nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Google Stadia

Mr E

Officially announced today...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_dggN2rN3A

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

I don't know. Just smacks of 1980s style arcade model again. The companies will bleed users dry on this.

Machine rental fees, game subscription fees, same transactions as already built in.
If it were a set fee for machine access and digital ownership of games maybe but it will become a money pit I fear

Benzino

I look forward to seeing how this goes. Google are probably the best company to do this currently, they have the infrastructure to do it. Plus the more competition, the better.

I'm not sure I understand why people are so against Google, or their involvement in gaming unless of course you avoid the big 4 (Google, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon) in general, then fair enough, this ain't for you.

piplip87

Will the likes of EA and Rockstar really want to bring the likes of FIFA and GTA on board to this ?

A flat fee of 20 per month to access the streaming platform Vs thier 70 quid per game per year model they currently have. I think it's the biggest downfall of PS Now bigger studios will never get behind it and instead give us games from 4 or 5 years ago.

So will you have to pay goole your 20 per month but still have a console to play the bigger games from the bigger studios ?

wassie

Interesting piece by Dave Lee on the BBC that gives some food for thought on the potential impact on the industry:

Google leads gaming down a perilous path

I like the last line:

The ad-laden, endorphin-pumping, lootbox-peddling mobile gaming industry might be considered the canary in a very miserable coal-mine, here. Paying for a games console, and its games, may not be such a bad thing after all.

marcbrophy

piplip87 wrote: »

Will the likes of EA and Rockstar really want to bring the likes of FIFA and GTA on board to this ?

A flat fee of 20 per month to access the streaming platform Vs thier 70 quid per game per year model they currently have. I think it's the biggest downfall of PS Now bigger studios will never get behind it and instead give us games from 4 or 5 years ago.

So will you have to pay goole your 20 per month but still have a console to play the bigger games from the bigger studios ?

Who told you it was going to be a 20 quid per month streaming service?

Maybe it'll be a per month streaming service.
Maybe it'll cost a price per title for "ownership" access.
Maybe it'll be tiered pricing streaming service where AAA content will be X per month, when other content is Y per month.
Maybe it'll be all of the above.

These details are not known yet

Varik

Thinking there, might be able to purchase though google play store or a aspect of it and hence use carrier billing.

Kiith

EA already have a service model implemented (all EA games for €12.99 a month), and it's only a matter of time before others go down that route.

Whether or not they want to share that with another provider is another question.

Lone Stone

i use to be against digital purchases of game's now i never buy boxed copies, if it becomes convenient and cheap enough i'd consider it. Could be interesting depends on the cost to play and broad band limits are the only thing i see making most people not even bother trying it.

awec

25mb/s required for 1080p, which pretty much rules out most of rural Ireland.

AlmightyCushion

heebusjeebus wrote: »

This google product will be dead in a few years.
I don't even know who they are aiming it at as the focus from the videos I saw yesterday seem to be around how easy it was to stream it to youtube.
"Serious" youtube or twitch streamers will have no reason to use this due to the unavoidable increase in lag and would just use their main PC rig or console.

The target market is tiny:

That target market isn't tiny, it's pretty huge. It's the bluray vs streaming arguement all over again. Most people don't really care too much about visual quality. Sure really good graphics are nice and so is really low ping, but most people really don't give a shít. They value convenience and cost more. Also, I don't think lag will be too big of a deal here. The trial of project stream went pretty well and I seen plenty of good reports about it. Google have data centres all over the place and a great peering. Sure, it won't be as good as having it on your local machine but for most people it'll be grand.

If it's priced right and has a decent catalogue of games I think it can suceed.

Venom

The guys a bit of a dose but his scoops tend to be on the money.

Seem's a Google insider has been taking out of shop to him, so we now know that the plan for Stadia is

The service is free so the player is the product as with all Google services.
There will be a separate shop from the Play store to buy games.
It's looking like it will only run from the Chrome browser.

[Deleted User]

I do agree with the point that more competition is better for the consumer (usually).

if the pricing is true about only paying for game purchase then that would be impressive.

dreamers75

This is highly unlikely to work with Multiplayer games that require some sort of fast paced skill.

