Google Stadia: Thread 01

[MartyG]

Given that this is mostly triple A published games we're talking about, I'd be very surprised if costs aren't the same as download prices, i.e., starting £50 a pop (plus season passes and microtransactions on top ). The myth that digital downloads mean cheaper games was busted long ago.

[Cassius_Smoke]

First year adopters will probably buy it to try it and get the three month sub. But realisticly if you want to play doom Eternal right now in 4K youd buy a XBox.
Year 2 rolls round, PS5 launches and those 90+ million ps4 owners begin to migrate. The PS5 will offer the same games, it will have some kind of streaming service and offer VR. What does Google have up it's sleave to combat this?

[Asura]

What's the catch with the free model? I can see plenty of people jumping on that if the same games are offered.

At first, it might not be so bad - but it will probably lead a focus on games which were built as freemium from the ground up. So that's loot boxes and the rest of it. It's similar to what happened with smartphones when "free" games took over.

[wakka]

First year adopters will probably buy it to try it and get the three month sub. But realisticly if you want to play doom Eternal right now in 4K youd buy a XBox.
Year 2 rolls round, PS5 launches and those 90+ million ps4 owners begin to migrate. The PS5 will offer the same games, it will have some kind of streaming service and offer VR. What does Google have up it's sleave to combat this?

Primarily, a lower cost of entry. Most of the same games as PS5, for £120 (or less by that point) down instead of £450.

[Neon Ignition]

They could leverage that even if it's a misleading claim. The cost of launch Stadia and subscription over the course of the generation will cost hundreds more than buying a PS5. Anyone looking to do it for cheap and pay monthly could just use Very or Shopto to pay monthly too, a bit of discipline avoids interest which maintains the savings and they have access to exclusive games which Stadia still lacks.

Really though the main issue it faces is xCloud, it's going to be insanely easy for Microsoft to absolutely sink Stadia.

[Digfox]

They could leverage that even if it's a misleading claim. The cost of launch Stadia and subscription over the course of the generation will cost hundreds more than buying a PS5.

Is it misleading though?

A PS5 is going to need PS+ (£50 per year) before you can play many of the games. Streaming is £12.99/m or £80 pa on top (and we don't know if PS5 games will be on PS Now straight away).

Google £8.99 Pro sub gives you some free games (although at launch just the full Destiny 2 Collection) and 4k/60 across all games. But you don't need to sub if you don't need 4K. And once Chrome and Android apps come along it really will have very limited barriers to entry. In that sense the statement there is no comparable hardware cost like a PS5 or XB2 is largely correct.

I did also read that part of Google strategy is licensing their tech out, meaning you could build a Bordersdown Streaming offering on the exact same tech, for example.

[wakka]

I don't think it's too misleading. The sub isn't mandatory. It will be cheaper overall than owning the hardware yourself.

More so if you already own a computer - even one nowhere near capable of playing game s- or a Chromecast. Is it correct that you only need the pad if you already have one of these?

[Digfox]

Is it correct that you only need the pad if you already have one of these?

You don't need their pad. They had already confirmed that keyboard, mouse or other controllers will work.

At the launch it's Chromecast Ultra (I haven't seen normal CC mentioned but might work) and then next year Pixel 3/3a devices and Chrome support. With larger Android support coming 'over time'.

[nonny]

Not a bad price given you get the controller and a chrome cast ultra. Still don't think there is too much in the way of exciting content for it though...

Edit... Plus I'd be happy to be locked out of the 4k stream option given how much it consumes in data... Ouch.

[MartyG]

Edit... Plus I'd be happy to be locked out of the 4k stream option given how much it consumes in data... Ouch.

16 GB per hour (or 1TB in 65 hours, about 16 hours of gaming a week) - that's going to cripple your data caps quickly. Bit unfortunate that the US lost the protection of net neutrality as ISPs will be able to throttle the traffic it uses without a premium service add-on.

