The argument for and against Overwatch 2 on cloud game-stream platforms
For:
- Overwatch 2 more accessible to more players
- Inclusive of low-powered Windows laptop, Chromebook, Mac, mobile, Smart TV, TV stick and iOS/Android users
- No special gaming hardware required - only need access to Internet and web-browser/cloud client
- Cost-of-entry barrier to the game lowered - no large initial outlay cost means cloud democratises access to games
- Boosts player-count
- Above means shorter queue times, tighter matches and more potential revenue from microtransactions
- Cloud game-stream platforms increasingly popular as evidenced by capacity shortages and queue times
- No port required by developers for Windows-based cloud game-stream platforms
- No disk space required on the user’s local machine and no large initial download or updates
- Despite increased latency many users can still enjoy a casual experience; this is preferable to an inability to play at all
- Can even be played on mobile devices especially with controller attachments
- Some heroes remain largely playable even with moderate latency e.g. Reinhart or Mercy; in this case the player may leverage positioning, ability usage or other game related skills to somewhat offset any disadvantage from input lag
- Overwatch 2 supports Reflex mode for GFN
- Game can be run at high settings with comparably good latency compared to a well-below system requirement machine
- High-speed, low-latency fibre to the premises broadband becomes more commonplace over time
- Easy to perform a speedtest to see if one has a sufficient connection quality
- Wi-Fi technologies improve over time and provide an acceptable experience under ideal conditions
- Game can be enjoyed with reduced fan noise and lowered thermals
- Reduced energy consumption reduces electricity bills for the end-user
- Resources on the local machine can be dedicated to recording, stream broadcasting or other activities without impeding the performance of the game
- Payment choices more flexible than buying a gaming machine outright; even completely free options exist
- Good Internet and a cloud subscription is cheaper in some developing countries than gaming hardware
- Cloud game-stream services have and will continue to be improved
- Infrequent OW2 players may wish to play one month or one day on occasion and they would only need to pay for the day or a month that they wanted
- Good for more than simply playing the game - for example one can watch back their replays on the cloud; this has no low-latency demand
- Markedly improved battery life for portable devices as the game is not run locally
- No need to worry about hardware upgrades, hardware wear-and-tear, or driver updates as such maintenance can be done by the provider
- Overwatch’s quick in-and-out gameplay ideal for the one-hour session length of GFN’s free tier
- No issues with game saves as Overwatch’s player progress is entirely online
- Cloud offers comparable or better latency than a console under ideal conditions - the technology is tried and proven
- More difficult to cheat as game files cannot be modified and external programs cannot be run on pick-up-and-play cloud platforms
- No room-space occupied by a bulky gaming console or desktop
- More options for gamers in how they access games; for many gamers cloud is the most convenient option
Against:
- Recurrent fee from subscriptions
- “Input lag” or latency is always bad for fast paced competitive games; Latency makes cloud unsuitable for FPS games for some players or heroes that are ultra-reliant on immediate response
- Insufficient Internet or cloud gamestream provider infrastructure in many regions means that some users may not be in close proximity to a server
- Above means that not everyone has a good enough connection to enjoy game-streaming
- Data limits in place for many ISPs; streamed games consume lots of bandwidth and would not be feasible
- Difficult and sometimes inconvenient to set up a perfect connection i.e. wired by Ethernet; Wi-Fi may not be sufficient
- Cloud latency cannot match local latency
- Latency especially important when it comes to a first person shooter in which any delay can be felt and lack of immediacy perceived in every action
- Game input must be sent to the cloud which must then be sent to the Overwatch server and vice versa increasing round-trip-time (true of any online game)
- Video stream must be compressed and this always loses some quality; the user may notice compression artefacts or blurriness subject to connection, bitrate and encoder; this reduces enjoyment and may make it more difficult to spot an enemy player in game
- Hardware capable of running Overwatch 2 relatively well is inexpensive in some countries
- Mix of players from different platforms erodes competitive integrity
- Long queue time dependent on subscription tier, service, time of day
- User may be routed to a far away server during peak times which introduces more latency
- Downtime with game updates
- Buying a machine outright may be preferable; one can always recoup the cost later as there is a resale value attached which cannot be said for cloud
- In-home streaming solutions e.g. Moonlight offer some of cloud platforms’ advantages; may be more cost-effective
- Not every cloud platform or tier is made equal; Xbox Cloud Gaming may offer a markedly worse experience compared to GeForce NOW Ultimate
- Not everyone can afford or is willing to pay for GeForce NOW Ultimate; therefore not everyone experiences the best that cloud can offer
- Potential for conflict with game’s anti-cheat solution
- No ownership or control over the game files
- A cloud platform may close down at any given time (see Google Stadia/NWare) therefore users invest “at their own risk”
TLDR
- Cloud game-streaming is good to have as an option - the more platforms the better
- Consumers i.e. gamers benefit
- Play on the hardware you already own
- Not suitable for everyone due to potential drawbacks
- Tech rapidly improving
