• It's the most wonderful time of the year! Make your list and check it twice. The ResetEra Games of the Year 2019 Voting Thread is now live. Voting will be open for the next 4 days, 35 minutes, 22 seconds, and will close on Jan 26, 2020 at 9:00 AM.

Google formally unveils the "Stadia" launching in 2019

Darknight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,339
Image quality is much more important to games because you have to see incoming objects/characters/enemies, items you are searching for, etc. Especially playing on a smaller screen like a phone.

Im just saying just because people love doing the same for movies and TV does not mean that gaming through streaming will be received so fondly unless most the expected issues are ironed out. Convenience isn't going to make up for issues that make you want to stop playing the game you're streaming/take you out of the immersion.
And I'll still stand by that you're going to find that the convenience will trump that trade off. People won't care as much as you think they do. Only a small percentage of people are going to nitpick over that. If people did care, you'd see the Pro and the X being the dominant selling systems. You'd see the PC doing better than consoles too.
 

oni-link

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,327
UK
Okay? I'm not trying to sell anyone on the service.... Just people taking a 2 second gif out of context as the be all end all for lag is just ridiculous.
Yeah it would be if input lag isn't an issue, and while it might not be that bad consistently it clearly is a noticeable issue when compared to running games natively

So reduced responsiveness and visuals are the future of gaming we're supposed to be excited about?

They showed off a lot of cool things, but making my interactive entertainment feel and look worse is a pretty shitty trade off in my opinion

Feels like a leap in technology in the same way the cassette was a leap in technology over vinyl
 

Cyclonesweep

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,899
Looks like Duder Comment's thread was right on the money, lol.

I need to hear more about pricing and revenue models (I'd definitely prefer a Netflix-style subscription). But I'd love to hear more about this in June.

For people insisting this "won't work well":
If you have <15mbps down: You're right.
If you have >20mbps down: Give it a try when it launches. You might be pleasantly surprised, as I was with the beta :)
20mbps won't be enough to do [email protected]
 

spad3

Member
Oct 30, 2017
4,938
California
Lol, take it it with you and play on smartphone is pipe dreaming in many countries (south europe here). Like me and some people I know in my country have like 20-30 gb per month with the most expensive mobile plans. And many people to spare money decide to go with just 5-10 gb to save money (majority of people).
In a 200K town, I got a 80ms latency and 15 mb at evening, which drops at 5-6 during day. When I go visit my family who live in small villages it drops to 1-2 mega.

Instead with my console or pc, I can just bring them with me when I'm on vacation or b&B and play without any connection needed.

Plus it still doens't answer the question that you don't own your games and possibly any modding potential. if for any reason you can't afford the subscription anymore, then you lose everything. Now instead I can play my games offline even if I don't have a subscription and even without any kind of connection.
And you also won't have any control on what you can do with a game. And you won't be able to play without a good internet connection even though you may be paying a subscription.

It's a matter of tradeoffs and convenience.

But the concept is indeed fascinating.
You won’t own your games anymore
Do you realise how easily this can fail. So many questions and issues that weren't covered at all within the conference. So small points that you even missed based on your assumptions. This isnt revolutionising this is a small upgrade to Onlive.

You can Stream console quality games over the internet* (As long as you have a high speed stable fibre connection with zero congestion and packetloss)
You can be watching a video of a game and then jump into that game off of YouTube(Thats not really special at all alt tab open game done on PC)
You can be playing a game at home and then take it with you on you smartphone, picking up where you left off at home WITHOUT a loss in quality (As long as you stay inside and are on a WIFI connection because it doesnt work on anything else other than that. Also your Wifi connection better be stable and fast)

Also good luck with fast paced MP games.
You won't own a game anymore.
You won't be able to play when not wired into an active internet connection anymore.
Over time you'll pay as much in renting time on Stadia instances as you'd pay for a $2000 rig, but you won't own anything and will never be able to use it for anything else.

IDK, to each their own, but this seems incredibly underwhelming. But shoutout to all the people who were hoping Google would disrupt the market with a superpowerful console.
I think your imagining the potentials of this console and setting yourself up for disappointment
Would you say that the future will be fun* with friends?

*With a high speed internet connection and no data caps
Project stream had awful bitrate at 1080p30 with noticeable audio compression.
-You can stream games now. You can stream Resident Evil 7 in Japan on the Switch.
-You're talking about an ad
-That's an awfully big assumption
I was one of the Google Stream beta testers. I am not excited about this.
Will you be able to play when there's no internet? Will be able to play on a airplane? Will you be able to play when there's no electric power? Will be able to play with data cap?

Because I can do all that right now.
For a lot of people this could be quite convenient and good to play games on. To me those people are more the casual players and that seems to be Google's audience. For others it will just be another way to play games.

I will never give up my PC but I'll definitely use it from time to time.
A lot of these comments are too constrained on "now" and the limitations of "now." By releasing and going public with a service like this, Google is essentially hoping for a future that is centered around higher standardized internet speeds and is relying heavily on moving towards a streaming-based service. Yes there are trade-offs like modding, but there's a niche market for that which Google is clearly not targeting. Not everyone uses mods.

Stadia has a huge convenience factor to it - device versatility. It's like OnLive but on crack. OnLive died because it was trying to do something ahead of its time and didn't have the proper infrastructure for it. Google has the ability (and the money) to develop proper infrastructure for this service. It will definitely start at a smaller scale, but given enough support and enough time, it has the potential to be huge.

As for not owning your own games, you don't really own your games right now anyways. You're an end user and you have to agree to a EULA on like almost every single game you play.

As for physical media, you don't OWN Assassin's Creed Odyssey, you own a piece of plastic that has Assassin's Creed Odyssey on it.

Offline play would be simple to incorporate - follow Netflix's strategy for offline movies. Download the ones you want to play offline (minimum hardware requirements have to be met in order to play), stream the ones you want to play online.

Latency and Input Lag are heavily reliant on infrastructure + end-user setups. Different users will have different experiences depending on their setup and local infrastructure. Local infrastructure can be standardized, user setup cannot.

Again, there are tons of fine-details that Google still needs to address, but this service existing is a huge step forward in eliminating the need of a dedicated device. Consoles now only exist for console-exclusive titles (and hardware gimmicks).

I was part of the Project Stream beta as well and I was impressed. I encountered the typical input lag, but that's expected because the infrastructure isn't all there yet. But what I encountered and what I played was stunning.

Given time, I'd imagine it to be a superior version of PS Now, Xbox Game Pass, and OnLive.
 

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
2,201
This is pretty much the antithesis of what I want from games. From the lack of ownership to the focus on services which I would never ever use, it’s cleary not for me. The tech is fascinating but this needs to remain an option and not the ‘future’.
Counting the seconds until the first few awesome/imposible to do on console games come out for a cloud service. Come back after that to say "I will never play them", too easy now.
 

Papacheeks

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,542
Watertown, NY
Why would you say that knowing full well they are releasing hardware? It makes no sense. Unless you don't know they are releaseing new hardware.
I said it in a teasing way, because there are a lot of people on here Microsoft included that are going hard next gen on streaming. They will have a box for sure that is a regular console, but rumors of a discless one have almost all but been confirmed. And them having a plan that will probably include GAMEPASS/XBOX LIVE AND xcloud streaming for titles is something that I don't think should be a focus.

MAINLY xcloud. It's great when it works depending on where you are, but the way they want it to be used via a phone/tablet is reaching in having it be a seemless experience.
 

UltraMagnus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,012
Every 3rd party dev will be on board with this soon enough IMO.

In all honesty the user base/size of the streaming audience will dwarf those who own a PS5/XB2 for quite a long time if not indefinitely even if not everyone has great internet.

You're a third party pub and you're looking at what in 2022 ... a PS5 that has maybe 20 million owners ... versus putting your game on Google Stadia and MS' streaming service gives you access to easily triple or quadruple that number of gamers instantly.

This is a big win for publishers.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,386
Mhmm. If that were the case, we all would have switched over to mobile only gaming already.
I think gaming has opportunity for a mix of both.

For instance, I access this website on my desktop work PC, my home tablet, and my phone. I access it from three devices, but I don't do the same stuff on all three. When I'm on my desktop PC, I'm usually posting long, rambling replies (like this one), interacting with every thread. When I'm on my phone, I'm usually just consuming threads, maybe checking on subs, or writing short replies to specific threads, but usually in a consuming mode. When I'm on my tablet, it's a bit of both.

Same with how I consume video. With YouTube, I might watch a full length movie like experience on my TV in my living room, but watch stupid short videos on my phone. On my tablet, I might do a bit of both.

Also with something like Fantasy Football... I do my hardcore number crunching on my PC, usually with multiple tabs open going over all sorts of different stats and scenarios. On my phone, though, I'm usually just checking scores or making a quick adjustment here and there.

With traditional gaming, we tend to think of it as just a couch or just a mobile experience, but I could see that shifting in the future if the technology supports it. Take a game like Madden or FIFA (probably not great examples here because they're so despised, but bare with me). In Madden, I could see myself playing my weekly game against the AI or a friend in franchise mode on my TV, with my controller, normal TV gaming experience. The game ends, and I have to go to work or go to bed, but I'm able to jump over to my phone to wrap up the game... Maybe it's a meaningless final drive where I'm killing the clock, or maybe it's doing my post-game team management... Applying XP I earned in that game, or some other less intensive activity. At work, I might login to the game quickly to approve a trade, sign a free agent. And then, when I get home and sit in front of my TV, I'm ready to just play the game, instead of doing those other tasks when I sit down.

Madden, of course, is just a dumb example of it, but as the technology becomes more available you could see this in all sorts of games. In the past, you could only do this with something like a companion app if the developer supported it... It was usually janky and didn't work as well as the actual game, and it was always a disconnect... a discrete experience from the main game. If the technology worked and if it became ubiquitous, you could see games following other entertainment/media experiences with appealing to second screens.

I also think that as the technology advances, the UI will adapt. Right now, all we're doing is shrinking the giant 60"-designed UI down into a 5" form factor, which makes it really hard to use. This is how the web worked 10 years ago where websites would be designed for a 17-22" monitor, and then when smart phones started to come out, they'd just show that layout for big monitors shrunk down, and it was hard to do normal tasks like interact with forms, click links, or do simple actions becaus they were designed for that large screen with precise, mouse-driven inputs. But, today, the internet is "Mobile First," where most modern websites are designed first for the smallest device and then progressively enhanced up to add features and convenience for the largest device.
 

Dunlop

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,369
The positive is for Xbox owners as Microsoft will no longer the most despised company in the gaming forums : p
 

vrcsix

Member
Oct 29, 2017
391
which we have no evidence stadia can provide
Which is not the point I was trying to make. My point was that "but media ownership" is not a mark against the success potential of Stadia outside of a subset of enthusiasts which never were the primary audience for this platform in the first place.

And while the jury is out on performance characteristics, I would put a lot of confidence in Google's ability to deliver on that front based on their existing investments in global infrastructure.
 

TheBryanJZX90

Member
Nov 29, 2017
1,360
That's assuming the experience is at least identical to running a game natively on hardware. I doubt it will or can be for a great many games.
Well to me the actual concern isn't "lol this streaming console can't handle my frame perfect DMC games" but "oh shit no one is making hardcore action games any more because they only make games where input lag doesn't matter"
 

Hero of Time

Member
Oct 25, 2017
446
Gaming for everyone, anywhere! (but only if you live in a select few countries and have amazing internet)

The reality of Stadia exclusive first party games, that a lot of people won't ever be able to play just because of where they live is already a bummer, but if they start paying other developers for Stadia exclusives, it's going to be a nightmare.
 
Last edited:

dark494

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
2,001
Seattle
Looks like Duder Comment's thread was right on the money, lol.

I need to hear more about pricing and revenue models (I'd definitely prefer a Netflix-style subscription). But I'd love to hear more about this in June.

For people insisting this "won't work well":
If you have <15mbps down: You're right.
If you have >20mbps down: Give it a try when it launches. You might be pleasantly surprised, as I was with the beta :)
I can't stress this enough that people are vastly overestimating and exagerating what's required for this, but that's era. Actual technical understanding of cloud computing and what's being offered is sorely lacking.
 

Irminsul

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,352
No one cares about back catalogues, they want to play new games. All the Switch ports in the world didn't sell that console.

I don't even see how this will appeal to existing console owners unless the prices are amazing.
But they have neither at the moment. Okay, they have Doom Eternal, the only new game (shown for five seconds).

I mean, I get that it's GDC and the presentation is to get devs on board, but can you imagine MS, Sony or Nintendo saying on stage "Yeah, we're doing a new thing launching this year, and we already have two games (one of them a year old) on it!"? That would be disastrous, and rightly so.
 

Umbrella Carp

Banned
Jan 16, 2019
3,265
Streaming only = dead on arrival. Internet infrastructure worldwide is not where it needs to be for this to be feasible. Nowhere near in fact.
 

ZeoVGM

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,226
Providence / Boston
Yeah, I am still calling it right now.

Google won't cancel this after 2 years like so many other of their projects, they are HEAVILY invested, and will be a presence throughout the next gen.
Well, that's quite the prediction. But until we actually see what this is, what the games look like, how it actually works, etc., I can't remotely think that way.

Next gen starts with Sony and Microsoft until we see otherwise.
 

Machachan

Member
Mar 21, 2018
2,254
*Plays 5 minutes of God of War after seeing trailer*
"God this is shit"

I can't wait for super hot takes.
I'd say Zoe Quinns opinion on the matter (seeing as youtube still pushes gamergate videos attacking her over her own stuff WHILE SEARCHING FOR HER STUFF) is quite a cold take, since it's been five years of time that google could have fixed that in.
 

L.O.R.D

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,683
that scene when he was moving from device to device, i've seen this scene before, but where? i am sure i've seen it this year or last year.

anyone remember?
moving from TV to a PC then mobile then a tablet then to a laptop.
ok, i remember the game was used to test that idea was rocket league, but still don't remember the service.

any help here?
 

