Ty HarveyLook, I get that this is primarily a PlayStation publication, but I just had to get this off my chest. People are hating on Google Stadia, and that annoys me. No, it doesn’t annoy me to see people hating on Stadia. Everybody’s entitled to their own opinions, obviously. The thing that annoys me, is the fact that people are hating on Stadia for absolutely ridiculous reasons. So here, let’s talk about it, and let me explain what Stadia actually is, and how the vast majority of the people hating on Stadia are wrong and misinformed.
So, just what is Google Stadia?
Stadia is a new cloud gaming service provided by Google. It’s essentially a high powered virtual game console without the console, where instead of downloading the games individually to your local device, you stream them over an internet connection.
Stadia is expensive!
No, it really isn’t. I know a lot of people (journalists, YouTubers, etc) are trying to portray Stadia as being this expensive thing, but the fact is, Stadia’s significantly less expensive than the base PS4. If you have practically any device with a screen, that device is transformed into a virtual console that’s significantly more powerful than the PS4 Pro. In fact, Stadia (10.7 teraflops) is actually more powerful than both the PS4 Pro (4.2 teraflops) and the Xbox One X (6.0 teraflops) combined! And better yet, Stadia will just keep getting more powerful as time goes on, and new technologies are developed. And you know how much Stadia costs?
$0.00
Stadia is entirely free, and supports up to a 1080p resolution, with every single game running at 60 frames per second. If you don’t have a computer of any kind, you can also buy a Chromecast Ultra to play on your TV. (Chromecast Ultra is $70)
But say you have a 4K display, such as a 4KTV? Stadia Pro is available for $10 per month, which supercharges your virtual console to support 4K ultra high definition resolutions with every game running at a constant 60 frames per second. Not even the Xbox One X can do that, and that’s a $500 console.
Oh, and multiplayer is free. There are no monthly or yearly fees to play with your friends.
You need super fast internet, which nobody has!
According to a report by Speedtest.net, the average internet download speed in America is 96.25 Mbps. Stadia Pro (the 4K version) recommends 35 Mbps, with Stadia Base (the free 1080p version) recommending 20 Mbps. That means your average American internet user has at least double the required speed on average, and can stream games at the highest resolution and frame rate Stadia has to offer.
Yes, some people are going to have slower internet, and won’t be able to use Stadia. However, the average internet user in America has more than enough speed to use Stadia at its highest tier.
The latency! Oh noes, the latency must be horrible!
For those of you unfamiliar, latency is the amount of time it takes for a button press to translate to an in-game action. The less latency there is, the more responsive your game will be.
According to Eurogamer, Stadia has an identical latency to that of the Xbox One X, with it potentially being better depending on the game you’re playing, and your network conditions. However, because Stadia isn’t actually going to be out until this November, we can only speculate on how fast (or slow) Stadia’s latency actually is. But based on what we know so far, Google Stadia is on-par with the consoles, but not quite as responsive as a high end PC.
Of course, latency also depends greatly on where you live, and how close you are to a Stadia datacenter. The closer you are, the less latency there will be. Thankfully, Google’s a giant in the world wide web, so they have quite a few datacenters to spare. Odds are, you’re close to one.
What about data caps?
This is actually a legitimate concern, at least in America. If you have an internet connection with a monthly data cap, going over that cap could cost you a pretty penny or two. Depends on your internet service provider, as well as the area you live in. Google’s official response is essentially “ISPs will adapt”, which may or may not be true. To be honest, there’s no real solution to this particular problem, as it’s not a Stadia problem. It’s a problem with American Internet Service Providers.
You don’t own the games! I REPEAT! YOU DON’T OWN EM!
That’s correct, though you also don’t own any game you buy online. What you’re actually buying is a license to play the game indefinitely. This license can be revoked at any time, such as if your account gets banned, or if the service that sold you the license were to shut down, or for no damn reason at all.
Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, Origin, Uplay, Stadia. If you’re buying it digitally, you don’t own the game. It’s just that simple, and while yes, this is a worthy concern to have, it’s not something that should be associated with Stadia as some big and exclusive negative. Because once again, you don’t own your games on any modern platform, either. Stadia’s no different.
If my internet goes down, I can no longer play my games!
Welcome to the world of DRM, and modern gaming. This is true for a lot of other services, albeit to a lesser extent. But yes, ultimately, if you lose connection to the internet, you can no longer access Stadia. Nor can you access Google. Or YouTube. Or this very website.
The point is, if your internet goes down, everything that’s reliant on the internet goes down with it. That includes games with always-online DRM checks, or digital storefronts on PC like Epic Games Store. You’ll even lose access to your downloaded PS4 games if you didn’t previously activate your console as your primary console.
Losing access to the games you love sucks, but it’s hardly an exclusive problem just with Stadia. Though, you’re right; Stadia and other internet-only services are obviously more impacted by the lack of, you know, the internet.
I can’t mod my games on Stadia! That sucks!
You can’t mod your games on PS4 or Xbox either, unless the developer chooses to let you. Same goes for Stadia. Remember, Stadia isn’t a “PC marketplace” it’s a “virtual cloud game console”, and just like with non-virtual game consoles, you can’t use mods on Stadia.
Just because you can play Stadia games on nearly any device, including your computer, doesn’t mean that the games you’re playing are computer games. They are console games. Stadia is a console in the cloud. It has all of the same limitations and advantages as a typical home console.
If Stadia gets shut down, I lose all my games!
If Steam is ever shut down, you will lose all of your games. If Origin is ever shut down, you will lose all of your games. If PlayStation Network is ever shut down, you will lose all of your games. If Xbox Live is ever shut down, you will lose all of your games. If Stadia is ever shut down, you will lose all of your games.
See a trend forming here?
Also, I’m aware that Steam has a “if we go down we’ll give you your game library somehow” clause, just in case they ever do go bankrupt or something. There’s no reason Google can’t do the same thing.
I have to buy my games again if I want to play them on Stadia!
If you buy a game on the PS4 and want to play it on your Xbox One, you need to buy the game again on the Xbox One.
If you buy a game on Origin and you want to play it on Uplay, you need to buy the game again on Uplay.
If you buy a game on Steam and you want to play it on GOG, you need to buy it again on GOG.*
Why would Stadia be any different?
* GOG Connect lets you transfer select games from Steam over to GOG during a timed promotional period.
Conclusion
Look, I get it. Stadia’s a new technology, and it’s promising to deliver a lot. That doesn’t mean we should all just go ahead and lie about it, right? Yes, games are full price on Stadia, because why shouldn’t they be? No, Stadia isn’t like Netflix, because why should it be? There are so many widespread misconceptions, lies, and falsehoods, it’s honestly baffling to me. Reporters from major news publications, large YouTubers, and your average gamer that believes their lies and misconceptions.
Now, I don’t want to believe that people are purposely spreading false information due to some hidden agenda. I want to believe that it’s just a matter of basic misunderstanding of what Stadia is. So, for those of you that think Stadia is a rival to Steam? It isn’t.
Stadia is a virtual game console powered by the internet. It’s a competitor to the traditional consoles, not to Steam, or PC gaming as a whole. It’s a console without a console. So please, internet. I beg of you. Stop spreading misinformation about Stadia. It’s at point where it’s no longer funny, and only mildly amusing.
Also for those of you wondering why there’s a Google Stadia article on a twenty year old PlayStation publication? Well, like I said at the top of the article, I really needed to get this off my chest. I absolutely hate it when people spread false information, and I needed to write about it, and try to set some things straight. So that’s what I did. Don’t worry, you’re unlikely to see too many Stadia articles in the future, since most of our focus is on the PlayStation 5.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great stuff!
Awesome man ????. Your last sentence says it all. It’s a virtual console without a console and is basically more attractive to people who have a Google environment around them.
You lost me with “People are hating on Google Stadia, and that annoys me. No, it doesn’t annoy me to see people hating on Stadia.” What kind of backwards writing is that?
You said it best that “Everybody’s entitled to their own opinions”. Many of the gripes about potential issues with Stadia are legitimate. Just as many of your counterpoints to the extent Google makes good on their word. Until it’s brought to market, nobody can definitively say what the reality is going to be. Which makes stories like this, well, annoying.
To be fair you could use the same point against the hundreds of youtube videos condemning stadia to be all terrible before even trying the service or even project stream.
The intention with this article was to talk about the various concerns, and stop the spread of misleading information. I have nothing against people that do not want to use Stadia, or other cloud gaming services. Again, you’re entitled to your own opinion. The thing I’m against is the spread of misinformation, or making normal things sound bad.
Games are full price on Stadia. That’s not a negative, but people are making it out to be one.
Stadia is a free platform, and yet people (media, YouTubers) are trying to make it sound like a more expensive platform, despite it being free.
A lack of full game ownership isn’t an exclusive problem with Stadia, and yet people are specifically using this as a way to make Stadia sound worse than it actually is. (you buy a license to play a game on every modern video game platform, including Steam, PlayStation, Xbox, and of course, Stadia)
The average internet speed in America is more than fast enough to use Stadia at its full 4K resolution, and yet people are claiming the internet is too slow to use Stadia effectively.
What we know of the latency is that it’s very similar if not identical to that of the Xbox One X, but this is of course not going to be the same for everybody that uses Stadia. Some people will have lower latency, and some will have higher. Depends on your proximity to a Stadia server, as well as the reliability of your internet connection. (bad routing can really harm your ability to use Stadia effectively, though this could potentially be resolved by using a VPN)
The data usage concerns are legitimate, and there’s no easy or straightforward solution to it. Google’s official response was more or less “ISPs will adapt”.
There’s also a recent gripe from the media that says Stadia didn’t have a beta, and that you’d have to just trust that it works. This is wrong. The beta for Stadia was called Project Stream.
The fact is, there are many legitimate concerns regarding Stadia, and the viability of cloud gaming. Buying games at full price shouldn’t be one of them, though.
That’s why I wrote this article. I was tired of seeing people making up various excuses to downplay an unreleased platform. Things like game ownership, internet speeds, pricing. People are severely misinformed on what Stadia actually is, and the media at large isn’t helping to clear up all of the misinformation.
You don’t even have a handle on what you’re talking about. For example, Google puts up the minimum internet speeds for certain gameplay. However, anyone who wasn’t born 10 years ago, knows internet speeds vary regardless of what speed you pay for. My 300Mbps cable connection will drop down to 50 or even 15 during peak hours.
