[weitendorf]

In the long run cloud gaming is inevitable, it’s just more economically efficient for the cost of the hardware required to render graphics to be amortized across consumers and not sit idle when being unused by collocating them with game assets in POPs.

Once enough gaming compute runs at the edge it also allows for more technically advanced games than would currently be economically feasible (but aren’t made mostly for lack of a market/adoption of cloud gaming and the resulting lack of technical know-how). So I think it will stick and probably end up winning over the holdouts, once the cost of rendering the games they want to play with consumer hardware becomes too large to stomach.

[Marsymars]

You could make the same economic argument for any SaaS, but the margins SaaS providers look for make it so that the only time it isn't cheaper to run your own software/hardware stack in place of SaaS is when the hardware requirements are very low, not high. SaaS makes sense economically when you take into account the admin, compliance, etc. costs... and the admin costs of a Nintendo Switch are pretty low.

[willis936]

Economic efficiency does not win the day because the free market is a myth. Cloud gaming is a technically worse solution because the latency floor is higher. It's a microeconomic disaster (rent vs buy, buy wins). The only reason it would become a thing is if the multinationals succeed in concentrating more wealth and power, which consumers aren't interested in supporting. It's a bad deal and consumers know it. They would have to be forced into it by having the consumer hardware market taken off the table (which is happening and the only possible avenue for a technical regression like cloud gaming to have a market).