I guess turn based RTS type games would work but PUBG/Fortnite/Apex most likely wont be playable.

awec

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

That target market isn't tiny, it's pretty huge. It's the bluray vs streaming arguement all over again. Most people don't really care too much about visual quality. Sure really good graphics are nice and so is really low ping, but most people really don't give a shít. They value convenience and cost more. Also, I don't think lag will be too big of a deal here. The trial of project stream went pretty well and I seen plenty of good reports about it. Google have data centres all over the place and a great peering. Sure, it won't be as good as having it on your local machine but for most people it'll be grand.

If it's priced right and has a decent catalogue of games I think it can suceed.

Lag will be an enormous deal for any FPS game. Even small amounts of lag drastically reduce the experience in these games.

The steaming / bluray thing is a bad comparison because there is no concern about lag there. The visual quality thing is just about pure bandwidth, the same as streaming TV / movies, if you've enough bandiwidth you'll be able to stream higher quality. The lag thing is a totally different kettle of fish, and is not just solved with bandwidth.

AlmightyCushion

awec wrote: »

Lag will be an enormous deal for any FPS game. Even small amounts of lag drastically reduce the experience in these games.

The steaming / bluray thing is a bad comparison because there is no concern about lag there. The visual quality thing is just about pure bandwidth, the same as streaming TV / movies, if you've enough bandiwidth you'll be able to stream higher quality. The lag thing is a totally different kettle of fish, and is not just solved with bandwidth.

Once again. Whilst it won't be as good as your local machine for most people it will be good enough. The comparison with Bluray/streaming was because when streaming was still relatively new people were saying it would never work because Bluray is soooooo much better, quality wise. They couldn't see that the vast majority of people don't have their same standards for quality. They don't care that Bluray is better because the stream is good enough. Same as this. A lot of people won't care that there is more latency with streaming games because it will be good enough. People have already been saying this about the project stream beta.

If anyone can minimise the latency for this it will be one of the big internet giants like Google, Amazon or Microsoft. They have data centres every where so people will be relatively close to one which will minimise latency. I think they can get it to a level where most people will think it's good enough. Price and library will be what really determines if it will succeed.

Venom

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Once again. Whilst it won't be as good as your local machine for most people it will be good enough. The comparison with Bluray/streaming was because when streaming was still relatively new people were saying it would never work because Bluray is soooooo much better, quality wise. They couldn't see that the vast majority of people don't have their same standards for quality. They don't care that Bluray is better because the stream is good enough. Same as this. A lot of people won't care that there is more latency with streaming games because it will be good enough. People have already been saying this about the project stream beta.

If anyone can minimise the latency for this it will be one of the big internet giants like Google, Amazon or Microsoft. They have data centres every where so people will be relatively close to one which will minimise latency. I think they can get it to a level where most people will think it's good enough. Price and library will be what really determines if it will succeed.

The price of Bluray vs streaming was also a huge factor as the likes of Netflix started off pretty cheap when compared to the high price of a Bluray disc.

It's also not just a case of Google having data centres everywhere but more of how good someone's net connection to those data centres is, which for vast amounts of people just won't be good enough.

awec

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Once again. Whilst it won't be as good as your local machine for most people it will be good enough. The comparison with Bluray/streaming was because when streaming was still relatively new people were saying it would never work because Bluray is soooooo much better, quality wise. They couldn't see that the vast majority of people don't have their same standards for quality. They don't care that Bluray is better because the stream is good enough. Same as this. A lot of people won't care that there is more latency with streaming games because it will be good enough. People have already been saying this about the project stream beta.

If anyone can minimise the latency for this it will be one of the big internet giants like Google, Amazon or Microsoft. They have data centres every where so people will be relatively close to one which will minimise latency. I think they can get it to a level where most people will think it's good enough. Price and library will be what really determines if it will succeed.

But that's the point, it's not the same, it's entirely different. The limitations for high quality streaming are purely your connection speed. Faster connection = higher quality. The tolerances when it comes to connection speed are much higher, like you can just leave something to buffer for a few minutes before watching it if your connection is a little bit slow.

When it comes to lag, it has nothing to do with your connection speed. You could live right on top of the google data centre, on a fiber connection, and still suffer from lag.