Input lag is egregious even on their demos. They say they solved it, but in their best conditions, with almost no users playing on it, it was apparent. So how do you think it will be when all 208 people join the service and start playing it at the same time?
And in terms of game ownership, the problem is, PlayStation and Xbox have been around a long time. Physical copies of those games will continue to work on hardware based consoles. Stadia is brand new. Google literally throws out projects that fail. Sony and Microsoft won’t be doing this. And buying a game full price on Google, will mean that money is completely wasted if Google decides to pull the plug. I expect they will when this trash heap is exposed for the dumpster fire that it is.
Could you link to some of those articles about input lag? On Verge and Tom’s Hardware the reviews of the E3 Hands-on were great, so I’d like the chance to read reviews of those who have used it and didn’t enjoy it.
https://www.pcgamer.com/i-tried-googles-stadia-and-latency-got-me-killed/
Here’s 1, but I’ve seen many more. Also, what should scare you, is that there is lag even though they probably have it in pristine conditions for the demo…
Google never just “shuts down” something. They usually realize that the product does not work well as a standalone product and incorporates it into their “Main Lineup” (gmail, maps, photos, docs etc.) Also google has never once shutdown a paid service…ever. Plus Google just entered gaming, its an almost 90 BILLION dollar industry. Yeah, they are not going into this just to test the waters, They are here to play!
Oh you mean the 143 services and 14 apps and 14 hardware lineups? Many of those services being PAID services for businesses. Yeah… gtoh — I don’t recall them bundling their Google+ into any of their product lines either. Yeah go join that choo-choo train.https://killedbygoogle.com/
Um, Did you eve see that list or just count the tabs on top? Most of those apps were rolled into other services and don’t exist as standalone apps…as i’ve already said. The only real one that was straight up killed was Reader and they straight up said not enough people used it and they couldn’t monetize it.
You’re such a fan boy… Google is like Samsung. They throw the everything but the kitchen sink at the wall and see what sticks. So by that measure, OF COURSE they only kill things that are not successful — but many of them were good enough to keep around. That is why they will kill Stadia just as they killed Google+, Google Voce, hangouts, tablets, nexus lineup, or when they bought out companies and ran them into the ground like BufferBox and Nest. With that track record, you’re going to go on record saying “no way they would kill Stadia?” You’re insanely stupid.
Dude, half of the products you listed are still running. I still use Google Voice every day, Nest just got even bigger and runs all of Googles home automation. Hangouts is now a Slacker competitor. The nexus line became the Pixel line. I know Google has killed stuff, but you are delusional if you think a company is going to make these kind of investments just to run them into the ground. Have you heard of Google shopping? Im pretty sure Bufferbox helped build that.
Stadia is going to limp along with a small amount of subscribers. Then it will be shut down. Of course they will have to shut it down. When it barely makes them any money, it will cost too much to keep it going. You’re just too much of a fanboy to know. By your logic, if they shut down stadia, and they make a Google game, “Oh but Stadia just became their game division, where they make games now”.
I’m glad you edited your comment of calling me a “big fucking idiot”. Because once you resort to name calling instead of facts, it makes you look uninformed.
Stadia already has a game studio, so you’re correct I guess? Stadia is basically just a YouTube stream. Besides the the hardware that they already purchased, they shouldn’t lose too much money to keep it running since they already have their streaming platform running 24/7 even if Stadia doesn’t exist.
I get that you’re afraid of change, but what does it tell you that as soon as Google announced Stadia, Microsoft announced XCloud in a hurry and Sony made a deal with Microsoft Azure to change the company that streams their games for a better experience.
Streaming is the future and you’re scared. Whether you buy into it or not, competition is good for the industry.
We’ll try to stay off your lawn old man.
Lmao, you think Microsoft or Sony got the idea from google? Sony already has a cloud gaming platform. It makes sense for Sony or Microsoft to offer a cloud gaming service because they already have the developer mindshare (games already run on their platforms). The games people own can be run on the cloud. There is no lose situation for users buying into yet another platform that will go under as soon as Google realised they wasted their money. You’re like those people in 1970 who thought offices will be completely paperless by 1980. *You’re so clever about the future* Loser.
Please stop personally insulting other users. Your comment earlier was edited to remove your personal attack on another user. Please be civil and respectful.
Man, you really don’t like being wrong huh? I take back the “stay off your lawn” comment. That was supposed to be an old man joke because, well you sounded like an old person afraid of change. I realize now that I was wrong. I apologise, because you are obviously a child. You are childish, obviously can’t afford the money to give a new free console a shot and use aggressive comments to try, but not succeed in making an argument. So again I apologise that I hurt your little feelings. Tell your mom I said I’m sorry.
A free console? What is wrong with you? Did you buy some Google stock or something? Not only is there a monthly fee, you don’t own the games nor do you own a console, yet you will pay full price for games. Then, when Google pulls the plug, you lose all said content. I probably make more than you, so I think I’ll spend my money on something that is worth it. Thanks… You can keep telling yourself that you’re right… I’m going to save this thread — and come back in 3-4 years when Google announces its failure.
There is no mandatory monthly fee, period. If you so choose, you can pay $10 a month for 4K and some other goodies. Otherwise it’s COMPLETELY FREE. $0. No money to use it at all. Ever. Like ever ever.
Once you have FREE access to it, you can buy games to use on your FREE console that costs $0. That’s ZERO DOLLARS in case you still don’t understand.
Firstly, it’s not a free console. You have to pay for its controller. You have to pay for a google chrome cast. And you have to pay when you go over your data caps. (Which you WILL). You have to pay full price for your games. Having access to “free games”; thanks, majority of games in the App Store are free; there are millions of free games on the internet too. Once you buy the games full price, again after you spent money on a controller and a chrome cast, you have to hope it doesn’t go under. That’s not free.
You don’t have to buy the controller and you don’t have to buy a Chromecast. Did you not read the article? Or watch the announcement? Or you know, think for more than a few seconds.
To use Stadia EARLY you get the founders edition. If you don’t want to get it, then FREE Stadia base comes out after the Founder beta period is over in early 2020. In which case you can play on your phone or tablet or PC without buying any hardware whatsoever. You just open the app.
I really feel like I’m talking to a wall right now. How are you not getting this very easy to understand concept? You are literally the reason this article was written. Spreading misinformation and hate for no reason.
No you’re the wall. You keep saying “free console” but what you’re describing is not a console. A console is something that has a controller and can be payed on a tv. What you’re saying is you get access to a bunch of crappy games that you have to play on your pc or phone. You know what everyone in the entire world already has? A phone that has access to an App Store with millions of free games. You know what else they have access to? Millions of free web based games. So don’t lie to people saying you get a free console, when it doesn’t include a way to play console games (controller and tv display).
It’s a cloud based console… Again how are you not understanding this? It’s a simple concept. Google wasn’t the first company to do this. So it shouldn’t be this difficult of a concept to grasp.
Are you seriously comparing web based games to full 1080p/4K AAA titles like Doom Eternal, Destiny 2, ESO etc?
It is a console in the cloud and it will be free to access. And if you want to play on a TV with a controller you have many options. You can either play on your Chromecast Ultra with the Stadia controller or connect a crappy laptop to your TV through HDMI and use literally any controller you have. You can use a PS4 controller, Xbox One controller, Switch controller, or any cheap usb controller from eBay. It supports everything.
So no, I’m not lying. Please stop spreading bad information.
Again, you’re being very generous on calling it a console. It’s almost like your money is invested in this thing to succeed. If that’s the case, I feel sorry for you.
Every normal person knows console as something they can interact with a controller on a TV. Otherwise, it’s not a console. The “free tier” has lame free games.
No one is interested in playing those lame titles on their phone.
Again, you’re being very generous on calling it a console. It’s almost like your money is invested in this thing to succeed. If that’s the case, I feel sorry for you.
Every normal person knows console as something they can interact with a controller on a TV. Otherwise, it’s not a console. The “free tier” has lame free games.
No one is interested in playing those lame titles on their phone.
Sorry to say but if your internet fluctuates that much it’s really bad. I never ever lose more than 20% of 1000 mbit.
Say hello to cable internet in the majority of the world. Cable internet fluctuates based on how much it’s being used during peak hours. Thanks for coming out. Less than .01% of the world has gigabit internet. Also, internet speed isn’t the only thing; you have to factor in Wifi speed degradation as well.
Yes, games being full price is a HUGE issue, since usage is dependent from both Google’s and your providers reliability, which makes it an indefinitely worse deal than really owning the game and being able to play it offline.
For half the price maybe, but full price with huge negatives like lag and varying sound and graphics quality it is not.
Why doesn’t PS Now have more subscribers than it has, when it’s effectively the same thing? For all these same reasons – bandwidth, latency, cost, ownership – it’s all the same concerns that’s holding PS Now back. They may not be legitimate for everybody, but some of those reasons are absolute deal-breakers for some people, depending on their circumstance. To eliminate even 10% of the potential market just on technical hurdles alone hurts the prospects for success.
There are about to be more competitors in this space. PS Now is there already, and XBox is expected to join in the next generation, maybe 12 months from now, and Apple and Amazon are both making noise about jumping in as well. That’s a lot of competition – Google has the bucks and the network infrastructure to deliver a good product, but they have no experience in gaming (but more than anybody else in streaming, thanks to YouTube). Any stumbles along the way could see them lose to Microsoft or a renewed Sony push.
I think the criticisms are fair. Your argument about “average” speeds is overly simplistic and too dependent on rated averages rather than real experience – the only speed or latency that ever matters is each individual’s actual real-world speed and latency (perhaps with other household members competing for bandwidth). If the experience is bad for Joe (when he’s trying to play in prime time when everyone in the neighborhood is fighting for bandwidth), Joe’s not going to be a paid subscriber for long, and enough Joes will reflect in the overall success or failure.
PlayStation Now and Google Stadia are similar technologies, in that they’re both powered by remote servers that stream the games to you over the internet. However, they’re not similar services.
PS Now is a subscription service, like Netflix, or Xbox Game Pass. It’s just a bundle of games that’s streamed to you. Sony doesn’t have the same networking infrastructure as Google, and if you experienced lag in PS Now, you might not experience lag in Google Stadia, or GeForce Now, or any other game streaming technology.
