Google Stadia: Thread 01

[MartyG]

I won't - I can't remove every single game from future inability to play, but I can minimise my exposure to it. If everything is streamed only, I most certainly cannot (and I didn't pay anywhere close to full price for The Division 1).

Having said that, people have in the past created their own servers for defunct games, such as the Revive Project

[Digfox]

I won't - I can't remove every single game from future inability to play, but I can minimise my exposure to it. If everything is streamed only, I most certainly cannot.

Short of Google's propensity to cancel projects (something I do agree with you on) in theory a lot of games could have the same shelf life on Stadia as they will on other platforms given so many releases rely on online components these days.

[Neon Ignition]

That's one of the main issues surrounding streamed gaming, the rush to be the Netflix of gaming. However, as with every attempt, it completely ignores that the economics and user psychology of gaming aren't comparable to that of film and music so it's a broken basis every time.

The rise in digital spending by current gen users is often used as justification for streaming based platforms yet this is the same generation of users that practically brought the Xbox platform to its knees for not planning to give them a sense of ownership via a disc drive. The other half of the gaming userbase that often pays £50-£60 for digitally owned games are already being better served by being able to download the games. Yes massive day one patches etc are a pain but they're solvable by better management on the companies behalf. Deliver Day one patches on Day -1 before the game unlocks, systems download whilst you're not playing so the user never needs to notice such things. No latency issues either.

Then there's the sheer volume of countries and regions affected by ping issues, speed issues and data caps none of which will change fast.

The main argument then switches to it being more for non-traditional audiences but they won't pay £50-£60 a pop just as they don't now. At best they'll expect F2P or 69p efforts like they faff with on their phone. Better affordable gaming has been available for decades and high end users will always pursue physical hardware.

Main gamers will switch to streaming but it will require streaming gaming to present an easily recognisable benefit and that won't be the streaming itself, it'll either have to be the death of £50-£60 prices or not having to pay £400 every 6 years (and those servers getting upgraded that frequently or sooner to stay cutting edge)

[Asura]

Sorry @Asura, that feels like tenuous opinion at best.

To be fair though, it was an opinion piece.

[Digfox]

The main argument then switches to it being more for non-traditional audiences but they won't pay £50-£60 a pop just as they don't now. At best they'll expect F2P or 69p efforts like they faff with on their phone. Better affordable gaming has been available for decades and high end users will always pursue physical hardware.

Main gamers will switch to streaming but it will require streaming gaming to present an easily recognisable benefit and that won't be the streaming itself, it'll either have to be the death of £50-£60 prices or not having to pay £400 every 6 years (and those servers getting upgraded that frequently or sooner to stay cutting edge)

But people are paying £60 for games online. The ratio is increasing all the time. And the few tidbits of evidence show that MTX and DLC ratios are increasing too.

When I've heard MS execs talk, they speak about appealing to the hundreds of millions of customers, rather than the tens of millions. They know there's a finite number you can sell dedicated boxes too. And that sales of dedicated boxes have declined as mobile has eaten at sales.

This is about trying to capture those users. My friends that moved from their PS2's/Wii's and DS's onto iPads. Or those who haven't played games before and certainly aren't spending £200-300 on a dedicated box.

That said there are definitely exciting possibilities. An MP game with 100's of players running around, instant on via numerous devices and hundreds of GB of game data. But like [MENTION=5941]Asura[/MENTION] said of mobile, whether this becomes something exciting or a missed opportunity remains to be seen imo. This is clearly a very early point in the technology.

[Digfox]

To be fair though, it was an opinion piece.

Fair cop. You did say that.

I just don't think many will regards this as the fourth wave of Cloud based Gaming platforms. Perhaps more of building on what has come before, Google entering the market as one of the first of the big cloud providers/platforms.

[Team Andromeda]

I was going to to post the Digital Foundry analysis video. Some of the advantages the tech has really offer an opportunity for something different (jump in with streamers, play from a point of a YT video, instant loading etc.). I love the fixed 'virtual spec'. It feels like the first of the next gen systems has launched with similar specifications to Sony and Microsoft's next machines.
.

Agreed it could be huge and a real game changer. If you can get stunning looking games almost as good as top end PC gaming, just as easy was watching YouTube.. Only in real time and with you playing the games, rather than watching.

If I was MS and SONY I'll be slighty worried and they better push the boat out for the next-gen console spec

[Neon Ignition]

But people are paying £60 for games online. The ratio is increasing all the time. And the few tidbits of evidence show that MTX and DLC ratios are increasing too.

When I've heard MS execs talk, they speak about appealing to the hundreds of millions of customers, rather than the tens of millions. They know there's a finite number you can sell dedicated boxes too. And that sales of dedicated boxes have declined as mobile has eaten at sales.

This is about trying to capture those users. My friends that moved from their PS2's/Wii's and DS's onto iPads. Or those who haven't played games before and certainly aren't spending £200-300 on a dedicated box.

