaming. I'm not looking forward to in the future but even then, I know it's coming, it's just a matter of when?

I recommend try playing Pokemon Go vs Pokemon handheld, totally differences playing style.

What point am I missing? Phones can support traditional controllers in fact it will be supporting both PS4 and Xbox One controllers if not already but in the future. There are already attachments to enable standard controls for phones. When game streaming is demoed on phones they are not using the touchscreen.

Pokemon Go and Pokemon handheld at not the same games.

I figured these types of controllers exist but I was not sure. Anyways, that looks tacky as hell and the average consumer does not buy phones as a dedicated gaming machine, let alone go out of their way to buy tacky peripherals such as this. Yea sure there are a shit-ton of mobile games out there and ones that have been wildly successful, but almost all of them are casual, touch screen-friendly experiences.

Even with stream gaming becoming a thing, that will hardly have a scratch against Nintendo when their brand is already recognized as making dedicated gaming machines. It is also not out of question that streaming can possibly come over to the Switch. If or when that actually happens, "gaming" off your smartphone will hardly have an impact.

Avatar image for Pedro
#47 Edited by Pedro (35602 posts) -

@jaydan said:

I figured these types of controllers exist but I was not sure. Anyways, that looks tacky as hell and the average consumer does not buy phones as a dedicated gaming machine, let alone go out of their way to buy tacky peripherals such as this. Yea sure there are a shit-ton of mobile games out there and ones that have been wildly successful, but almost all of them are casual, touch screen-friendly experiences.

Even with stream gaming becoming a thing, that will hardly have a scratch against Nintendo when their brand is already recognized as making dedicated gaming machines. It is also not out of question that streaming can possibly come over to the Switch. If or when that actually happens, "gaming" off your smartphone will hardly have an impact.

Well you can always opt for the less tacky options. Its is undoubtedly naive to think that Nintendo would not be affected if there is an uptick in favor of game streaming. Lets hope than Nintendo wouldn't take the "its going to fail and wouldn't affect us" approach as many of you all are defaulting to.

Also keep in mind, that when consumers are giving the option to not buy a dedicated hardware for gaming but can play games using their existing hardware, the dynamics change.

Avatar image for jaydan
#48 Edited by jaydan (2473 posts) -

@Pedro said:
@jaydan said:

I figured these types of controllers exist but I was not sure. Anyways, that looks tacky as hell and the average consumer does not buy phones as a dedicated gaming machine, let alone go out of their way to buy tacky peripherals such as this. Yea sure there are a shit-ton of mobile games out there and ones that have been wildly successful, but almost all of them are casual, touch screen-friendly experiences.

Even with stream gaming becoming a thing, that will hardly have a scratch against Nintendo when their brand is already recognized as making dedicated gaming machines. It is also not out of question that streaming can possibly come over to the Switch. If or when that actually happens, "gaming" off your smartphone will hardly have an impact.

Well you can always opt for the less tacky options. Its is undoubtedly naive to think that Nintendo would not be affected if there is an uptick in favor of game streaming. Lets hope than Nintendo wouldn't take the "its going to fail and wouldn't affect us" approach as many of you all are defaulting to.

I am not saying mobile streaming gaming is going to fail, but I see it as hardly having an impact on the Switch when Switch is widely known as a dedicated gaming machine when mobile phones are NOT. Every successful mobile game in the market is casually made for touch screen-friendly input. We have yet to have a "hardcore" gaming experience on a phone that entices people why they should game on their phone outside casual fare in the first place. There is simply not a market for that as of right now on mobile devices.

Most people do NOT buy phones for gaming. Games like Angry Birds and Pokemon Go only supplement the multimedia features that phones have evolved into, but never have phones been purely dedicated to gaming on its own. People don't buy phones just so they can play Angry Birds or Pokemon Go.

If the world is ever going to take mobile gaming as serious as it can potentially pose a threat towards one of the big 3 game companies out right now, there's going to be a lot more required than just implementing streaming capabilities to the phone when a company like Nintendo may very well jump aboard streaming as well. Phone manufacturers might as well start introducing phone models built from the ground up as gaming phones (i.e have phones with controllers built in).

Avatar image for Pedro
#49 Posted by Pedro (35602 posts) -

@jaydan said:

I am not saying mobile streaming gaming is going to fail, but I see it as hardly having an impact on the Switch when Switch is widely known as a dedicated gaming machine when mobile phones are NOT. Every successful mobile game in the market is casually made for touch screen-friendly input. We have yet to have a "hardcore" gaming experience on a phone that entices people why they should game on their phone outside casual fare in the first place. There is simply not a market for that as of right now on mobile devices.

Most people do NOT buy phones for gaming. Games like Angry Birds and Pokemon Go only supplement the multimedia features that phones have evolved into, but never have phones been purely dedicated to gaming on its own. People don't buy games just so they can play Angry Birds or Pokemon Go.

If the world is ever going to take mobile gaming as serious as it can potentially pose a threat towards one of the big 3 game companies out right now, there's going to be a lot more required than just implementing streaming capabilities to the phone when a company like Nintendo may very well jump aboard streaming as well. Phone manufacturers might as well start introducing phone models built from the ground up as gaming phones too (i.e have phones with controllers built in).

Your argument still revolves around a shortsighted view of where this tech is going and may lead to. There wasn't a market for streaming music, videos, watching people play games, reality tv etc. But, with the introduction of this technology, what wasn't option before now becomes one. My point is very simple, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo (especially Nintendo) ignoring this technology would be a very bad decision.

Avatar image for jaydan
#50 Edited by jaydan (2473 posts) -

@Pedro said:
@jaydan said:

I am not saying mobile streaming gaming is going to fail, but I see it as hardly having an impact on the Switch when Switch is widely known as a dedicated gaming machine when mobile phones are NOT. Every successful mobile game in the market is casually made for touch screen-friendly input. We have yet to have a "hardcore" gaming experience on a phone that entices people why they should game on their phone outside casual fare in the first place. There is simply not a market for that as of right now on mobile devices.

Most people do NOT buy phones for gaming. Games like Angry Birds and Pokemon Go only supplement the multimedia features that phones have evolved into, but never have phones been purely dedicated to gaming on its own. People don't buy games just so they can play Angry Birds or Pokemon Go.

If the world is ever going to take mobile gaming as serious as it can potentially pose a threat towards one of the big 3 game companies out right now, there's going to be a lot more required than just implementing streaming capabilities to the phone when a company like Nintendo may very well jump aboard streaming as well. Phone manufacturers might as well start introducing phone models built from the ground up as gaming phones too (i.e have phones with controllers built in).

Your argument still revolves around a shortsighted view of where this tech is going and may lead to. There wasn't a market for streaming music, videos, watching people play games, reality tv etc. But, with the introduction of this technology, what wasn't option before now becomes one. My point is very simple, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo (especially Nintendo) ignoring this technology would be a very bad decision.

You seem to think I'm against streaming, which I am not. I see a bright future in it.

The point of this topic: will streaming games be a threat to Nintendo's handheld dominance? And to which mobile phones is being used as an example that can pose a threat to Nintendo's handheld success. I simply see it as unlikely for very basic reasons.

Phones have never been dedicated gaming machines. Controller peripherals do exist but they are incredibly niche purchases your average phone-holder will never touch. I'm simply looking in the eyes of consumerism and trends by the mainstream. The mainstream has long-accepted the Switch as a dedicated gaming machine, not phones.

Will streaming games on a phone really change that success in an impactful way? Will everyone stark buying those tacky controller peripherals? I don't think so. And once again, it is not out of question at all if Nintendo will jump aboard streaming at some point as well.