Google Stadia is essentially a virtual game console without the console. It is its own separate and independent platform.
This article was written up not so much to discuss the legitimate issues concerning Stadia, PS Now, or other streaming services. But rather, to try and stop the spreading of misinformation that is either factually incorrect, or being used as a Stadia-exclusive negative.
Examples;
“Google Stadia is expensive” — https://www.inc.com/don-reisinger/google-stadia-could-be-a-costly-console-alternative-heres-what-you-should-know-about-how-it-plans-to-make-money.html
(take note that this article, as well as many others that discuss the price of Stadia, only mention the subscription tier, and fail to mention or otherwise downplay the fact Stadia is free in Stadia Standard)
“Games are full price on Google Stadia” — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMY1Z8RrzK4
(this is seen as a negative for some reason, and was published by a very large YouTuber)
“The internet isn’t fast enough for Google Stadia”
(this is more of a concern on forums and reddit, though I’ve seen notable YouTubers talk about it as well, and a few articles do the same)
“The latency makes Google Stadia unplayable”
(this is a potentially legitimate concern for some people, but based on early testing and reports, Stadia performs just as well as the One X in regards to latency. Not everyone will be able to match that though, and some people will experience unplayable levels of latency, even if they live next door to a Stadia datacenter)
“You don’t own your games on Google Stadia”
(again, this is constantly brought up as some kind of negative against Stadia)
There are fair and legitimate criticisms for cloud gaming in general, but most of the ones being thrown around right now for Stadia are simply misleading, and for the most part, incorrect. That’s what this article was intended to be about. Not so much to serve as a technical analysis of the viability of cloud gaming, but more as a way to disprove a lot of the bogus criticisms.
I think you’re overreaching.
Arguing that Stadia will have to conquer issues that are generic to cloud gaming and not specific to Stadia is fair, just as someone arguing that they won’t want to buy a PS5 because they don’t like consoles is fair.
Licensing concerns are always exacerbated with new players in a market. If Google drops this in a year or two, where will you be? Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft and Steam are all established and unlikely to leave the market – and yet many people DO criticize those platforms over the same concern about ownership of games, with physical media and outlets like GOG addressing some of those concerns.
I’ll agree with you that it’s too early to be sure how it will shake out – but that means I distrust your arguments attempting to refute bandwidth and latency concerns, too. Latency might be fine in a lab, but it’s too early to know how it will work in the real world – and as far as *I* am concerned, it only REALLY matters how it works in my house.
In short, strong opinions over an unreleased product are foolish – both those attacking it, AND those defending it. Many (but not all) of the concerns raised, I feel, are legitimate – and the fact that many of them apply to more than just Stadia doesn’t eliminate the concerns. With any platform, you look at the good and the bad, and what your personal needs are, and make a judgment call. I don’t give a rip if someone agrees with my personal call or not – but don’t tell me my concerns are invalid just because those concerns may apply to other options in varying measure.
True, PSNow has a WAYYYY bigger catalogue AND even lets you download games.
I look forward to seeing how this “console” plays out. I unfortunately will not be an early adopter as the Internet speeds in my part of the country fall well below those supposed averages. I pay $50 a month for 20/3 speeds and there is no real competition in this area either. So i’ll wait and see how it plays out with people around here and might give it a shot once i see its playable with our speeds.
As far as full priced games goes, i still have refused to buy digital games(if there’s a physical counterpart) because of that concept. I will never accept paying the same price for some digital license when the physical copy costs the same. That is BS! Now i understand that even the physical copy is essentially the same type of license, BUT if it isn’t a DRM game or an online only game then i have something to play even if the Internet disappeared tomorrow. In my opinion digital only games should be cheaper, don’t get me wrong, i don’t think they should be a lot cheaper, but they should be at least $5-10 dollars less since there is no stamping, printing, packaging, shipping, or shelf space to worry about. Those cost savings should absolutely be passed onto the customer. Sorry for the rant in this paragraph as it has very little to do with your intent with the article.
I do have to laugh at Googles response “ISPs will adapt”, no they won’t! They are one of the biggest monopolies going right now. Sure people will argue that its not a monopoly as there is competition, however they all choose to charge outrageous prices rather then actually compete to drive prices down. In my area there are really only 2 choices AT&T the other is WoW, now they cost the same yet WoW is super unreliable, so not much of a competition as far as people are concerned around here. And sure you could go with DSL, it is cheaper however seeing as we are one of the cloudiest cities in America, your just showing your level of masochism if you go that route.
Tl;Dr I’m in the wait and see camp, its a possible addition down the road, but it still won’t replace my PlayStation 🙂
The us is exceptionally bad at internet stuff it seems. I pay 40 bucks for 1000/1000 in Sweden, also no cap.
The concerns with Stadia are real and will determine its success and if it is rocky from the start and gets a bad reputation, will Google and game publishers accept losses for an extended period of time? Consider these real issues.
1. Bandwidth is not static, it’s fallable and decreases with ISP loads, community loads, distance from Google datacenters, and in home devices. Imagine Billy constantly getting pixelated through extreme compression, hang ups, lag, and jittery play because Suzie is streaming YouTube in 4k while watching 4k Netflix. Prepare to compete for bandwidth.
2. A connection is only as good and reliable as its weakest link. So even fibre connections have bottlecks outside Googles control yet Google will be blamed for those bottlenecks. I imagine Google will be defensive and blame the use telling them to get a better ISP, higher bandwidth, no data caps, better router, better wiring in their home, only play at certain times, limit other devices in the home, etc. Prepare to suffer the cost of unexpected upgrades.
3. Cloud gaming is not the Netflix of gaming. Netflix can buffer and will degrade picture quality with higher compression when bandwidth degrades or scene action changes quickly. Watching a movie somewhat passively with scenes that are generally stable allowing for less noticeable and predictable compression is a big advantage to Netflix and Youtube. Games are dynamic and garner more attention from the user while buffering is not an option. The result is image degradation from time to time with delays in response and stuttering. Latency will not always be an issue but it will at the wrong time, prepare to die unfairly because of a hiccup on the network it may not be Stadias fault but Stadia will be blamed. Prepare to settle for a lower quality experience while convincing yourself the specs are better. Prepare to get use to compromise.
4. Maybe latency can rival a hard connection to a console or computer but can it do it reliably and consistently? Prepare to accept unreliability and be thankful that it’s not always unreliable.
5. Google must build massive scalability in to their hardware and do it in many data centers. Will they scale it for success? Will they scale it for peak gaming periods? Their advantage is that they use shared resources (imagine a subset of computing power of all potential users that takes advantage of most users being inactive, those resources can be leveraged elsewhere). If Stadia is successful and draws in those users who abandon consoles, how do they manage those peak times? Do they have the equivalent of all users hardware? No, they throttle users and restrict use because it’s not practical to support peak loads. Think of the problem that power stations have, they don’t build power stations to service peak loads. Prepare to schedule/plan your gaming time.
6. Google has a bad reputation for killing, or better yet, giving up on big ideas. That reputation and their drive towards domination concerns many. Prepare to be owned by Google when you play.
7. Even though it’s “free”, Google needs to monetize it and that will be done with subscription fees, taking a bigger part of publishers profit, and may lead to the only thing they know, advertising. They will get paid one way or another and fir them it must be a hefty premium. That premium comes out of users pockets one way or another. Prepare to pay more in the end by design.
8. Google will take a bigger cut of publishers profit which means more risk to publishers leading to lower quality games, quick turn cookie cutter games, and fewer options. Only the big partners will be able to survive. This means users will somehow pay for it in the end but in a sneaky Google way. Prepare for the Google way to play.
9. Stadia is a new platform, it’s isn’t just moving games to their cloud but porting games which is costly and testing intensive. Publishers must gamble to move to a new platform and Google doesn’t care if they fail. Google will partner and subsidize the big publishers in the short term but long term everyone will have to bow to their constraints. It’s fair to argue that Sony and Xbox are the same risk but this is a mature space now, it wasn’t nearly as mature and risky even when Xbox hit the streets and had much more room for growth. Prepare for mediocre games.
10. Google has little experience in gaming. Sure they’re partnering and hiring veterans in the industry but they do things their way and will dictate their will on gamers, gamers don’t like that. Prepare for Google telling you how you should play.
11. Cloud gaming will have tremendous competition when MS, Apple, Amazon, and even Walmart enter the space. Look forward to dilution of content and options and a shakeout of the weakest offerings. The market itself has tremendous potential for growth but requires consolidation soon, more players will accelerate that consolidation, that means there must be a lot of losers in this high stakes space. Prepare to choose the right provider or lose.
12. Producing good games is expensive and will be riskier leading to low quality content. Publishers rely on big releases at a premium and longevity of the game to get a good ROI. The paradigm shift is already happening with subscription and microtransaction costs that most people don’t track in their daily lives. In order to compete, developers need shorter release times and lower price per game because users will try and not buy if the cost is high or move on to different games more periodically rather than invest in big releases with great content. Prepare to be “subscriptioned” to death. Prepare to set up multiple monthly payment plans that you will forget exist.
13. The concept of ownership has been fading, this model is the final nail. Younger generations have been conditioned to disregard the concept of ownership, value, and have lost sight of the true costs whether it be bleeding them slowly over time rather than a one time cost or robbing them of their privacy. Prepare to pay for the right to play everytime you play.
14. Games will come and hopefully you won’t enjoy the ones that Google will drop or get tied up with licensing issues. Prepare to be surprised when games you liked and paid for disappear.
Lots and lots of trying to downplay legit concerns here. Not liking Stadia or the direction it could help take gaming doesn’t make people haters.
By the way, if Steam and Origin go down, how will your games vanish, given you don’t need online to play them?
You do need to be online. That’s how the DRM works
Which means ignoring all the games that DON’T have DRM, for example. Ignoring that it can be- and has been- removed down the line, too.
And no, you DON’T need to be online to play the games unless the games are online-only. Whatever DRM is in, say, Grandia II doesn’t stop me from playing the game when I’m not connected to the internet.
cmon, if your’e going to defend Stadia your best bet is to be upfront about the concerns people are making and address them forthrightly. Your very first point: How can you claim it costs zero point zero zero dollars? really?
why instead don’t you address how people came to the conclusion that its more expensive than the competition and prove that their math is wrong?
Stadia Base has zero upfront costs. The PlayStation and Xbox have upfront costs.
