Poll: Google Stadia - CLOSING DOWN on 18th Jan 2023

Are you going to pick up Google Stadia?

  • Yes, at launch

    Votes: 20 5.3%
  • Yes, but after launch

    Votes: 24 6.3%
  • No

    Votes: 286 75.5%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 49 12.9%

  • Total voters
    379
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Jul 2004
Posts
44,080
Location
/* */
Really? Is there a ink to that you could post? Thanks!

I used deductive reasoning. The Chromecast has no Bluetooth or USB connectivity, which all normal controllers use. The Google controller works via WiFi, so if Chromecast is supported then it must be controlled via the Google controller.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Jul 2004
Posts
44,080
Location
/* */
Any ideas on what they will price it at?

I think something like £15/month with games purchased separately.

I expect you will have the different levels (time/off peak/fidelity/game age) of service, with the cost being for the platform and games library combined.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2010
Posts
1,554
Location
Pontefract, W.Yorks
By the time were ready for PS6 all the platforms will probably be doing this. It'll take at least a gen to work the flaws/latency issues out for people to take it seriously enough to play multiplayer FPSs and the like with it, especially against hardware.

Microsoft are going with a streaming only console (as an option) this gen but could you imagine going up against someone with a full fat machine?

Anyway, we'll see soon enough.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Posts
23,904
Location
Hertfordshire
As well as latency which I am sure will be talked to death, I'm wondering how the image quality will hold up. When I render something at 1080p fullscreen on my 1080p screen, I get a 1:1 pixel...mapping? or whatever. When I am in effect streaming a video at 1080p, it will have all sorts of compression, won't be an exact 1080p image with 1:1 pixel surely, for things like the task bar etc.

As I mentioned above too, this is just resolution and scaling. What about the actually level of detail rendered/used?
Also, as you rightly said, how compressed will it all be?

I can see this being a flop until Sony and Microsoft ramp it up when the time is right. It'll still be inferior but many gamers care not for the technical aspects, nor privacy and many people in general just want the convenience of everything "smart" and "cloud" and wrapped up in a lovely monthly sub to make it easier on their simple minds.

SUBSCRIPTION MODEL ALL THE THINGS!
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2008
Posts
6,769
Didn't Microsoft try this and abandon it with Crackdown 3?

IIRC Crackdown 3 was supposed to stream all static items such as hi-res background textures etc, while allowing key gameplay elements to be rendered console-side, but they couldn't get it to work?
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Aug 2005
Posts
22,947
Location
Glasgow
Didn't Microsoft try this and abandon it with Crackdown 3?

IIRC Crackdown 3 was supposed to stream all static items such as hi-res background textures etc, while allowing key gameplay elements to be rendered console-side, but they couldn't get it to work?

I think MS' vision was more for things like physics and AI to be "powered by the cloud" allowing the console to focus on rendering the actual game. Funnily enough they went quiet on that one, much as they did with Kinect and "TV, TV, TV!".
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Mar 2013
Posts
5,430
Any ideas on what they will price it at?

I think something like £15/month with games purchased separately.


There some info saying it's free. All you have to do is pay for the games. I bet there'll be adds all over the place. I'm not interested at all.

For console gaming I want physical games. On PC digital is fine. Just not on stadia.
 
Associate
Joined
23 Dec 2018
Posts
1,096
I'd hoped this would regard improving gaming on Android devices, maybe releasing a controller that all devs will implement rather than relying on touch screen controls.

I already have a controller that attaches to my S9+ and makes it a really nifty handheld console on the games that actually support it, problem is many games don't even allow proper controls. EG Street Fighter 4 is awesome on Android with a real controller, Tekken doesn't even support it.

This new streaming service smacks of them ignoring their existing major user base to try create new revenue streams that I just don't think will exist.

Casual gamers will continue to play free to play games on their phones, hardcore games will continue to want to own their games outright.

I'll be happy to be proved wrong, but I'm predicting very little success for this in an already crowded gaming market.

