Google Stadia

I'm adverse to google controlling even more of peoples data and reducing PC ownership even more but at the same time Stadia might act like a gateway to increasing PC ownership. Get a taste of it through streaming then decide to buy to reduce latency and increase picture quality.

And of course do all the other great things you can do outside of gaming.

If games have to be bought then it's a great thing for developers as it will bring millions more to the PC market.

Maybe if it's good enough for most casuals which it probably will be.

Fine for single player games but you are going to be at a serious disadvantage in competitive multi player games on stadia which might encourage some to buy PC's.

The high horse brigade wrote: »

This is no different to what Nvidia are already doing with Geforce Now. I don't see it making any difference to the console or pc gaming markets. It's just a nice add-on and another platform

No, it is different. It's Alphabet. Tidal Vs Google Music.

CatInABox wrote: »

It's not a surprise that the first game they showed off was a single player game.

One way of dealing with the latency gap between PC and Stadia players would be to restrict Stadia players to only other Stadia players. Everyone has the same problem then.

Well, it depends on how they choose to handle communication between multiple players. I'm simply talking Stadia to Stadia playing here.

If you had multiple players in Western Europe - say you and a few friends, then their virtual machine instances would, more than likely, be hosted in the same physical server farm. This would reduce inter-player latency to virtually zero (no pun intended).

Even if you were playing with people around the world, each player would probably be connected to their nearest server farm. Each of these farms would already be interconnected by multiple, extremely high-bandwidth and low latency leased-line connections (MPLS connections or something similar).

So, I don't believe INTER-PLAYER lag is going to be an issue. I think, if there is going to be a latency issue, it is going to be between the server farms themselves and the end point players.

It may not matter to casual gamers (Such as myself) to a great degree. Unless it was really noticeable. Anything more than 1/3 of a second lag is going to be noticeable even to casual gamers.

But I can't see more hardcore gamers or people who prefer twitch-reaction type games like COD going for this. I just don't think it will be up for it.

I mean, I could be wrong. Time will certainly tell. Again, we here in Ireland/Western Europe will probably get the best of it. Along with urban North America and South Korea (I didn't notice. Was Korea mentioned as a launch country). Basically anywhere with a large Google/Alphabet server presence.

Or..... "I'm curious and willing to give something a go and not knock console-specific fanboys and don't want to spend thousands on a dedicated GPU that will be obsolete in 18 months....... Just sayin'."

I'm curious about Stadia.

To be honest, the Destiny 2 details have me interested, from the cross save perspective. I figure that will be a good place for me to dip my toe.

I do have concerns on (1) Bandwidth, (2) Latency - but i'm considering the founder thing. Just to see what it is like, to be honest.

Frankly, my main concerns are around the long term support for games, general quality and market trends; Also, I've got a feeling the whole thing will get expensive - games are a complex thing to run that require complex setups ond operations; Much more than a Netflix or a Spotify.

Long term support - once a game doesn't have the playerbase (and revenue) to justify keeping it going, it will be shut down and there'll be no way to play it; It's not even remotely the same as "movies and music" as some say, these can be played locally by the same device(s) used to stream them. Games on the other hand come with pretty specific resources requirements, which the streaming device won't match - actually, it's the whole point of the "cloud gaming" thing.

For the general quality, I am afraid it'll be a race towards the lowest common denominator; It is a very safe bet to say the vast majority of people will want to play these games on a phone or a tablet and there are already cries online about the fact a controller is, at the moment, required - take this from Digital Trends:

The entire point of a mobile game is the pick-up-and-play accessibility. It’s low effort, quick, easy. If you need a controller, then you might as well buy a portable console.

(https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/google-stadia-not-a-platform-for-everyone/)

It doesn't take a lot of foresight to anticipate the requirement for a controller to be dropped quickly in order to attract more customers. The games will need to be adapted and developed to suit a touchscreen interface, which means it's going to be a race to the bottom in terms of features, complexity and depth.

Which brings to the third point - it could be either a curse or a blessing, depending on how the public reacts to it. Hopefully it's going to be seen more as an "addition", a different way to get gaming for those people who wouldn't otherwise do so, by all means - it'd be a similar situation as when the Wii came out, with most non-gamers being attracted by the gimmick of motion control, which otherwise failed to attract established players in masses.

Otherwise, we could be in for a big regression in general quality, once companies figure out they can stand losing the more "core" audience if they gain access to a much wider "casual" one...

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Frankly, my main concerns are around the long term support for games, general quality and market trends; Also, I've got a feeling the whole thing will get expensive - games are a complex thing to run that require complex setups ond operations; Much more than a Netflix or a Spotify.

Long term support - once a game doesn't have the playerbase (and revenue) to justify keeping it going, it will be shut down and there'll be no way to play it; It's not even remotely the same as "movies and music" as some say, these can be played locally by the same device(s) used to stream them. Games on the other hand come with pretty specific resources requirements, which the streaming device won't match - actually, it's the whole point of the "cloud gaming" thing.

For the general quality, I am afraid it'll be a race towards the lowest common denominator; It is a very safe bet to say the vast majority of people will want to play these games on a phone or a tablet and there are already cries online about the fact a controller is, at the moment, required - take this from Digital Trends:


(https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/google-stadia-not-a-platform-for-everyone/)

It doesn't take a lot of foresight to anticipate the requirement for a controller to be dropped quickly in order to attract more customers. The games will need to be adapted and developed to suit a touchscreen interface, which means it's going to be a race to the bottom in terms of features, complexity and depth.

Which brings to the third point - it could be either a curse or a blessing, depending on how the public reacts to it. Hopefully it's going to be seen more as an "addition", a different way to get gaming for those people who wouldn't otherwise do so, by all means - it'd be a similar situation as when the Wii came out, with most non-gamers being attracted by the gimmick of motion control, which otherwise failed to attract established players in masses.

Otherwise, we could be in for a big regression in general quality, once companies figure out they can stand losing the more "core" audience if they gain access to a much wider "casual" one...

This mobile gaming thing is only a trend because of China. I'm not talking about your missus playing candy crush on her phone either. I'm talking about the likes of pubg on mobile. I'm amazed it's even possible or that people can control it well but there's no doubt it is a far inferior experience that will not take off in the west.

For every ****ty company that turns their back on their core audience to cater to mobile casuals (like Blizzard) there will be more to rise up and take their place. Consoles and PC gaming with proper controls are going nowhere as long as there are people with money that don't mind paying more for a better experience.

At least I hope so.

The only way I'd invest in this is for every game you buy you're entitled to an offline backup copy if you so choose to download it. So you buy a game to keep forever but the ability to stream it remotely is part of the subscription model if you wish to invest into that. My main gripe is that you cannot access game files which is such a shame because we know that linux is the backend and as full linux gamer myself I would love to see the advances being made here come to the actual consumers and not locked somewhere deep in google's data centers only to ever be accessed remotely.

dreamers75 wrote: »

For you thats literally impossible but for others like normal people

What exactly is impossible? Didn't get which part you were referring to.

I would buy games, assuming we could buy them on Play store, be a great way to use up some of that 3 credit.