Stadia has zero monthly or yearly fees. PlayStation and Xbox have monthly or yearly fees.
The PlayStation 5 is expected to be $500 at launch next year. With a 5 year average console lifespan, the total cost of the PS5 from launch will be $800, with the assumption that you pay for PS Plus yearly instead of monthly. If you pay for PS Plus monthly, the total price is $1100.
Stadia Base is free, and offers the same general graphical performance as the PS5, albeit without 4K capabilities. However, for argument sake, let’s use Stadia Pro’s pricing tier, since it (along with the PS5) offer 4K gameplay.
Stadia Pro is $120 per year, if paid for monthly. There is no yearly tier right now, unlike PS Plus. Stadia Pro will cost you $600 for an average console lifespan of 5 years. That is a saving of $200 vs the hardware + online model PlayStation uses. And if you pay for PS Plus monthly, you’ll save $500.
If you do not have a need for 4K resolutions (such as if you’re still using a 1080p TV) you won’t need to subscribe to Stadia Pro. In that case, you will pay nothing for Stadia Base, and continue to have full and complete access to everything Stadia has to offer. Every game, all of the multiplayer functionality. No additional monthly or yearly fees.
So, that’s how I can make the claim that Stadia costs nothing. It’s because it does indeed cost nothing. But even if you used the Stadia Pro tier, it’ll still be less money than the “next generation” of consoles for the average 5 year life cycle.
good, now youre talking.
Since this a streaming service and doesnt need a console, i dont find it fair to compare it to a PS4/5 or X1 simply because they need the hardware to function, but i will buy into it. you pay more however much dollars the consoles are. the benefits that they bring i think compensate but thats besides the point.
I think a fairer comparison should be made across the streaming services since there, they should in theory offer the same “thing”, with no obvious perks for each side (the console’s ability to store the games in the hard drive for example)
I pay 60 usd for a year on PSN and if i were to do so on stadia it would cost me 108 usd. The reason i doing this is because i dont see value in having stadia with no games, its not like the service has any other possible use so whatever math is done has to look at, at the very least, the cheapest option to get games in the platform (which is not the case for consoles)
Stadia is more expensive and offers less free games.
I guess i can summarize my point with this: it a bit of white lie to assume its cost is zero dot zero zero dollars since if you do that you really dont have a service. if you just buy the games then yes, thats the only scenario where its cheaper than any console alternative since games will cost the same.
If you go the stadia pro route you pay more per year and you can spread the initial console hardware investment over some years (haven’t done that math) to the point where consoles are just cheaper and have more perks.
All in all, congrats for actualy responding to my initial question with some solid numbers people can mull over.
Thanks for the civil and friendly response. 🙂
I think it’s definitely fair to compare Stadia with a traditional console, as they’re offering the same general thing. A console is really just a box that powers your games. Stadia also powers your games, albeit without the box. The main difference is the console powers your games locally, whereas Stadia powers them remotely. This also means that you’re limited to your local hardware for the life of the console. Eventually, games are going to require a “new generation” of hardware to run properly, which means you’ll need to once again go out and purchase another console to play the latest games.
Because Stadia renders everything remotely, Google would be able to upgrade your games to run at higher graphical settings, frame rates, and resolutions, all without you ever having to go out and buy another piece of hardware. (with the exception of display technology for a higher resolution, as you’ll obviously need an 8K TV to display 8K video)
This essentially means that Stadia is every console generation rolled up into a single platform. But let’s get back to the pricing stuff real quick.
PlayStation Plus is $60 USD per year, which is the most common price for the service. (it’s also available for $10 monthly though, but I legitimately only know a single person that pays it that way)
Most people subscribe to PS Plus not for the Instant Game Collection, but rather for the simple ability of playing your purchased games online and with your friends. Now, if you are getting PS Plus just for the IGC, then you’re honestly in the minority, and my argument is probably a bit invalid. lol. But either way, assuming PS Plus is primarily for online multiplayer… well, Stadia does that for free. You don’t need to pay anything on top of the cost of the game itself if you wish to play it online. This means that the $10 monthly fee (if you’re subscribing to Pro, $0 if you’re using Base) is all you will ever have to pay as far as recurring fees go. There’s nothing else.
The fact is, Stadia is going to cost you less in the long run than a brand new video game console. However, that is assuming you buy the console while it’s at its full initial price.
See, consoles get cheaper over time. If you were to buy a PS4 today, you would pay significantly less than what I paid for the PS4 at launch. And this is of course a valid argument to have, as if you only want to play your games and don’t care about the graphics or technology in the little black box that renders them, then there’s pretty much no real reason to use Stadia. However, on a technology standpoint, Stadia is more powerful than the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X combined, so you could also counter-argue that you’re paying for a “next generation platform” at all possible times. Stadia doesn’t age, and assuming Google continues to upgrade and expand upon their platform, Stadia will continuously receive upgrades.
I suppose that’s ultimately how I view Stadia. It’s an always next generation cloud gaming platform. The fourth console. (or third? We counting the Switch?)
And when it comes to next gen stuff, Stadia has me most excited. I mean, I’m going to buy the PS5 and Xbox at launch anyway, but I’m still excited for Stadia’s potential. We’ve never had a “virtual cloud console” before, and I for one can’t wait to see how things play out.
“Stadia Base has zero upfront costs.”
Then how do you play? Do you need no subscription, no internet access, no purchase of a game, no purchase of at least the controller? At least one of these things is required, making it an upfront cost.
“Stadia has zero monthly or yearly fees. PlayStation and Xbox have monthly or yearly fees.”
This is false on a number of levels. For one, there’s a subscription to Stadia, meaning there ARE monthly or yearly fees(which you, yourself, detail later on in the very same comment). For another, there are no such fees required for any current console.
“With a 5 year average console lifespan, the total cost of the PS5…”
This is misleading, and intentionally so, I think. You seem to be trying to make the argument that Stadia is a better purchase than a console, but your arguments aren’t very even. For example, you’re ignoring that the price of a console grants you OWNERSHIP of that console; that doesn’t end at five years. That five-year number, by the way, is you inexplicably conflating a console’s time as its manufacturer’s primary product with its lifespan; we all know that’s not the case. The PS3 I was gifted by my friends in 2008 still works now, in the possession of my nephews; 11 years is certainly not 5. The SNES I’ve had since ’95 still works. That’s not five years, either.
To make matters worse, you try to add on the price of Plus, as if that’s necessary to play games, or even play them online; both these things are either false or only partly true. Furthermore, you disregard that Plus isn’t JUST a subscription which includes online play for some games, but also includes discounts on games, DLC, and the like. I doubt Stadia’s subscription includes up to 75% off OWNERSHIP of a game(even if it’s a digital copy, there are ownership rights involved, which are being expanded at a slow but recognizable pace; Stadia is purely renting).
“Stadia Pro will cost you $600 for an average console lifespan of 5 years. That is a saving of $200 vs the hardware + online model PlayStation uses.”
See above about the falsehood of the five-year thing. Then add on that Stadia isn’t something you keep. It’s akin to renting a car versus buying one, and the latter is obviously the better option in the long run.
“Stadia Base is free, and offers the same general graphical performance as the PS5,”
No, it doesn’t. It offers the POTENTIAL for that. No matter how good your TV is, Stadia will be limited by your internet. On the other hand, the PS5 won’t have such a limitation.
“In that case, you will pay nothing for Stadia Base, and continue to have full and complete access to everything Stadia has to offer. Every game, all of the multiplayer functionality. No additional monthly or yearly fees.”
So how, exactly, do you gain access to every game? Do you not have to pay for access to a given game? Does that access not have a time limit? Does it extend beyond the life of the service? Because that’s what owning a console affords.
“So, that’s how I can make the claim that Stadia costs nothing.”
You can make the claim all you want, but it’s a lie.
“Then how do you play? Do you need no subscription, no internet access, no purchase of a game, no purchase of at least the controller? At least one of these things is required, making it an upfront cost.”
There are no upfront costs related to Stadia itself. Internet, games, and even controllers. None of that is provided by Stadia, hosted by Stadia, or has any relation to Stadia. Yes, the internet is required. No, you’re not paying Google for it.
“This is false on a number of levels. For one, there’s a subscription to Stadia, meaning there ARE monthly or yearly fees(which you, yourself, detail later on in the very same comment). For another, there are no such fees required for any current console.”
Stadia is free. The subscription is optional. You don’t have to pay anything at all if you don’t want to.
“This is misleading, and intentionally so, I think. You seem to be trying to make the argument that Stadia is a better purchase than a console, but your arguments aren’t very even. For example, you’re ignoring that the price of a console grants you OWNERSHIP of that console; that doesn’t end at five years. That five-year number, by the way, is you inexplicably conflating a console’s time as its manufacturer’s primary product with its lifespan; we all know that’s not the case. The PS3 I was gifted by my friends in 2008 still works now, in the possession of my nephews; 11 years is certainly not 5. The SNES I’ve had since ’95 still works. That’s not five years, either.”
The life cycle of a console is determined by releases, not by the hardware itself continuing to function. The Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 generation were exceptions, not the rule.
PlayStation 1: 1994
PlayStation 2: 2000
PlayStation 3: 2006
PlayStation 4: 2013
-incremental upgrade via PS4 Pro: 2016-
PlayStation 5: 2020
Nintendo Entertainment System (American release): 1985
Super Nintendo: 1990
Nintendo 64: 1996
Nintendo GameCube: 2001
Nintendo Wii: 2006
Nintendo Wii U: 2012
Nintendo Switch: 2017
Xbox: 2001
Xbox 360: 2005
Xbox One: 2013
-incremental upgrade via One X: 2017-
Xbox Scarlett: 2020
“To make matters worse, you try to add on the price of Plus, as if that’s necessary to play games, or even play them online; both these things are either false or only partly true. Furthermore, you disregard that Plus isn’t JUST a subscription which includes online play for some games, but also includes discounts on games, DLC, and the like. I doubt Stadia’s subscription includes up to 75% off OWNERSHIP of a game(even if it’s a digital copy, there are ownership rights involved, which are being expanded at a slow but recognizable pace; Stadia is purely renting).”
