Since this is a translation of a foreign article, there may be some inaccuracies.
https://hothardware.com/news/amazon-gaming-boss-says-local-gaming-is-too-expensive
Amazon Gaming Boss Says Consoles Will Soon Be Unnecessary
Jeff Grates, head of Amazon's gaming division, told the BBC in an interview that as hardware costs rise, gamers will abandon dedicated gaming devices like consoles and gaming PCs in favor of streaming. While his thinking is flawed, it might be a reasonable assumption if you aren't a gamer.
Here's what he said exactly:
"As hardware becomes increasingly expensive and streaming technology continues to advance, it's natural for people to question whether dedicated devices are truly necessary."
-- Amazon Gaming Head Manager Jeff Grates
From a management perspective, this statement makes sense and this bleak future could be very appealing for the company. Grates pointed out that only a small percentage of gamers worldwide own dedicated gaming hardware. This is a plausible estimate based on the massive number of mobile gamers worldwide, but it doesn't consider gamers who enjoy mobile games alongside other devices or PC gamers who primarily or exclusively use their PCs for gaming.
Cloud gaming is also appealing to management in other ways. The biggest reason is that game software isn't directly transmitted to the customer's device. This almost completely eliminates piracy and prevents users from backing up or illegally copying the software. It also makes user modding impossible, allowing game publishers to maintain greater control over the user experience. Finally, it allows all games to be turned into an endless subscription service - which is something companies love for obvious reasons.
Of course, there's another benefit for companies and supposedly for users as well, though in reality it isn't: the potential market for game publishers and cloud service providers could expand dramatically. If anyone with a smartphone can play the latest blockbuster games through this service, they can make a lot more money.
Amazon naturally has its own cloud gaming service.
The problem with this perspective is that it completely ignores the actual experience gamers face. I've personally tested GeForce Now, Amazon Luna, and Microsoft's Xbox Cloud Gaming. None of these services provided a satisfactory experience from my home.
Fast-paced shooter games felt incredibly sluggish, fighting games were unplayable due to input lag, and intermittent packet loss resulted in noticeable stuttering and quality degradation, similar to watching a 1440p YouTube video.
This is less of a criticism of the technology itself and more of an issue with physical reality. Where I live is a rural area, so these services' data centers are too far away. This results in significant latency and unstable cable connections leading to packet loss, making response time crucial games virtually unplayable.
If you live in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Vancouver, Toronto, or most areas of Japan with a solid fiber optic internet connection, cloud gaming can be a great experience. But most people don't live near those locations, and this is where Grates' statement reveals its ignorance.
It's true that many people around the world cannot afford dedicated gaming hardware, but this was also the case before prices rose. And those people don't even have the internet connection required to enjoy cloud gaming.
Until global internet infrastructure and physical limitations allow for consistently low response times regardless of player location, cloud gaming will not be a viable alternative to local games running directly on devices.
Moreover, the used and budget market is full of devices capable of perfectly running tens of thousands of games. The idea that people should switch to cloud gaming because they can't afford a $1500 PlayStation 6 is nothing more than the pure fantasy of executives blinded by dollar signs.
▶ Source: https://hothardware.com/news/amazon-gaming-boss-says-local-gaming-is-too-expensive