4.5 GB an hour will get you 720P though - still kind of kills using this service on most mobile plans.

I definitely advise against using Stadia whilst roaming

[Neon Ignition]

Neither is the sub mandatory for PS+, it's a popular option but for most unless you regularly indulge in CoD, FIFA, BF etc multiplayer you lose incredibly little by not having it.

You could just buy games next year individually via the free subscription. Presumably you need a controller for most titles but casuals could try and avoid that too. Essentially, if you don't have a 4K TV and the games that come with the sub aren't great then the paid sub is worthless.

Either way, if you wait for the free Stadia to launch instead of paying the £119 here then you're only looking at the sub unless you're strictly going to buy new £50+ releases solo for 720p/1080p gaming. That's £107.88 per year making a £755.16 total cost for the avg 7 years next gen takes. This is where a lot rests on whether Google is going to be strong on things like game pricing and sales etc. It's also discounting how critical a controller is for most people to play the games so potentially that costs (a one off at minimum) on top. Many might already have controllers etc but that's straying into talking about people already better served.

If anything the biggest question this raises is why Valve has been so slow on making a Steam Stream service, that would be an insta-kill but presumably they know they're in a strong position and suspect the truth about the prospects here. Looking at each generation of gaming there's a roof to the platform userbase overall and once you deduct the inevitable taken by MS, Nintendo and Sony it leaves Stadia fighting for scraps.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that developing the service will benefit Google as just like the companies involved in VR development it has many uses and implications for non-gaming business ventures but honestly - there are only three markets for gaming: 1-Casuals who will not buy into this, 2-Core gamers who will drop thoughts of Stadia like a bad habit next year when the new consoles lift their veils and 3-Non gamers who will ignore this in their masses

[Digfox]

Neither is the sub mandatory for PS+, it's a popular option but for most unless you regularly indulge in CoD, FIFA, BF etc multiplayer you lose incredibly little by not having it.

It's not mandatory but given how most of the biggest games requires online or are multiplayer only, it's a valid cost to take into account for many PS/XB (or Switch) owners which Stadia users won't have to worry about.

[dataDave]

I hope it takes off. The only differential the consoles can bring to the table is their exclusive software. Even if the new consoles do black magic with their tech this system should be running on the latest and greatest PC hardware anyway, so it's always going to be several steps ahead of anything that comes in a £450 console.

Hopefully it'll give the others a kick up the bum in regards to content, MS especially.

4K/60fps Doom Eternal on Ultra settings would be too good to pass up if I wasn't already going to be playing it at a much higher frame rate. It's almost a no-brainer for people with the connection/data but without a £500+ GPU.

[Neon Ignition]

I don't know, the biggest games do use it but it's not that huge a circle of titles that make that list up rather than the same franchises iterated yearly. If you're into them then you're already covered and even then players looking to play half those games shouldn't be looking at Stadia and streaming services to continue playing those titles.

I think effectively I don't doubt that the service effectively works for what it is, I just don't see who the market for it is as most people who have the interest and consideration to care about the service it's aiming to provide with its 4K/60fps will be the same one that will recognise the other options out there and the limits that Google and the tech brings as well. The discussion surrounding Stadia is frighteningly similar to the early days hopes for Ouya and OnLive and delivering a better picture and connection rate is far from solving the ease of the failure of such attempts. It's why xCloud feels like the best one to back, MS is clearly carefully rolling it out in a manner that accomplishes a better quality service but in a way that minimises the risks of its failure.

[Lebowski]

If anything the biggest question this raises is why Valve has been so slow on making a Steam Stream service, that would be an insta-kill but presumably they know they're in a strong position and suspect the truth about the prospects here. Looking at each generation of gaming there's a roof to the platform userbase overall and once you deduct the inevitable taken by MS, Nintendo and Sony it leaves Stadia fighting for scraps.

Valve steam link and big screen mode are a thing but require you to have your own PC which you stream to your tv. it was a massive flop, they could adapt the tech in stream link to work with data centers but we have had these services before and nobody has quite got it right yet.