PlayStation Plus is required to play multiplayer games on the PlayStation 4, albeit with some exceptions. Again, an exception to the rule doesn’t mean the rule is no longer valid. Also, you do not own digital games. If you buy it digitally, you do not own it. You own a license to play it, but you do not actually own the game itself. Yes, this even includes DRM-free services such as GOG. You own a license to play the game, not the game code or assets itself. By your own logic, and considering the fact you do not own your digital games, you are renting everything you buy digitally. Which I suppose is a somewhat valid argument to have.
But the fact remains, you don’t own it. You don’t own it. You don’t own games on Stadia, you don’t own games on PlayStation, you don’t own games on Xbox, you don’t own games on Steam, you don’t own games on Origin, you don’t own games on GOG, you don’t own games on Uplay, you don’t own games on Epic Games Store, you don’t own games digitally.
“No, it doesn’t. It offers the POTENTIAL for that. No matter how good your TV is, Stadia will be limited by your internet. On the other hand, the PS5 won’t have such a limitation.”
Yes, it does. The games themselves will render at significantly higher graphical settings than anything on current hardware, and should be graphically on-par with the upcoming generation of consoles. We’re also unsure on whether or not the bitrate and codec Google uses will significantly harm the video quality, though I personally have my doubts that it will be as good as local hardware. However, if they upped the bitrate to 50 Mbps (like GFN) it would appear as if the game were playing locally, with no artifacting at a 1080p resolution.
“So how, exactly, do you gain access to every game? Do you not have to pay for access to a given game? Does that access not have a time limit? Does it extend beyond the life of the service? Because that’s what owning a console affords.”
Yes, you need to buy every game individually, just like you would with any other game console or distribution service. Not even sure how or why you’re making that out to be a negative? The difference here, is you don’t need to buy an expensive box (or build an expensive computer) to be able to play games at high graphical settings, and with a stable 60 frames per second at up to a 4K resolution.
“You can make the claim all you want, but it’s a lie.”
Do you need to buy games? Obviously. Do you need to still own hardware? Sure. Do you need to use a controller of some kind? Yup. Does any of that have anything to do with Stadia? Nope.
Stadia doesn’t force you to buy a new controller, nor does it force you to play on its own little box/device/whatever. You have the choice of using any controller, and buying it from any vendor. You don’t need to pay Google a single dollar for hardware if you don’t want to.
So yeah, when it comes to Stadia, there are no upfront costs. There are things beyond Stadia that Google doesn’t sell or provide in any way that you might need to pay before you can use Stadia, but that doesn’t mean it’s somehow a Stadia “problem”. I mean, you need to buy a TV before you can play your PS4, right? That’s an up-front cost too, isn’t it? I don’t consider it to be, since it’s not directly related to the operation of the PS4. But to each their own I suppose.
“There are no upfront costs related to Stadia itself. Internet, games, and even controllers.”
So, again, HOW do you play? Let’s use an example of Call of Duty: who do you pay to access the next CoD through Stadia? If Google isn’t getting any sort of cut, why offer a free version? How do they plan to make their money?
“The life cycle of a console is determined by releases…”
That’s not true at all. The PSOne, the slim version of the original PS1, didn’t even launch until 2000, and the console wasn’t discontinued until 2006. It was even getting games in 2007, and even saw releases in 2012. What you’re referring to is the market life, which is a separate thing, and does not signal the end of a console’s usefulness or even support. If you’re making the comparison to Stadia, then you’re being disingenuous to consider market life as the life of the console.
“Again, an exception to the rule doesn’t mean the rule is no longer valid.”
Not even the ONLY exception, though. PS Now includes multiplayer at no extra cost, and it’s not like there’s only a handful of games that don’t require Plus.
“You own a license to play the game, not the game code or assets itself.”
No one defines ownership of software in this way except people making spurious arguments about ownership. Consumer ownership of software has not ever equated to ownership of the code, or music, or photos, or videos. That said, ownership of the copy your purchase DOES exist, and rights in at least the EU have been conferred such that consumers can resell digital copies of games. Meanwhile, with a streaming service, you don’t own anything at all.
“But the fact remains, you don’t own it.”
Odd, then. Because if the things you buy- movies, games, CDs- are stolen, they’re considered your property by law, and you can and are reimbursed for their loss. Obviously, according to most societies, you DO own it.
“The games themselves will render at significantly higher graphical settings…”
Nah. Again, what’s possible will depend on the service you have. Google’s already said it will scale back rendering depending on your connection. It’s based on what your local stuff can handle: you can’t get 4K on a 1080p laptop, for example. The mean download speed in the US isn’t even high enough for consistent 4K: 35Mbps. And according to Google, themselves, “Your gaming experience is dependent on a variety of factors, such as your device, internet service provider, and other bandwidth-consuming activities like downloads, file shares, and streaming.” Meaning your attempts to paint this performance as absolute are refuted by the very company you’re seeking to defend.
“The difference here, is you don’t need to buy an expensive box”
The real difference is that you don’t own the games, and so they’re gone when the streaming service is gone. The other difference is that you won’t need any internet connection to play the games.
“You don’t need to pay Google a single dollar for hardware if you don’t want to.”
Don’t be silly(since we’re being civil). A vendor will have paid Google for that controller- which is, according to Google, the best way to play the games- the same way they pay for console makers’ accessories now. Games are likely to be the same way: you don’t directly pay Nintendo when you buy one of their games at a store… but they still get money. What makes you think Google is getting NO money when you choose to buy and play a game through their service?
“…need to pay before you can use Stadia…”
That’s what an upfront cost IS.
You have a laptop? a mouse? install chrome on it and you’re good to go. Buy the game on Stadia and you’re playing for $60. That’s how you play. I literally played assassins creed this way on project stream before they announced stadia. It works. I feel like you’re refusing to understand how this works.
Stadia is basically just a game store where you can click to play instantly without a console or subscription.
“You have a laptop? a mouse? install chrome on it and you’re good to go.”
That’s not gonna get me the performance Ty promises, though. The same will be true for most people.
what does the computer have to do with performance on a streaming service….
The display, duh.
what does that have to do with stadia costs? Nobody is including the price of a 4K TV in cost comparisons between PS5 and Stadia.
Are you not able to keep up? If you’re playing Stadia through your PC, then the graphical output will be limited by the monitor’s resolution. My laptop does 720p; anything better than that is useless, and that limitation means the settings that make a difference at 4K will hardly even be noticed.
What does that have to do with stadia.., you can play without buying any hardware still. That’s the point.
That’s no the point presented in Stadia’s defense in this article.
That’s no the point presented in Stadia’s defense in this article.
“So, again, HOW do you play? Let’s use an example of Call of Duty: who do you pay to access the next CoD through Stadia? If Google isn’t getting any sort of cut, why offer a free version? How do they plan to make their money?”
Let me add to my full quote. I also said this
“None of that is provided by Stadia, hosted by Stadia, or has any relation to Stadia. Yes, the internet is required. No, you’re not paying Google for it.”
Games are, just like with any other platform, not an up-front cost. Do you have to buy games? No. It would make the entire thing pointless if you didn’t though, but nobody’s actually forcing you to buy anything. Just like nobody’s forcing you to buy PS4 games, or Xbox games, or games of any kind. Games are separate from your initial purchase. (not including bundles, which to be fair, Stadia is unlikely to ever have)
“That’s not true at all. The PSOne, the slim version of the original PS1, didn’t even launch until 2000, and the console wasn’t discontinued until 2006. It was even getting games in 2007, and even saw releases in 2012. What you’re referring to is the market life, which is a separate thing, and does not signal the end of a console’s usefulness or even support. If you’re making the comparison to Stadia, then you’re being disingenuous to consider market life as the life of the console.”
A console life cycle is determined by the time it takes for a new console to launch, effectively replacing it, and marking the start of a new console generation. It has nothing to do with the date a given console is discontinued, or support for that console is dropped.
“Not even the ONLY exception, though. PS Now includes multiplayer at no extra cost, and it’s not like there’s only a handful of games that don’t require Plus.”
PS Now is another exception to the rule, and not the rule itself. To my knowledge, every game that you purchase (meaning, isn’t free to play) requires an active subscription to PlayStation Plus before you are able to play online. If a game has its own separate subscription (PS Now, Final Fantasy Online) you don’t need PS Plus. Everything else requires it. You’re welcome to compile a list of paid games that offer free multiplayer though. I’m actually fairly interested in that.
“No one defines ownership of software in this way except people making spurious arguments about ownership. Consumer ownership of software has not ever equated to ownership of the code, or music, or photos, or videos. That said, ownership of the copy your purchase DOES exist, and rights in at least the EU have been conferred such that consumers can resell digital copies of games. Meanwhile, with a streaming service, you don’t own anything at all.”
It quite frankly doesn’t matter if people consider a digital license to be of more value than a cloud license. You do not own the games. Just because some people wrongly think they do, doesn’t change the fact that they do not.
If any digital service goes offline, you lose your games. You don’t own them, you have no legal recourse to get them back. You’re entitled to a license for as long as the service that sold it to you remains in business. Just because some people don’t consider this a lack of ownership is entirely irrelevant. Those people are wrong.
“Odd, then. Because if the things you buy- movies, games, CDs- are stolen, they’re considered your property by law, and you can and are reimbursed for their loss. Obviously, according to most societies, you DO own it.”
You’re confusing PHYSICAL with DIGITAL. I’ve said DIGITAL multiple times. You DO NOT own DIGITAL licenses for ANY games you’ve bought DIGITALLY over the internet. That movie you bought on PlayStation Store? Not yours. That album you bought on iTunes? Not yours. That game you bought on Steam? Not yours.
“Nah. Again, what’s possible will depend on the service you have. Google’s already said it will scale back rendering depending on your connection. It’s based on what your local stuff can handle: you can’t get 4K on a 1080p laptop, for example. The mean download speed in the US isn’t even high enough for consistent 4K: 35Mbps. And according to Google, themselves, “Your gaming experience is dependent on a variety of factors, such as your device, internet service provider, and other bandwidth-consuming activities like downloads, file shares, and streaming.” Meaning your attempts to paint this performance as absolute are refuted by the very company you’re seeking to defend.”
You’re confusing graphical settings with resolution. Games on Stadia will render at significantly higher settings than any current generation console, and is expected to be on par if not greater than the next generation consoles.
