If you can get 10Mb/s, you can at least stream at 720p (Switch's resolution). That's not hard to find in 4G, and 5G is coming very soon. It makes no sense to bet against the advancement of the internet.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Stadia Reddit AMA: ''Stadia Pro isn't “Netflix for Games” ...a closer comparison would be like Xbox Live Gold or Playstation Plus''
- Thread starter SuikerBrood
- Start date
If you can get 10Mb/s, you can at least stream at 720p (Switch's resolution). That's not hard to find in 4G, and 5G is coming very soon. It makes no sense to bet against the advancement of the internet.
I'm not going to bother with cell phone connections too unreliable, just sticking with good WiFi myself
What I'm into here is that because the free version doesn't cost me money like a console would, I can pick and choose games that I want to get on this service (and play "anywhere") without feeling like I'm only playing one or two games on my $400 console.
For example, I'll likely be giving this a shot by getting Football Manager on here rather than on Steam. I don't have a Pixel phone, but the idea of just hopping onto chrome wherever I am, even on my dinky macbook air where the fan is usually going insane, really appeals to me.
As sexy as that controller is, I won't be committing to Pro until I get a sense of experiences on hitting data caps and lag on games like Destiny. But I can grab one or two games and not feel guilty about "making good use of my Stadia".
For example, I'll likely be giving this a shot by getting Football Manager on here rather than on Steam. I don't have a Pixel phone, but the idea of just hopping onto chrome wherever I am, even on my dinky macbook air where the fan is usually going insane, really appeals to me.
As sexy as that controller is, I won't be committing to Pro until I get a sense of experiences on hitting data caps and lag on games like Destiny. But I can grab one or two games and not feel guilty about "making good use of my Stadia".
Yeah but why wouldn't you pack up your Xbox One X and Kinect, IR blaster, elite controller, play and charge kit (or eneloops and charger I guess) along with 15-25 games on bluray disc, maybe some xbox 360 DVDs and perhaps even some UHD HDR movies - carry it all with you when you travel to a hotel then set it up in your room like a normal person? The image quality might be superior and you'd own the games in case Google goes bankrupt!
Good point I should take my tv with me too and my surround sound lol
Last edited:
Authenticating them every two weeks is TOTALLY different than needing a persistent, 20mbit stream to play. Additionally, Valve has stated that if the service were to ever close, your keys would be downloadable so no one would lose the ability to play the games they purchased.
I just don't have this fear of losing access to my games. This is true for everything, digital books, music, movies etc that I use.
I can see how people who have a lot of fears of losing their digital access would balk at something like Stadia, but I sincerely don't think
1. It's going to be a relevant part of the stadia experience and discussion for a while (more relevant is performance, functionality, library etc)
2. That most consumers care - made clear by the ever increasing popularity of SaaS platforms for consumer content.
I can see how people who have a lot of fears of losing their digital access would balk at something like Stadia, but I sincerely don't think
1. It's going to be a relevant part of the stadia experience and discussion for a while (more relevant is performance, functionality, library etc)
2. That most consumers care - made clear by the ever increasing popularity of SaaS platforms for consumer content.
Two things:
- That fuzzy statement about Valve unlocking games in the event Steam shuts down was made in like 2003 before they had massive 3rd party support and before Steam started providing their own DRM implementation (to say nothing of 3rd party DRM which is also in play). It's still an incredible amount of trust placed in Valve in this which is the central point of the "Games Ownership" issue.
- Yes, I'm not denying that streaming is fundamentally different from downloads in that you can generally play downloaded games offline, while streaming is by design online-only. That's a choice people will have to decide for themselves. I only mean to address the question of Stadia shutting down and whether a cloud streaming license is equivalent to a digital download license in the event of a business failure. Similarly we don't complain that we can't access our games if our Playstation breaks, or our PC GPU dies. We still have our games, they haven't been taken from us.
The argument I'm making is that as long as Google honors their licenses on purchased games, meaning you can access them whenever you want for as long as you want in perpetuity, it's the same deal we're getting on every other digital distribution platform. Trust in the longevity of a digital platform is a part of every digital purchase we make, and it's only earned through practice.
Last edited:
That's... an odd statement. Steam was absolutely massive by 2013; honestly with Origin coming out in 2011 it had lost major third party support by then. And has lost more since.
Don't have an issue with the rest of your comment but if anything it's a bit backwards; every PC game on the planet was on Steam in 2013 (slight exaggeration) which is actually less true today with competing stores and pubs having their own stores.