Also, many associate streaming with dropped connections and low quality performance, whether that's true or not they'll have a very hard time gaining market share with this.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2011
Posts
21,590
Location
ST4
So, You want to play a game? Here sit through this unskippable 10 minute advert first.

20 mins later

Congratulations, you completed the level. Now, just sit through this unskippable 10 minute advert while the next level loads.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2016
Posts
2,563
Location
Surrey
I'll be honest this looks great. Wonder what the pricing or economics of it will be. Watching a video from digital foundry it doesn't seem like stadia is too far off the latency you get playing on a console, still slower though. Probably depends on your net / connection to server too. DF said 15mbps is considered on the low end for this and will yield a 720p stream.

Image quality will be the interesting one... Whether it will look like a stream despite being streamed in 4k hdr for example or whether it will hold up Vs a physical console running it.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Apr 2009
Posts
7,580
There some info saying it's free. All you have to do is pay for the games. I bet there'll be adds all over the place. I'm not interested at all.

For console gaming I want physical games. On PC digital is fine. Just not on stadia.

Seems plausible to me. Standard cut for game sales is ~30%, so on a £50 new release, Google takes £15. Add in a few ads here and there, and I can imagine that covering the average cost of streaming the game. For multiplayer, there's potential to use more ads and take a cut of microtransaction revenue to help cover the ongoing costs.

Plus, it opens up new ways to generate revenue using existing Google services; YouTube, Google Home, etc.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Posts
22,598
I expect you will have the different levels (time/off peak/fidelity/game age) of service, with the cost being for the platform and games library combined.
That's Interesting - I would have thought there would be a "service charge" as well as individual game charge (possibly with 10's /100's older / basic games coming free as part of the service as they build up)

Highly dubious this will work currently even with Google spending 10s if not 100's of millions of $ at this

There may well be hotspots around the world where this works very well for those not demanding too much, but otherwise not a direct competitor to the PS5 or xbox (or Switch) ...and possibly not even the PS6 (depending on infrastructure improvements in the intervening time
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Dec 2004
Posts
15,762
Seems plausible to me. Standard cut for game sales is ~30%, so on a £50 new release, Google takes £15. Add in a few ads here and there, and I can imagine that covering the average cost of streaming the game. For multiplayer, there's potential to use more ads and take a cut of microtransaction revenue to help cover the ongoing costs.

Plus, it opens up new ways to generate revenue using existing Google services; YouTube, Google Home, etc.

I would be very surprised if it's pay-per-title, rather than a subscription.

It's worth pointing out that these streaming services don't have to render the whole scene on the server. There's various other options like on a third person game like AC having the player character rendered on the client so it's snappy and responsive, but overlaid on the rest of the scene that's on the server. Involves a bit of trickery, but I doable.

It definitely does open up the possibility of doing what crackdown was supposed to do. We will definitely be seeing the next generation of procedural generation tech, using machine learning systems to generate worlds instead of simple noise algorithms.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
I used deductive reasoning. The Chromecast has no Bluetooth or USB connectivity, which all normal controllers use. The Google controller works via WiFi, so if Chromecast is supported then it must be controlled via the Google controller.

They all have BLE but the ultras and refreshed gen2 hockey pucks are certified for Bluetooth radio. Original gen 2s aren't. So it's possible at least I'm theory that the controller could use Bluetooth and/or WiFi.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Sep 2004
Posts
631
Location
Devizes, Wiltshire
I'm excited to try it, it seems lots of people are ruling it out up front without even trying it. Assuming it's subscription based then a one month test will let me know if its worth continuing with. Google aren't exactly a small company, they have/are putting a lot of investment and R&D into this. I can't stand buying consoles, the games are more expensive, you have to pay extra to play them online, the only one I would consider getting is a switch for the portability. If this can deliver me a console like experience for a monthly fee through a chromecast ultra plugged into my OLED TV, I'm in. I will still have a gaming PC for competitive games though. I don't see it as an either/or.
 
Back
Top Bottom