The average internet speed in America is 96 Mbps, according to the source above. The majority of internet users in America should have at least double the internet speed required to effectively use Stadia at the recommended speed for 4K gaming. You’re right, not everyone will be able to effectively and reliably play Stadia at 4K, and I also question the visual quality a mere 35 Mbps bitrate will provide, especially in regards to 4K gaming. 50 Mbps at 1080p on GFN provides a flawless visual experience, but that’s also because it’s basically a raw video stream. While I don’t doubt Google’s claims that 4K can be achieved at a low 35 Mbps bitrate, I do question the actual quality of it. I’d wager they will go well beyond 35 Mbps, depending on your connection, and if you can support higher speeds. You’re also right, resolution will downscale depending on your internet connection, even if you’re paying for Stadia Pro. However, that is strictly the resolution and sound, and potentially the frame rate if your connection drops below 10 Mbps. The graphics of the games themselves will be the same for everybody, as that isn’t dependent on your connection, but rather the remote hardware Google’s using to render the game.
“The real difference is that you don’t own the games, and so they’re gone when the streaming service is gone. The other difference is that you won’t need any internet connection to play the games.”
You seem to be misunderstanding how ownership works for any digitally purchased title. This is not a valid argument to have, and is not a negative against Stadia. It’s a negative (and a valid one) against all digital media.
“Don’t be silly(since we’re being civil). A vendor will have paid Google for that controller- which is, according to Google, the best way to play the games- the same way they pay for console makers’ accessories now. Games are likely to be the same way: you don’t directly pay Nintendo when you buy one of their games at a store… but they still get money. What makes you think Google is getting NO money when you choose to buy and play a game through their service?”
If you go and buy a $15 controller at Best Buy, Google doesn’t get any of that money.
If you go and buy a $10 mouse/keyboard combo at Newegg, Google doesn’t get any of that money.
If you go and buy a $200 laptop, Google doesn’t get any of that money.
You can buy Google’s hardware if you want to. It isn’t required. It’s an optional expense that you can choose to do, or alternatively, choose not to do.
“That’s what an upfront cost IS.”
You need to buy a TV to play on a PS4, correct? Is that an expense related to the PS4? Is that somehow a giant negative worth bringing up as a reason to not buy a PS4?
I don’t understand your reasoning here.
“A console life cycle is determined by the time it takes for a new console to launch…”
And why are you making that limitation? Is it because that artificial limitation benefits your argument? You’re trying to calculate the value of a console based on how long it’s the primary product on the market, and saying it’s a lesser value than Stadia. That’s misleading, because a console doesn’t stop having value just because its successor hits shelves.
“PS Now is another exception to the rule…”
Seem to be a lot of exceptions to this rule you’ve made.
“It quite frankly doesn’t matter if people consider a digital license to be of more value than a cloud license. You do not own the games.”
Yeah, you know… except those places where, by law, you DO. I’m really curious as to why you keep glossing over that. For that matter, I’m curious to the examples you have of digital licenses being revoked when people are offline. You don’t need to be online to play every or even most games you get from Steam, and acquiring them from GoG or other places has no DRM at all. This means that, yes, you DO own the games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license#cite_note-12 You can’t resell things you don’t own, so guess what this means?
“If any digital service goes offline, you lose your games. You don’t own them, you have no legal recourse to get them back.”
Already discredited. Steam is the storefront; the publishers and developers selling their products through Steam are the ones who control the software, so the storefront going under doesn’t affect the use of the software except in those cases where the DRM included is tied to the storefront.
“You’re confusing PHYSICAL with DIGITAL.”
YOU’RE trying to push the console versus Stadia comparison; you cannot divorce physical games from that equation. Furthermore, games bought digitally on console are near identical to those bought physically, such that games removed from purchase are not removed from your HDD, and even if they’re delisted, you can still redownload them. Assuming that, for whatever reason, you bought a ton of games and never went back online after downloading them, there’d be no way for the industry to stop you from playing those games. And they’d have no legal recourse to stop you from playing them, either. I mean, can you name even one instance of this having happened?
“You’re confusing graphical settings with resolution.”
Resolution IS a graphical setting, and without a high enough resolution, the increased graphical settings won’t result in much visual improvement, if any. What good is all the AA and raytracing on a display that isn’t defined enough to show the difference?
“The average internet speed in America is 96 Mbps, according to the source above.”
According to that source, the average is 33.88Mbps. That’s just mobile, though. Ookla doesn’t tell whether their results are mean or median or even mode, but these could all result in very different numbers across the country. It also doesn’t say whether or not businesses, hospitals and the like factor in: they’d skew results up. But who cares about accuracy, right?
“The average internet speed in America is 96 Mbps, according to the source above.”
This is also specifically fixed broadband, which would exclude the vast majority of tablet and phone users unless they’re at home.
“It’s a negative (and a valid one) against all digital media.”
If it’s negative for all digital media, then it’s a negative against Stadia. And it IS valid, because digital games don’t magically disappear from your HDD without internet, nor would they if the storefront vanished(except in the cases where DRM is implemented, which has already been discussed).
“If you go and buy a $15 controller at Best Buy, Google doesn’t get any of that money.”
If you buy the Stadia controller, though? Who gets that money? When you buy a game through Steam, Steam gets a cut; are you saying the same is not true when you buy a game through Stadia? Because then you should be questioning exactly how this will ever become profitable.
“I don’t understand your reasoning here.”
My reasoning is that the Stadia you’re selling us isn’t available to the general public without paying for it. Most folks don’t have a PC with a 4K monitor, or a 4K TV with a usable keyboard/mouse. Most folks don’t actually have internet speeds that fast; cities like Philly, San Fran, and DC skew what LOOKS fast(Potomac and Chevy Chase MD clock in at over 600 apiece, but have a combined population of less than 60,000). And let’s not get into data and bandwidth caps; they’re not going anywhere, and something like Stadia is likely to make things worse.
My reasoning is that ownership is a big deal- and a big problem- when considering Stadia and the future of gaming in general. Whether you want to believe it or not, there IS a level of understood ownership, even when it comes to digital games, and that isn’t at all present in streaming. Again: it’s pretty much impossible for distributors to revoke a license for something you bought digitally if you no longer go online. On PlayStation, you can actually see a timer- or could; I don’t even remember where to find it- that showed you how many days were left until you could no longer use a game. This was tied to PS Plus, but no such indicator ever existed for any other games.
My reasoning is that there are legitimate concerns about Stadia and whether it will or should be successful, and your article treats those complaints as whining. It’s fine for you to be optimistic, but glossing over flaws to do so isn’t the way to go.
Wow. What a stupid and inaccurate article. Glad I stopped coming to this site. This is not even a PS topic. Ben should never have left.
How is it inaccurate?
The knee jerk hostility of the gaming community toward any new gaming technology that isn’t either a major console or graphics card upgrade never ceases to amaze me. Forget all of the so called ‘legitimate concerns’ for a second and just ask yourself, if all of the things Stadia promises are delivered, or even half of them at launch, would that not be a service worth getting behind? I’m a PS4 and Switch owner and I’ll probably buy the successors to those machines one day. I also signed up for the Stadia Founder’s Edition on day 1. Literally every other form of media; music, movies, books, radio – has transitioned to a streaming delivery format – gaming is the last form of media to go that route and there is no stopping it. If Stadia is such a bad idea, it’s curious that the established players in the market are also investing aggressively into this area. Seriously – wake up. Do you think the average 10 year old gives a shit about owning boxed copies of games? Do you think they ever worry about not having access to the internet? This is the future and all of the arm chair grandstanding about bandwidth and pricing in the world will not change that. Just consider for a second, do you really think that your theorizing on Stadia’s failure before it has even launched stands up to the thousands of hours of thought that some of the smartest people in the industry have put into conceiving this service?
“if all of the things Stadia promises are delivered, or even half of them at launch, would that not be a service worth getting behind?”
No, it wouldn’t be.
“Literally every other form of media…”
Literally every other form of media is many thousands of times smaller, or requires no interactivity beyond looking and listening, or both.
“it’s curious that the established players in the market are also investing aggressively into this area.”
It’s not curious at all. For “established players,” moving in that direction represents constant revenue streams they have full control over; why WOULDN’T they want to go that route?
“Do you think the average 10 year old gives a shit about owning boxed copies of games?”
The average ten year-old isn’t a driving force in the industry, whether as purchaser or player(and obviously not as a publisher or developer). It’s stupid of you to try and frame your argument around an individual with virtually zero impact.
“Do you think they ever worry about not having access to the internet?”
Yes, actually, since so much of their free time revolves around it. Responsible parenting- which, admittedly, is sorely lacking, in general- would put limits on that internet usage. That would, naturally, incude games that rely solely on the internet.
“This is the future and all of the arm chair grandstanding about bandwidth and pricing in the world will not change that.”
Except that “grandstanding” is reality: far too many places lack the infrastructure to make this the future any time soon, and in MANY places where infrastructure is not the problem, ISPs will happily cap your data, throttle it, or charge you exorbitant fees to have fast enough internet. These things already exist, so I’m confused as to why folks like you think they’ll magically disappear any time soon. In fact, isn’t it more likely that ISPs will become even MORE aggressive if this becomes the norm?
“do you really think that your theorizing on Stadia’s failure”
You say that as if the “smartest people” have never gotten anything wrong. As if they don’t work for people who are looking to make money, and thus will have the results of their work skewed in a certain direction. You also speak as if consumers don’t run the market.
Got a little news for you…
So if Stadia or some other service could deliver 60 FPS 4K gaming with zero load times on any screen you choose, with any controller you want for 10 bucks a month, that wouldn’t be worth getting behind? Why not?
Regarding the size of the media form, of course games are much larger and more complex than other forms of media, but the same criticism was levelled at iTunes back when the average connection speed was well under 5MB. Google has done the math on connection speed trends and data cap trends across a broad array of global ISPs – there’s no way they’d invest what they have into Stadia without doing the research on the most obvious risk to its platform. This is about the long term – not what the ISP market looks like now, but how it will evolve over the next 10 years.
When I said it was curious that the other big games companies are investing in this, I was being facetious – the fact that they are investing in streaming tech validates that this is where the market is headed and that Stadia is a relevant proposition, which judging by your comment, you appear to agree with, oddly enough.