:)
Didn't know this, that's actually cool. Where and how do I install the games with my downloaded Steam keys if Steam is down? All digital stores should talk about this. I doubt I would ever get access to the games I bought on Xbox, PS or Switch if they close down their business.
Not sure why you bring your ideology and acting like it applies to everyone. It's the same argument I had with others when talking about the Eipic store or buying games through Windows App. There is obviously an upside to every scenario but you are focusing solely on the downside. Convenience for one goes a long ways. Which reminds me of another scenario I had with some who are agianst Windows 10 or using Google, thinking the cost of convenience far outweighs the privacy issues. So to reiterate not everyone shares the same ideologies as you.
Stadia is a new service, it is not replacing others. It is a viable option to those who like the idea of instant gaming much like how Spotify is instant to hearing music. You download the app and you are ready to go. I think the biggest culrpit to all the pessimism over this new service are those who are still headstrong about ownership. That's fair, many still like collecting games or trading/lending/selling them but many of us now consume media differently than we used to. That's just the way things are and it appears those who are against conveinece over ownership are having the most difficult time.
Convenience isn't the only thing this offers though but also a lot of value
A lot of power and being able to play your game purchases on many different devices for low cost
Last edited:
Of course, it's the lowest entry point to get started because you can use existing hardware. Being able to quickly move from one device to another while continuing on from where you left off is also a nice feature. What many are not talking about either is what it will mean for spectators and streamers too because you can have multiple viewers.
Not only viewers but fully controllable cameras with their rendering instance
To be fair, it's not an ideology, but an informed opinion shaped by working with companies who sought to bring cloud gaming services to market over the past 10 years. I even asked in an earlier post, "If multi point access is worth it for some, then great! Who am I to tell anyone what they should or should not do?" As for focusing on the downside, it is not in a vacuum. Of course there are positives like access to AAA games anywhere, on any device, instant play, etc. IF the infrastructure works, the economics are good enough to sustain the model, is => my current experience, and performs consistently well enough. The harsh realities of infrastructure, cost, and, well, physics, are the real issues. Ownership is a concern, but not insurmountable.
If someone can crack the problem, then great! However, these realtime, highly latency sensitive services will be crashing into the uncontrollable black box of the last mile, which poses significant challenges. For people like me, and many of you, troubleshooting our own networks to solve for performance issues is achievable. For the VAST majority of people, that is not the case and, when they have performance hitches, or the cloud stream impacts other things the family is doing (Netflix, Ring cameras, etc.), what then? How about multigaming households? Can you support more than one person using the service at the same time at home?
Lots of things to figure out and, even if we can solve for enough to make it all mostly work, can the economics support the model? The industry needs to move cautiously. As it stands, my opinion (which you didn't ask for but here it is anyway!) is that none of the services are consistently reliable enough to be an adequate replacement for local execution. WE as an enthusiast community may rationalize and understand the tradeoffs but the average consumer, by and large, will not.
Last edited:
The number of people that want this to fail is much greater than the people that want it, you can tell just from likes to dislike ratios in negative stadia YouTube videos, a lot of them spreading a lot a negative information without mentioning anything positive like not even mentioning the free stadia base even exists for example
And a video like that has 10,000 likes and 200 dislikes
If it fails this will be the reason, I'll try to enjoy it as long as possible though
And a video like that has 10,000 likes and 200 dislikes
If it fails this will be the reason, I'll try to enjoy it as long as possible though
Last edited:
Idk if this was known before but google shows here if a game is removed from their store you will still be able to access it if you bought it
Idk if this was known before but google shows here if a game is removed from their store you will still be able to access it if you bought it
That is common for all digital storefronts. However, this line is the troublesome one: "Outside of unforeseen circumstances, Stadia will aim to keep any previously purchased title available for gameplay."
It's common for digital yes, but I didn't know if was common for streaming
It would have to be. Typical streaming services are catalog services (like Netflix) where you are paying for the gross catalog, not specific titles. Buying games to then be served to you would require each purchase would have to come with an expiration date if they couldn't guarantee your ability to stream what you bought, even if it was removed from the marketplace.
Of course it's standard for streaming services where you buy things.
I've never bought anything from a streaming only store except for GeForce now, but that uses steam so it's not actually nvidia's store
What streaming services let you buy individual items besides stadia
Media streaming services like amazon prime, google play, PSN, Xbox Live, etc.