That said there are definitely exciting possibilities. An MP game with 100's of players running around, instant on via numerous devices and hundreds of GB of game data. But like @Asura said of mobile, whether this becomes something exciting or a missed opportunity remains to be seen imo. This is clearly a very early point in the technology.

That's the trouble though, those who are paying £60 for a digital game already have the means and gain nothing from streaming of worth. For those hundreds of millions of disinterested or lapsed users it's the same story. Even when consoles hit low ball pricing they don't buy in. A streaming service where you're still paying £60 a pop offers no reason for them to pay attention. You could argue that they can use it to play easily on their phones, TV etc but again that's all old concept stuff that doesn't work. Stadia effectively offers the same experience we already have at potentially the same price point per title. Users don't really care about delivery by streaming, it's only workable for film and music because they fall within a more disposable pricing bracket by default anyway.

If you're not into console gaming experiences then seeing Googles name on the screen and streaming the visuals isn't going to be the sales pitch that swings you into it

[Digfox]

That's the trouble though, those who are paying £60 for a digital game already have the means and gain nothing from streaming of worth. For those hundreds of millions of disinterested or lapsed users it's the same story. Even when consoles hit low ball pricing they don't buy in. A streaming service where you're still paying £60 a pop offers no reason for them to pay attention. You could argue that they can use it to play easily on their phones, TV etc but again that's all old concept stuff that doesn't work. Stadia effectively offers the same experience we already have at potentially the same price point per title.

Stadia doesn't require a dedicated box to play those games. There are NO up-front cost for a console or PC. There are likely to be more people who will consider spending money on games when there is no hardware cost.

These gamers aren't likely the people buying Xbox One X's, Switches or PCs now.

Also did you watch the DF video? There were examples mentioned of game concepts just not possible on current (or likely incoming) console tech today because of the way the server can control everything at very high speeds.

[QualityChimp]

I'm just relishing the day I don't really own anything.

It's all sat on servers and can be deleted at the whim of the company hosting it, or by accident.

Kodak turned off hosting cloud photos, UltraViolet closed its film dowload service, MySpace just accidentally deleted everything from pre-2016 (50 MILLION songs), Photbucket changed to a paid service, films people have bought on iTunes are lost if you change region, Microsoft turned off the Indie Games service, Sony stopped supplying PS3 and Vita games with PS+ and forum giant Bordersdown lost a year's worth of bants, dad jokes and arguments about resolution and frame rate.

[MartyG]

If you're not into console gaming experiences then seeing Googles name on the screen and streaming the visuals isn't going to be the sales pitch that swings you into it

If anything I'd say the opposite of swinging you towards it was true, given the bad press in the media recently over tech giant's handling of personal data.

I do like my Google Pixel though, even if it does report on me to Google services.

[Digfox]

I'm just relishing the day I don't really own anything.

It's all sat on servers and can be deleted at the whim of the company hosting it, or by accident.

*Cough* it's already happened...

[Team Andromeda]

Stadia doesn't require a dedicated box to play those games. There are NO up-front cost for a console or PC. There are likely to be more people who will consider spending money on games when there is no hardware cost.

These gamers aren't likely the people buying Xbox One X's, Switches or PCs now.

Also did you watch the DF video? There were examples mentioned of game concepts just not possible on current (or likely incoming) console tech today because of the way the server can control everything at very high speeds.

Well said, this could be massive for the core gamer and non-gamer alike. That's all as if as promised it's as easy as using YouTube

[Cassius_Smoke]

As i have said before, a streaming service is a great idea. But its only as good as the worst connection speeds.
For example: As soon as word spreads that when you're playing Doom Eternal, ever few frames it stutters or drops, then people will just play Doom Eternal on a PS5.
Its not the same as Netflix, in that when the connection stutters or drops i just just restart where I left off. With a game you don't want to have to do that mid game, and I wouldn't want to play if there was any threat at all of completely losing my progress at any moment.

[Neon Ignition]

I just flicked through the OnLive thread and barring the prominence of Googles brand and funding the similarities in discussions are startling.


I think, without repeating lots of old discussions, the best way I can short summarise it is that I find it more curious what isn't being done and what isn't being said that sums down to one thing - Sony

Sony has the most successful gaming brand, the most successful hardware, a largely staggering twenty four year largely consistent run of success across four generations. Sony knows how to make gaming platforms, they know how to sell them, they know how to make software for them and they know how to market them to different audiences. Sony also owns and operates a long running gaming streaming service that has consistently been adding titles and is being quietly rolled out to more and more devices. However, they don't heavily promote it. They largely don't discuss the larger efforts of their rivals on streaming. They don't pour investment into the service with an aim to have all their current releases on there. They don't discuss it as being the future of the Playstation brand ahead of a dedicated machine. Instead they usually just say they're watching and paying attention to other companies efforts.

I don't for one second think Sony is being overly passive or ignorant of streamings role in the future of gaming. I think it's much more likely that they are aware of the realities of the market and know damned well this is a marathon and not a sprint and it's stupid to go in large on it right now.