Also, younger gamers are a huge part of what drives future trends – those demographics don’t have the historical baggage that older customers have – they are malleable and looking for convenience. For example, a huge part of what has driven the ad business in F2P mobile games has come from younger demographics – that market matters a lot. It’s that group that will be defending Stadia against whatever tech paradigm replaces streaming 15 years from now. Between now and then they are likely to spend a lot of cash on such services. My point about them not caring about boxed retail or whether a game forces an online connection stands – this is the generation that probably experienced their first games on a mobile phone, where there is no boxed retail and where always online is a given.
Also, regarding this:
“As if they don’t work for people who are looking to make money”
I have news for you – whatever sacred tribe in the games industry you subscribe to, every platform vendor, every publisher and every developer from whom you have enjoyed a game, wants to make money and there is nothing wrong with that. The thing that most people don’t understand is that those who work in the industry are gamers too. The best way for any business in the games industry to make money is to make products that people love and want. Look at who Google has hired for Stadia – Phil Harrison, Jade Raymond – these are big names and I’m sure there is going to be some big 1st party acquisitions before long. This is no flash in the pan endeavour – there’s some serious games industry pedigree behind Stadia.
The only people that support Stadia are sheep that will accept anything in gaming. They think many of these gaming services are great until they realize that their net connection is not that good or the service doesn’t offer as much. Google has already done some harm to YT. Why would anybody completely trust Google? Why be at the mercy of a company that can shutdown the server of their favorite game at anytime? Do people enjoy having more money sucked out of their wallet? Many people in society don’t want to see facts, but they are happy to yell at you when your opinion is different than theirs. Lol
How has Google harmed me? lol
Google harms people in general. Never be a drone for any company. The smart people will always speak out when they are doing something wrong. Google will censor people that they don’t agree with or pander to the advertisers. But you are going to tell me that Google never does harm to anybody? Make sure to fall in line or Google could destroy your channel on YT. They probably haven’t done any harm to you, but they have to other people that tried to build their channel on YT. Anyways, many of these gaming services can go in the trash, and Google won’t even explain that the Staida can cause legitimate problems to customers. Making excuses is always easier.
Ah, you meant YouTube! I legitimately thought you were saying Google has “harmed” me, since my name is Ty. YT makes much more sense! lol
Anyway, I’m not sure I agree with you in regards to Stadia supporters being “sheep”, though you’re right; nobody should ever trust any corporation fully. They’re in business to make money, and they rely on consumers to consume the content, services, or products, that the businesses are looking to sell.
With that said, I don’t believe you’re giving Stadia a fair and open chance, instead allowing for your distrust of Google (justified or not) to cloud your judgement on what may be a great gaming platform. Personally, I like the idea of cloud gaming, and it’s the next logical move for the game industry as a whole. There are some legitimate concerns involved, but most of the gaming media isn’t talking about them. Everybody seems to be more concerned about fake problems (like game ownership, which hasn’t existed for years) instead of the real and legitimate problems, such as data caps in America. Google’s official response was essentially “eh, we’re Google. ISP’s will adapt because we’re Google” which I don’t entirely agree with. I understand the reasoning, and perhaps ISP’s will adapt like they did with Netflix and Spotify. But Google’s stance on it just screams cocky, and I honestly rather dislike that.
Lol
I had to fix my typos. Anyways, Google will probably continue to make excuses because they are good at that. Stadia is not going to have any kind of chance until the game catalog is impressive, and many people have a solid net connection. I have no problem buying digital, but Google has not impressed me at all with the Stadia. They are full of PR nonsense like Phil Spencer. It is not smart to blindly trust Google. I have seen some of the problems that they can cause. The Stadia is probably going to have other fees that will be BS. I can’t see this being the Neflix of gaming.
Stadia’s not supposed to be the “Netflix of gaming”. That idea was created by the media, and was never once said by Google themselves. It’s best to think of Stadia as a virtual cloud game console, like a PlayStation or an Xbox. You buy a game, play it on nearly any device with a screen and an internet connection. No additional fees, as far as the currently advertised model goes. Perhaps they’ll introduce ads or something into the service, but so far, there’s been no indication that they intend to inject ads into Stadia. Though, even if they did inject advertisements into Stadia, it isn’t as if this is a new concept for a gaming console. Xbox 360 and PS3 both had ads. Same goes for the PS4, with the Xbox One doing it in a far more obvious way. (my current Xbox dashboard is advertising an Elite Controller)
If Stadia implemented ads in the same way, I wouldn’t be too upset. I’m sure a lot of people will make a big deal out of this though, and somehow use that as a disadvantage for using Stadia, only to go back to their Xbox One and blissfully ignore the Subway ad on their home dashboard.
Either way, if you’re looking at Stadia as a “Netflix of gaming”, you’ve been misled by the gaming media. Stadia is a digital game console.
This is just a friendly reminder to keep things civil and on topic. We will always encourage a civil conversation, and will never censor those that contribute to the subject of the thread. However, we will never tolerate personal insults, or anything like that.
Look, if things get heated, step back. We’re all humans here, and nobody likes to be insulted. If you have a point to raise, raise it. Just don’t insult someone else for expressing themselves.
Downvoted, your comment personally insulted me.
I’m sorry if an article on the internet offended you. That wasn’t my intention.
You seemingly never tried it.
Paying full price for something you will never own is ridiculous, especially when it performs worse, has lag and is totally dependent from the providers.
Everyone who promotes this is responsible for the demise of gaming as a whole.
You pay full price for games bought through Steam, PlayStation Store, Xbox Store, GOG, Origin, Uplay, and others. Why should Stadia be any different?
You’re correct though, I’ve never used Stadia or Project Stream, though I have used other cloud gaming platforms. GeForce Now is the most recent.
Stadia won’t be as responsive as a local game running on a local computer, but it is as responsive as a local game running on a local console, according to the sources I cited in the article above. If you have alternative sources, I’d love to give them a look, and potentially update the article with any new information.
“Why should Stadia be any different?”
Because that would be the same as paying full price for every movie you watch on Netflix.
I’m sure you know that one’s internet performance varies a lot during the day. You won’t get reliable low lag with Stadia. The sources you mentioned haven’t tested several games…there are loads of reports from E3 that both Stadia and XCloud had considerable lag, that was way above a console ..and that was under ideal circumstances in a controlled environment, with a data center nearby.
Can’t wait for all the apologist articles when reality sets in and people realise how varying the quality of the service really is.
Only a Nazi or a Socialist would tell others what to hate on. Keep your b.s. opinions to yourself.
Nobody is telling you what to think. If you dislike Stadia, you’re of course welcome to do so. However, this article was intended to educate those that dislike Stadia based on general falsehoods and misinformation. If somebody dislikes Stadia because they think the internet isn’t fast enough for it, or if they dislike Stadia because they dislike the idea of not owning video games, they’re forming an opinion that’s based on inaccurate or incomplete information.
There are legitimate concerns involving Stadia and cloud gaming in general, but a lot of what people are saying or using as reasoning to hate Stadia, is just not based on factual information. If somebody wishes to continue to be ignorant and continue to dislike something for a reason that’s not actually valid, nobody’s going to stop them.
The only thing I ask is that people educate themselves on what Stadia is, and come up with an informed decision on whether or not Stadia (or any technology) is right for them. If they find that their concerns aren’t actually Stadia specific, such as the game ownership concern, then they really shouldn’t be using that as an argument against Stadia, but rather against digital gaming as a whole. And yes, it’s a valid argument for digital ownership, and sure, it also applies to Stadia. But it’s not a “Stadia-only” problem. It’s all digital distribution platforms.
I’m looking forward to Stadia for a few reasons.
I play videogames in my living room but my wife and i gotta play nice and switch from bedroom to living room. With Stadia, i can just take my controller and go into my bedroom. No need to unplug the damn PS4 etc.
I also live in California but from the North East. So on vacations during the holidays i can just bring my pixelbook, my pixel 3 or the controller with my Chromecast Ultra and game.
I dunno but for a married family man. Stadia is sounding like a win for me.
Humm lets see 10 a month fee its already been stated by google the games won’t be cheeper, so far Destiny 2 is the only “free’ game. I can’t trade a game in you will have input lag I don’t care how fast your net is its just a fact net can’t be as fast as disk or digital owned games. This thing will bomb i gaurentee
You only pay $10 / month if you want to play games at 4K resolution, and if the monthly game rotation is important to you.
You can’t trade or resell digital games.
The input lag will vary, though tests so far (check article source) put it on-par with the Xbox One X. Meaning if you’re primarily into console gaming, Stadia shouldn’t feel any different.
Not sure what you mean by the net not being faster than a disk? I assume you’re referring to a disc. If so, what do you mean the net won’t be faster? You’re not downloading anything, nor is there anything loading or installing in the background. Stadia (or cloud gaming in general, actually) would be significantly faster than a disc, assuming we’re talking about current consoles.
Also in regards to your other comment. You’re not paying more for a game on Stadia, you’re paying the exact same price for the exact same game. As for the platform itself, you’re actually paying less.
I’m talking input lag, streaming I don’t care if your net is 200mbps it simply can’t be as fast as a disk or digital game. And you think google’d setup for media is gonna have anything but a peerfect setup? I have a great net and ps now still has lag as will this system fCe the truth.
As said in the article, the input latency is roughly on-par with the latency to that of a home console. This basically means that, at least as far as console standards go, you will get the same core experience on Stadia as you would on a local PS4 Pro or Xbox One X.
Whether or not the information we have today proves to be accurate after Stadia fully launches to the public is entirely unknown. But from what we have now, you should expect console-like performance out of Stadia.
Also for reference, I’ve used GeForce Now (a PC cloud gaming service) and at the maximum bitrate provided, I did not notice any discernible latency while playing Destiny 2. Everything felt as if it were being rendered on my local hardware. I also noticed zero visual artifacts, with the game looking crisp and with very little to no compression. This was again when I set the stream to 50 Mbps, but that was also at only 1080p. I have my doubts that Stadia will look as good as a local rendering at a mere 35 Mbps bitrate for 4K, when it took GeForce Now 50 Mbps at 1080p to get a perfect picture.
I’m hopeful, but have some big doubts. It’s kinda a wait and see situation.
I think your a bit nieave to expect no imput lag from a streaming device sorry but it will happen, and no chance its 4k will look as good as a ps5 game. I agrree google has better ifastructure then Sony but if ps noew 1080P gameswhen streemed look more like 800P why do you think google will do it better?
For simplicity, let’s just reply here. lol.