The annoyances and frustration of latency (i.e. lag) are infinitely worse than having to watch something at a lower quality than you're used to. For example, I am betting every single person would prefer to watch a TV show that is only 720p, rather than a 1080p show where the audio is noticeably lagging behind the video. In the same vein, accepting games at a lower quality is one thing, accepting games where there is a noticeable lag in the controls is another thing entirely, even for the most casual of casual gamers.

AlmightyCushion

awec wrote: »

But that's the point, it's not the same, it's entirely different. The limitations for high quality streaming are purely your connection speed. Faster connection = higher quality. The tolerances when it comes to connection speed are much higher, like you can just leave something to buffer for a few minutes before watching it if your connection is a little bit slow.

When it comes to lag, it has nothing to do with your connection speed. You could live right on top of the google data centre, on a fiber connection, and still suffer from lag.

The annoyances and frustration of latency (i.e. lag) are infinitely worse than having to watch something at a lower quality than you're used to. For example, I am betting every single person would prefer to watch a TV show that is only 720p, rather than a 1080p show where the audio is noticeably lagging behind the video. In the same vein, accepting games at a lower quality is one thing, accepting games where there is a noticeable lag in the controls is another thing entirely, even for the most casual of casual gamers.

I know how latency works and I know higher bandwidth doesn't reduce latency, my comparison with Blu-ray Vs streaming is to do with the good enough factor. Lag will be worse with game streaming but that won't matter is it's good enough for most people. I think it will be good enough for most people.

Cordell

For most people lag will not be worse than the video input lag of their tv. They are already accustomed to 30 fps laggy gaming, so this will be actually an improvement.
For the PCMR, this may be the end, the final nail in the coffin.

awec

Cordell wrote: »

For most people lag will not be worse than the video input lag of their tv. They are already accustomed to 30 fps laggy gaming, so this will be actually an improvement.
For the PCMR, this may be the end, the final nail in the coffin.

That lag will still be there.

This will be additional lag on top of that.

[Deleted User]

Cordell wrote: »

For most people lag will not be worse than the video input lag of their tv. They are already accustomed to 30 fps laggy gaming, so this will be actually an improvement.
For the PCMR, this may be the end, the final nail in the coffin.

TV Game mode, stopping screen processing, does a lot for that TV lag.
Even Fifa players will get frustrated with too much lag, and I just mean guys who play against their friends and not competition style.

[Deleted User]

Final nail in the coffin? PC gaming is stronger than ever. Personally, game streaming services do not appeal to me and i hope this will be a flop.

Cordell

Just to make sure, I'm making a point against Stadia

PC gaming is not stronger than ever, it used to be the primary platform, now it's the 3rd. Let's hope that this does not push it further down.

[Deleted User]

But 'final nail in coffin'? Gwan outta that.

Anyway, i can't see this taking off at all.

Cordell

Alright please excuse my slip you fellow PCMR gamers

I'm just worried that if streaming games will take off they will further displace resources and push PC gaming further out. We are already getting AAA games poorly ported for PC, I don't want more of that.

Circuital

All I can imagine is ads between cut scenes and at the end of levels.

Maybe even a Burger King sticker on a colonial marines arm.

[Deleted User]

What's going to hold this back is the latency issues as was mentioned before unless you have amazing b/band speeds which let's face it, the average joe soap is not going to have.

marcbrophy

I think there's a lot to be said for people who find out that all they need to play the latest AAA titles is their crummy laptop/chromebook and their brother's spare xbox controller!

There'll be a market for it!

I have a custom built gaming PC and I'm even interested to find out how it works and if ease of use and real world configs will allow for low lag streaming.

Time will tell, it could be a missive pile, but I'm not willing to write off Google just yet

Clareman

I'm a former PC gamer who has had to put his Alienware desktop in the attic because of kids, I'll be getting this when it comes out, I'll put it with the Shield and never use it as well.

TitianGerm

Clareman wrote: »

I'm a former PC gamer who has had to put his Alienware desktop in the attic because of kids, I'll be getting this when it comes out, I'll put it with the Shield and never use it as well.

Probably should have put the kids in the attic :pac: