Google Stadia

[Joshihatsumitsu]

>go grave

I don't know the word "grave".

>

[Craig]

I’m not really interested but it could be a hit. I think a lot of people underestimate how much of the public value convenience over quality- there were similar arguments when music and movies switched over to streaming (Blurays are so much better quality, why would anyone listen to an album so badly compressed?) but convenience won out. It’s a part of why the Switch is doing so well.

You can talk about dropped frames and input lag until you’re blue in the face, but if they can get the service to a level which is good enough, the average guy on the street won’t care, especially if they don’t have the Xbox version side by side to compare.

There’ll still be a market for higher end stuff and hobbyists focusing on this (just look at Digital Foundry) but I think it’s overstated how large a part of the market this is in gaming circles.

If there’s a company with enough tech and clout to do so, it’s Google.

[Stanshall]

>go grave

I don't know the word "grave".

>

Two big laughs here.

[DomsBeard]

Always about the games for me. I could be playing on a Spectrum + 2 or an Xbox One X it is just about what is on it.

[Sinclair Gregstrum]

This is all so very interesting.

The internet at large (and this forum alone!) seems to be veering wildly between those who are incredibly excited, those who don't care much but accept streaming is happening, and those that seem deeply offended by the entire concept!

Personally I'm excited. There's every chance we've just witnessed a defining, pivotal moment in the industry, fundamentally breaking down barriers to the ways people play games. I actually find it quite disappointing how some people seem genuinely hostile towards Google and Stadia, and the whole concept of streaming in general. People railing against the growth and development of gaming just because it doesn't fit their narrow view of what it should be, is nonsensical to me. I understand why it's happening, but it's nonsensical all the same.

You're not going to lose your traditional hardware solution anytime soon folks (I'm talking to the angry internet at large here!). Microsoft and Sony aren't pulling the plug on their next gen consoles this morning (although Microsoft is clearly heading at least partially down the streaming route already). Stadia is a new platform and a new to way play unlike anything we've seen before, and personally I'm up for it!

And to those saying “this has been tried before!” and spouting names like OnLive and PS Now – you’re missing the point. Nothing attempted before is comparable to what Google is doing with Stadia, and none of those initiatives have ever been backed by a company so capable of success as Google. They were also all attempted when the infrastructure absolutely was not ready. For many people it’s maybe not even quite ready now, but it’s not far off and it is there for enough people to kick things off at least otherwise Google wouldn’t be doing this right now.

Yes the quality will fluctuate depending on your internet connection, but as other people have already highlighted most people won't care that they're not getting 4K 60fps, they'll just be happily playing great games on whatever screen they like while tech pedants grumble into a void.

I’m embracing all this with open arms. Yes there’s a boat load of unknowns right now, but I think Google have just done something really cool and I’ll be waiting for more information with an overwhelming sense optimism and excitement. Maybe I’m just a glass half full kind of guy…

[hazeredmist]

This isn't for me, I don't want to stream games, and the features around it don't interest me or my needs. However, it would be wilfully ignorant to believe this isn't where things are heading, or that people don't want it, whether Stadia is the true & successful arrival of Netflix gaming or not.

I've got my generation of gaming to go back to anytime, and a front lawn to tell young people to stay off! Good luck guys!

Amen, dude

[JaySevenZero]

I'm with Sinclair Gregstrum on this, I think it's fascinating tech and I'm keen as hell about it!

[KSubzero1000]

Yes the quality will fluctuate depending on your internet connection, but as other people have already highlighted most people won't care that they're not getting 4K 60fps, they'll just be happily playing great games on whatever screen they like while tech pedants grumble into a void.

Isn't that a reductive view of the skepticism aimed at this technology?

When people with bad internet connections are watching a YouTube video for example, then yes, the system automatically downgrades the resolution / framerate to fit their device. So instead of 4K 60fps, you're watching in 480p 30fps. But the video is still the same and your viewing experience isn't that much worse off even with the sub-optimal settings.

But an interactive medium is fundamentally different. How are you going to play Street Fighter competently when the computations of your input are happening hundreds of miles away from you? Comparing this to a simple resolution downgrade is missing the point, I feel.

I think Craig is making a good point regarding people privileging convenience over quality. So I can easily imagine Stadia establishing itself as the de facto face of game streaming technology and I hope its target audience will be satisfied with it. But there are entire genres that I simply can't imagine ever becoming compatible with it at this point and I don't think that qualifies as tech pedantry.

Then there are the usual issues regarding private ownership and availability being dependent on the whims of unscrupulous publishers - all valid as well, I think.

Happy to be proven wrong, of course.


EDIT:

People railing against the growth and development of gaming just because it doesn't fit their narrow view of what it should be, is nonsensical to me. I understand why it's happening, but it's nonsensical all the same.

Does it qualify as "growth and development" if it ends up being a "one step forward, one step back"- type of situation, though? Yes, it is nonsensical to dismiss entire concepts sight unseen simply because that's not what you're used to. But it's also nonsensical to frame the latest and shiniest developments as automatically superior just because they're new.

Surely people can be either optimistic or skeptical of this technology without badmouthing the other side, no?

[Craig]

I wouldn’t really describe it as tech pedantry (and apologise if it came off as dismissive), and I’d agree a lot of those issues are really important to a lot of people. Fighting games would suffer particularly. But if you look at the biggest games around, your Minecrafts and Fortnites, they already have sub par mobile versions with sub par control schemes that are wildly wildly popular and lucrative.

It’s not going to part seasoned players from their machines, but it doesn’t have really have to.

[KSubzero1000]

I wouldn’t really describe it as tech pedantry (and apologise if it came off as dismissive), and I’d agree a lot of those issues are really important to a lot of people. Fighting games would suffer particularly. But if you look at the biggest games around, your Minecrafts and Fortnites, they already have sub par mobile versions with sub par control schemes that are wildly wildly popular and lucrative.

Oh, absolutely. (And you weren't being dismissive, don't worry.) But like I said last page, I agree that most genres wouldn't suffer from this in any meaningful way. If I had to guess, I'd say that roughly 80% of games would probably work as intended on a streaming interface. But that still leaves a big chunk of games that will always have a home on dedicated platforms.

I think streaming will probably establish itself as a universal way to play certain games with minimal investment sooner or later. But that's not "the future" which is going to leave all the backwards luddites in the dust, just a convenient alternative for the average consumer. Kinda like online grocery shopping.

[Craig]

Yeah, I think it’s definitely A future but not THE future - the scope of what a videogame can be has widened considerably and there are several hugely popular areas that you can have no interest in but have your needs served well. In recent years there have been huge games like Five Night at Freddys, Fortnite, Minecraft, PUBG, COD and the entire MOBA and Esports scene which have all mostly passed me by (I’m not even sure what a moba *is*.) These are all ridiculously popular and have spawned countless imitators, but the market is big enough that there’s money elsewhere too and I still end up with far too many games to play as it is.

[Flabyo]

I still want to know how we pay for it, and how the people making things for it get paid.

[KSubzero1000]

...Well that was unnecessarily aggressive, wasn't it?

Edit: Never mind...

[Flabyo]

The BBC op-Ed piece on it is not impressed.

[replicant]

Open minded, but not fully convinced. Concerned about picture quality esp on a 4K TV screen.

No harm in giving it a shot, but it won’t replace my Pro/X or next-gen. Not because I buy physical discs, I’m 100% digital, but because I just can’t see it matching the experience of an actual console.

[KissMammal]

Thing is, the traditional set top console and packaged game model has been surprisingly resilient.

If you'd asked me 10 years ago, I would have guessed that games would be almost completely digital by now, but that hasn't been the case. People love thier consoles, and all that comes with them - the standardised interface/controller, being able to trade in games etc.

There's also a fair bit of resistance to the 'games as service' model - for many people, that simply isn't how they want to play. I for one don't like buying games piecemeal and never will. I like paying a fair one-off price for a full game.

And I should mention that it takes a lot more than providing a platform to have any staying power in the gaming industry. Content is king - time and again it's been proven that you need exclusive killer apps in order to get people to get on board. An 'underpowered' system like the Switch can compete with the big boys almost purely because of the quality of games like Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey.

I can see Stadia as being huge, but for the foreseeable future more as something equivalent to what mobile gaming is. I still think traditional consoles will have a place for a good long while.

[Simonsloth]

I’m a PlayStation now subscriber. On my moderate speed internet connection it is seamless and lag free. Admittedly I am playing PS3 and older titles so the fact it’s not in 4K isn’t an issue and the games look identical to when played on original hardware. However it’s not the way I would play Horizon or God of War (2018).

I also rarely use it. This is a reflection on my current gaming tastes though looking to the past rather than into the future.

(For some reason there was a rumour bouncing around that this could emulate every game in history. I don’t know why I thought this would be true.)

[Alex79]

Re: the argument that this won't be suitable for fast paced games, particularly 1v1 fighting games - maybe not, yet. But one day, it will. One day the difference in input time and lag will be quite literally unnoticeable from playing the game locally. And you do realise that when playing against someone online, you are already dealing with input delay? I'm not sure how this would be any different really.

[KSubzero1000]

But one day, it will. One day the difference in input time and lag will be quite literally unnoticeable from playing the game locally.

May I ask what you're basing this on? Like Flabyo said, you cannot send data any faster than the speed of light.

[Suits]

It’s so enlightening hearing everyone’s else’s opinion on this.

It keeps me guessing and thinking how I think this will all shake out.