I don’t think it’s being naive at all. As I said, I’ve used GeForce Now and there is no noticeable input lag, at least for my own use of it. Also if the reports from those that have had first-hand experience with Stadia (or Project Stream) hold true, then Stadia will be comparable to that of a home console. Now, I’ve used cloud gaming services, as said. I can personally confirm that it is entirely possible to reduce input lag to a point where it is no longer noticeable, especially if you’re playing with a controller. With a mouse and keyboard, it’s a little bit harder, since the mouse is simply far more responsive than a controller. But my experience with GeForce Now has been rather positive. Google also appears to have significantly more datacenter locations available, so the odds are high that my experience with Stadia will actually be better than my experience with GeForce Now.
My biggest concern with Stadia is with picture quality. I don’t really have any doubts that they’ll deliver a quality service as far as input lag goes, since GeForce Now already does that. My concern, however, is with the quality of the image itself, and Google’s claims of being able to offer native 4K resolutions at a bitrate of only 35 Mbps. GeForce Now practically requires a full 50 Mbps for just 1080p, and admittedly it looks flawless, but Google’s claiming to offer four times the resolution at half the bitrate. I’m confident there’s some level of super compression magic going on, but I doubt it’ll be completely free of artifacts. I’m excited to see for myself just how it all plays out.
Now, again, my concern isn’t with the technical aspect of it, but instead the bitrate Google’s claiming you’ll need for 4K. They’ll need some super amazing compression to make it work at that bitrate, and not have noticeable artifacts to the naked eye. My bet is 35 Mbps is the minimum bitrate for 4K, and that Stadia will actually go far beyond that for a stable and clear 4K image. Remember, the specific wording is they “recommend” 35 Mbps for 4K, not that they “require” it. So it’s definitely reasonable to assume that the final bitrate will be significantly higher, if your connection can handle it.
Now that you mention it your right I’ve had more issues with pic quality using ps now (on fighting and racing games Imput lag is still an issure ) thats why sony introduced DL of ps4 games on ps now cuz you were NOT getting 1080P. So hoe google thinks they are gonna pull off 4K is nuts. You mention average net speeds in the usa takw e away New york, LA, and Chicargo and 1 other huge city say Philly, and that average speed iscut in half gaurenteedI’m from Canada and 3 hours outside Toronto my parent stilll have dial up. The average speed angle doesn’t stick in my book.
The problem with the statement “latency is roughly on-par with the latency to that of a home console” is that may be true but not always. They’re billing this as stable when there are too many negative factors outside Googles control. Nothing beats a 3 ft cable direct from your computer or console directly to your monitor for stability and reliability.
I think Google is over selling this, I mean they even said it will soon support 8k. That’s almost insulting because what good is 8k if its pixelated so bad during motions scenes that it’s worse than VGA?
Props too you I enjoy a civil debate
Why would I pay MORE for a game vs a PS5 game whitch I own can trade in keep give to friends,your handcuffed with this thing.
Destint 2 gee thanks a 2 year+ ld game is what you offer for free no thanks got it free on ps plus a year ago haha
I respect your article and what you think I just disagree with most of it. Another question what will pro vg players use? A new xbox or ps5 or google when 100,000$ is on the line?
Sorry for replying to multiple comments. lol. You’re commenting too fast, and I can’t keep up!
Anyway, I actually compete in various esports myself, and I would not recommend any cloud gaming service for serious esport level competition. At the same time, I also do not recommend consoles for the same reason I don’t recommend Stadia.
The input latency and performance of a console isn’t great for esports, and if Stadia is comparable to a console, Stadia would fall within the same category. If you’re serious about competing, you’ll need to do so on a computer. There’s more freedom, flexibility, and control. But most importantly, the performance is far more consistent on a computer.
As an example of something esport players do (fps players), is they (including myself) will lower the graphical settings and resolution of a game to get as high of a frame rate as possible. My computer is good, and I can easily play every single game at 60+ fps on max settings. But that simply isn’t enough. Gaming monitors for example run at 144hz at the minimum, which basically means you’ll want at least 144 frames per second for a consistent and smooth experience. Stadia and all consoles just can’t offer that.
i am with you there Imost choose 1080P or 2K at 60fps on my pro over 4k at 30 when given the choice (Tomb raider, wolf 2, GOW ect.)Ilm future proofed with my tv it will goto 120fps for ps5
Sorry i’musing the ps4 webbrowser i have no PC. My ps4 is my utbe web browser, netflix ect.
I spent too much money on my ps ppro and 4K Sony tv.
Leave Stadia alone!
No but really. The problem is Stadia requires far more consumer trust to actually work. While there are benefits for sure, there is no denying that there are many negatives to it as well. Ofcourse people are skeptic.
There are negatives to everything, some legitimate, and some not so legitimate.
Stadia has plenty of legitimate negatives and reasons for concern. The fact games are full price isn’t one of them. The biggest gripe seems to be about game ownership, and how if Stadia goes down, you lose your games. But that isn’t a Stadia-exclusive problem. Don’t get me wrong, it is a legitimate problem, but people are seemingly ignoring the fact that you don’t own anything you purchase digitally. You don’t own that movie you bought on the PS Store. You don’t own that album you bought on iTunes. You don’t own that game you bought on Steam. Why would the same digital rules suddenly not apply to Stadia, a digital gaming platform?
Also remember, this exact same argument was made about Steam as well, back when Steam first launched. Data usage, internet speeds, ownership rights. This is basically history repeating itself.
This article wasn’t intended to make Stadia sound like some kind of perfect service that has no faults. But rather, it’s meant to help people to better understand that some of the concerns they have aren’t as big of a deal as they seem to believe, are based on misinformation, or don’t apply strictly to Stadia.
Nah ofcourse not but then again when Steam launched, the gaming landscape looked very different. Even back then people were hating Steam.
I think the biggest problems are data caps and control.
If you really want, you can buy a game physical on console and on PC you could either go to GoG, but I am more referring to local control.
I can set any setting to what I want. I can mod the game, I can launch it with any overlay and I can go offline. With Stadia, you lose a lot of control.
I am curious to see what happens. It is not for me though.
It might have been a different game industry back then, but the concerns people had then are still valid today. The main difference though, is the industry evolved, and digital distribution services became the norm. Who’s to say the industry won’t evolve and adapt again?
Isn’t a lack of control a negative towards consoles in general, not just Stadia?
But yeah, data is a legitimate problem, as mentioned in the article. Google’s official response was lackluster, and kinda cocky in my opinion. They basically said “we’re Google, America will adapt because we’re Google.” The ownership debate is also a legitimate concern, but not really one that only affects Stadia. You don’t own any of the games you buy digitally, including those on GOG. GOG removes DRM but the game can still be removed from your account for any reason. Just means you’ll probably be able to play it even if your ownership was revoked. Unsure on the legal status of this though, and if you’re technically allowed to play a game that you purchased and was later revoked, or if that’s considered some weird form of piracy.
You also ignore the real issues in your piece lag, 35mbps seems way too low for 4K hdr 60fps, most people’s net plan will go over if you game like over an hour a day. Way more neg then pos to this new device. And when II buy a game on disk I OWN it. Last servay I saw said 56%of gamers still buy physical copies and my used game store has allowed me to buy over 35 games on disk only digital I own are ps plus games..
This author is being deceptive about stadias zero cost, the controller and dongle are outrageously priced for its quality at $130. i can already feel the joy sticks drift looking at the cheap knock off looking controller.
Google’s disregard for consumer data caps is on the same level as steve jobs “we tell the consumer what they want” mantra, and i do not like it.
The reality is neither comcast nor centurylink are going to increase data caps without charging us for it, which brings us right back to this authors claimed zero cost.
This would absolutely never fly in multi users house holds, a small family streaming 4k movies and games could easily push 10Tb.
How excited we will all be playing stadia when we have consider stadia subs, game subs, data overage fees if they are even offered, if our isp do not cancel us outright like they do now.
Google innovation = what if we made gaming like cell phone tiered bs, i just can’t wait for the headache.
stadia is an absolute no go as a primary games service.
EDIT: I would also like to add, I think stadia will promote addictive, and unethical freemium, micro transaction based time sink products designed to keep customers on the verge of paying and playing endlessly. who doesn’t like a customer who will drop hundreds or thousands on card packs and loot boxes $5 here, $10 there, and don’t forget that data! $50 extra 500GB! Boom! sorry but No Thanks, two, three times.
Could not have said it better. Thank you
i love you
Who is to blame when the little hiccups degrade the game experience? Its not going to be Google.but the ISPs. They could then try to sell better data plans but that doesn’t address the hiccups that come with interrupted and loaded systems.
As much as people think they should get as much bandwidth as they want, it is a commodity that actually is expensive to deliver and very competitive. Throw the exponential demands of a streaming service without being able to take advantage of buffering and Stadia will end up being a headache for ISPs.
Furthermore, whether you buy a console or use stadia, you still pay for the hardware. Those Google servers are far from cheap and if scaled to handle peak loads, those enormous costs will have to be passed on to the customers either directly or through taking a cut of the developers revenue (amd if they don’t profit, too bad, Google will get paid anyway). And that is on top of the already huge premium Google already expects to take in profit.
nah im good and dont care about this over priced junk
Shadow told me this, too. This, in fact, was a lie. This shit isn’t going to work for at least another ten years and by then, the demands will get higher. Shitty fluidity, hiccups, audio issues on a 200 mb/s connection when it only requires a tenth of that. I’m sure this probably works good on a fiber connection, but welcome to about 1% of America.
Let all take a minute to think of every console/gaming device we’ve ever owned. For me that’s: a PS1, gameboy color, Gameboy advance, two ps2s, two Gameboy SPs, a GameCube, a Wii, two PSPs, a Nintendo DS, three Xbox 360s, a Nintendo 3Ds, a PS4, a Nintendo switch, and a gaming PC.
The idea of Stadia allowing me to never have to buy one again is pretty neat, you have to admit. Maybe you don’t think Stadia will succeed, but cloud gaming is the future of gaming and some company will eventually get it right. Google may or may not be that company and 2019 may or may not be the year that that is possible.
Regardless of when and how cloud gaming is achieved it will save all of us money AND give us access to computing power well beyond what is feasible for us to build ourselves. How could you not be hyped by that concept?
Too many assumptions there.
I will own precisely 0 games with Stadia. It is the opposite of what the industry needs.