For movies and music but it's the same licensing concept.
Oh ok I've never bought any movies, I thought movies you bought online were stored to your hard drive didn't know they were streaming
They can be both. You can download the files and stream from their web services.
I think people want the a la carte model to fail, not the idea. If it was a Netflix for games, there would be a much different response.
Netflix for games would be horrible for smaller developers, not even gamepass has new 3rd party games, the only new games that are available day 1 on it are Microsoft games there's a reason for that
Why wasn't bloodstained on gamepass?
You think cyberpunk 2077 will be available day 1 on gamepass?
I agree, but people don't care about that stuff. Bottom line is that Stadia's current model isn't very appealing to most casual consumers.
Well the model they want doesn't exist and can't exist until there's a lot of older games on stadia
Once it has 100-200 3-5 year old 3rd party game's and more first party games then the Netflix style service can start
So you pay them 10 bucks a month for the right to pay them full price for cloud versions of games. Genius.
No you pay 10$ a month for 4K resolution not the right to buy games
That isn't entirely true lots of smaller games have ended up in gamepass that aren't owned by MS, Outer Wilds and After Party for starters, both day one.
Imagine being subscribed to this thing and the first free game is Destiny 2.
I think it's cheaper just getting the expansions alone.
I think it's cheaper just getting the expansions alone.
It's an outdated model for those who don't want to pay for hardware. In other words, not very forward-thinking at all.
I stilll want to know who is a hardcore gamer but buying hardware is too much of a barrier?
As someone that considers himself a hardcore gamer, for me what really has me exited about Stadia and other similar cloud gaming services are the possibilities. Once developers start to experiment with making all of that hardware work together, we should see some very awesome stuff that will be impossible to do locally.
I remember that talk decades ago with Crackdown 3 and Azure
You should try a little bit harder to understand why Crackdown 3 didn't happen as presented the first time and why it's a lot easier to do the same on a cloud environment. When you are ready to ask please do so or you can also investigate if you don't want to ask.
There is enough information out there to reasonably assume that one of the reasons we didn't get Crackdown 3 as shown the first time, is based on how difficult it is to sync several players with different types of internet connections out there. This was not a normal multiplayer game, there was a lot of data that needed to be sent from the server to multiple clients. If they would have left the same type of destruction they showed the first time, it would have been a multiplayer game with a required minimum internet speed/latency, that is higher than normal. Something like a hybrid local/cloud game where you need a minimum internet speed in order to work well. On a cloud gaming service like Stadia, all of the hardware is under the same roof with an order of magnitude more bandwidth than what a regular user has at his house. That alone should be enough to prove that it is easier to have a game like Crackdown 3 on a service like Stadia.
Gareth Wilson, design director at Sumo Digital
"What I didn't want to do is put it into the campaign because it would have meant the entire game would have required a constant, high-quality internet connection," Wilson said.
You can also get a lot of information from the Beyond 3D forum. Here you will find several developers and knowledgeable people talking about Crackdown 3 and what happened.
The video below also does a very good job showing how graphics/physics can be improved using the available hardware to work together, instead of running the same repeated simulation twice, as it is done right now with local hardware. Why generate the same waterfall simulation twice when you have two GPUs available than can work together to run a single and more precise simulation that will be shared between the two players on the same level?
We also have quotes from developers explaining what is possible and what is available to them on Stadia.
Larian CEO Swen Vincke
"I think that the more interesting question is how stuff like Google Stadia will change things. It gives developers something different. In the data center, these machines are connected to each other, and so you could start thinking of doing things like elastic rendering, like make a couple of servers together to do physics simulations that may not be possible on current local hardware. I think you'll see a lot of evolution in this direction."
"When you have an almost uncapped amount of computation sitting in a data centre that you can use to support your game design and ambition – whether it's in vastly superior multiplayer, whether it's in distributed physics, or massive simulation – there are things we can do inside a data center that you could never do inside a discreet, standalone device."
Last edited:
First, this isn't true as pointed out before.
Secondly, it's not like Netflix has third party content available from day 1. Unless it's specifically Netflix owned, the movies and tv shows on Netflix are almost always available digitally and physically before coming to Netflix.
And thirdly, strictly speaking a Netflix for games wouldn't be awful for smaller developers considering Netflix doesn't pay per stream, it pays to stream a movie, but after that there are no additional payments. So a strictly "Netflix for games" would pay for the game once and then never again.
