Oh, I'm not doubting streaming has a place in the gaming market, I'm just saying this is not nearly close to the revolution Google is trying to make it look like. I remember when motion controlls, VR and even digital only were rumoured to turn the gaming space upside down, and they ended up just becoming a small part of it. A complementary part, but not the whole of it. Streaming will find its audience due to its advantages, but it certainly won't change the minds of the majority of gamers due to its very obvious flaws. More options is always nice.

The GDC stream where this was announced stuttered multiple times on me. Hardwired gigabit internet connection. All it takes is one serious gamer to lose due to input lag or a sudden stutter and they're going to want an actual console again.

Baseless speculation? Have you played an EA game in the past five years? You are bombarded with ads in a $60 game you paid for. Have you used any of google's services on devices without ad blockers? Try watching three youtube videos from prominent youtube content back to back on an iPad without a youtube red subscription. Count the ads. You could get over a dozen in 3 15 minute monetized videos, possibly more.

I agree with you about the business model. How they allow access to this service is going to be important. I would love to see multiple options that fit all cases, just as the service is built to fit all needs.

I would like to see them offer a free ad based tier, a paid subscription tier, rental options, and full purchase. Let people choose. This gives access to everyone, and that is what it should be all about.

As far as library goes, I actually don't think library is that important. This is not a device you are buying into that you have to justify purchasing. This is a service that will be available on all the devices we already have, we can even use the Gamepads we already own. Even if you have no interest in 3rd party titles on the platform, you will be able to access Stadia exclusives with zero investment.

This is demonstrably untrue. Objectively, the quantity of new music has increased exponentially. Subjectively, the advent of new electronic technologies, increased discoverability and sustainability of niche projects, and the overall evaporation of genres as a direct result of more young artists listening to more different things has made for far more complex, experimental, and eclectic sounds in music on a grand and microcosmic scale then has ever been seen before in literally any other time in human history. Someone would need to be literally listening to music with their head in the sand not to at least see and appreciate that. Maybe with so many more options, it's more difficult to discover music that appeals to more specific tastes, but at the same time, it's so much easier to actually find more music that fits those tastes once you do.

I'm not saying that this has any baring on what will happen with games as a result of streaming becoming mainstream, but also that's exactly what I'm saying. Jk, not at all. But am I, really? No. Yes?

Can companies stop rubbing Ubisoft in my face when talking about what's the best in the market? I want more quality ''games'' and less rushed bulshit with poor game design, solely based on trends and trailers packed with lies.

What MB connection is recommended?

As if internet speed hasn't been increasing worldwide for everyone with every passing year? Imagine someone said that in the 90s? "Yeah, using websites to connect to people around the world near instantly is cool - 'unless you don't have great internet speed.'" Damn. I guess websites aren't a good idea after all.

And I feel like you didn't actually read my third paragraph. What about that is "extremely lazy?" Should people build houses by hand and by themselves, or should they be "extremely lazy" pay a team of professionals using the newest and most inexpensive technologies of the time to get it done more quickly?

One thing I can say that I like about this is I may not have to worry about eventually picking up an expensive gaming rig for $1000 + in addition to dropping 50-60 on each game. I could simply use Stadia for this purpose, along with gaming on tablets as I enjoy the ability to play games on the go, or just kicking back on the couch while watching TV. This is part of the reason I like the Switch.

I don't care too much about the integration with Youtube/social media like Google seems to be hyping but the steamless streaming with multiple devices is a huge selling point to me. Google seems to be recognising that the TV is no longer the central entertainment hub for people - in fact for many it's probably more of a secondary hub if anything. Nintendo seemingly recognized this as well, which is why the biggest hook of the Switch lies in its ability to play seamlessly between the TV and on its own portable screen.

Going forward I could actually see Stadia displacing my XB One as well, and unifying my non-Nintendo gaming in general on one platform - it wouldn't displace Nintendo hardware for me at least because I still just prefer their games as a whole, and no matter how much Stadia can boast to have, it won't have one key element - Nintendo games.

Still, this is all contingent on the price, quality of the internet speed, and the games available (specifically the quality of Stadia's exclusives). If this thing turns out to suck or end up too pircey, buggy, chock full of annoying ads, etc, I'm fine with just staying the course too.

You seriously overestimate how high the bar is for immersion amongst the common consumer, and underestimate how good game streaming currently is. You're also making a false equivalence fallacy with your GDC comparison - the factors by which your live stream being viewed by potentially 10s of thousands of people at the same time stutter are fundamentally different from the kinds that would likely make a single player game you're playing via cloud do the same. If it's multiplayer, these are the same factors that literally already effect multiplayer games now, and is not magically special because it's being streamed.

Youtube is a free service where you can pay to have the ads removed. The ads are completely tied to being free. EA is one company doing something objectionable that is completely unrelated to games streaming. You implied that games streaming + google would somehow = ads on games, as if that's a foregone conclusion or something. It's not even a little bit.

That's is making me think about Playstation. Sony is the bigegst game brand in the world. They cannot abandon physical box becouse is still very very important in the rest of the world.

I think there are 5 steps to Sony succes

1. From now if you subscribe to PSNOW you get all PS exclussives day one. Basicly for 9,99, or a little more, you are  gaining acces to Playstation ecosystem and online play.

2. You can stream all your PS Now games  and all your PS5 library ( bought ) to your phone/pc/PSP.

3. PS5 BOX is an option or more likely The best Way to Play (stable, lag free etc).

4. A new PSP or More PS NOW GO. Streaming PS Portable dedicated to gaming: better controlls, baterry, bigger screen, indie games can run natively from the system (on plain, on hollidays abroad). 199  $Price tag at most