BocoDragon

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,207
The reason why Microsoft named their consoles "Xbox" was because the original one was based on their Direct X abstraction layer for for PC Game software easier to communicate with the hardware. i.e a box based on technology on Direct X, hence Xbox. Nothing tryhard about it.
I did know that actually, but everything about the “green goo” branding of the original machine makes me think they were happy to push forward with that name for the same reason that things were named X-Games, Xtreme or XFL in the 90s. eXtreeeeeeeeme.
 

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
2,201
This will be massive, Google has turned YouTube and every other service they provide into a game store. Just imagine the Buy or play now button under every YouTube video to get the game you're watching. That must be something that causes Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to reevaluate their plans.
 

Branson

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,860
Well to me the actual concern isn't "lol this streaming console can't handle my frame perfect DMC games" but "oh shit no one is making hardcore action games any more because they only make games where input lag doesn't matter"
I would assume there will be someone there to pick up the slack. In the indie space or whatever.
 

Darknight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,339
Streaming only = dead on arrival. Internet infrastructure worldwide is not where it needs to be for this to be feasible. Nowhere near in fact.
What people seem to fail to realize is that this scales. Get the infrastructure in place and then grow it as needed. If Google truly is invested, getting this infrastructure and foundation in place for the long term is important.
 

Hailinel

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,375
A lot of these comments are too constrained on "now" and the limitations of "now." By releasing and going public with a service like this, Google is essentially hoping for a future that is centered around higher standardized internet speeds and is relying heavily on moving towards a streaming-based service. Yes there are trade-offs like modding, but there's a niche market for that which Google is clearly not targeting. Not everyone uses mods.
Now is now. Not some magical future where everyone has incredible internet speeds without data caps is not now, nor in the near future.
 

Akasaki

Member
Oct 27, 2017
576
At least from what I've played of Nvidia's solution, you can still tweak you in-game settings like normal (since you're playing a steam game).
I wasn't talking about in-game settings. I was talking about editing .ini or other files to tune/fix/change stuff that cannot be changed in-game otherwise.
I assume that games made for this would remove graphical options since it'd be running off of Google's servers so they'd be always at the highest graphical settings.
 

Jroc

Member
Jun 9, 2018
1,247
Yes just like the music and movie future of today where you can't buy movies and music and can only stream through netflix and hulu
Interactive mediums are inherently different.

When you stream a movie or a video, the playback is still happening on your local device. The only difference is that the data file itself is sent to you from someplace else over the internet. When you stream a videogame your local machine isn't doing any of the rendering or running any of the game logic. You can record a Netflix movie and keep it forever, but you cannot "record" a local copy of a streaming-only game. Assuming that this streaming thing takes off and is widely adopted, why would companies ever want to offer a localized, piratable version of their product that requires them to do a lot more work?

I think it's guaranteed to happen eventually.
 

IIFloodyII

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,847
I trust the ID guy saying it only a took a few weeks to port it over, so that's not bad.
I don't think the time to port would be the problem, it'd be the money involved or potential loss of money. Why we don't get anything close to day 1 PSNow games and it's pretty much just MS who do it for Gamepass.
Why the complete lack of pricing is a worry, sub based and there's about a 0% chance it'll be getting consistent day 1 releases, if it's just pay full price to stream, there's a pretty good chance it's DoA and if it's free to play, well I'm sure we'd hear the execs laughing when they get told.
 

Brock Reiher

Member
Oct 25, 2017
36,062
This will be massive, Google has turned YouTube and every other service they provide into a game store. Just imagine the Buy or play now button under every YouTube video to get the game you're watching. That must be something that causes Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to reevaluate their plans.
is it a game store? we don't know. they didn't talk about that.

but I guess that's just consumer stuff, why would developers care
 

dark494

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
2,001
Seattle
Encoding is much different since it needs to be done (nearly) real time by the server...
Yes. And we have cloud computing for that, not your desktop under the desk. And not just any hardware either, vastly improved architecture specifically designed for this specific problem and optimized for scale and performance out the ass. This is a non-issue
 

staedtler

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,605
For a lot of people this could be quite convenient and good to play games on. To me those people are more the casual players and that seems to be Google's audience. For others it will just be another way to play games.

I will never give up my PC but I'll definitely use it from time to time.
There was a dude playing it in a bathtub full of cheesy poofs. This ain't for casuals
 

Arion

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,435
Can't really judge until I try it on my home internet. Also need to see the actual exclusives they have.
 

Fantastical

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,695
Seems pretty dumb to use on-stage demos to dismiss the technology. Google Stream worked pretty well by most accounts. I'll wait to hear about people playing this in their own homes... all tests coming out of the conference aren't super useful either way.