Quantcast
Do you think Google Stadia is doomed to fail?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do you think Google Stadia is doomed to fail?

Is stadia going to fail? (not be competitive, profitable?)

yes - (people wont pay for 4k subscription) 42 77.78%
 
no - (people want to stre... 12 22.22%
 
Total:54
potato_hamster said:
Barkley said:

If you don't want to take part in any discussion where not everything is a 100% fact be my guest, most people don't live like that. Stop starting petty arguments. If you don't disagree the consoles will be roughly $400-$500 then there's nothing to argue about. If you do disagree that will be the price that's all you have to say.


Let's see if you can spot the difference between these three quotes:

"Let's assume that the price of a console will probably be between $400-$500 for discussions sake"

"We know the price of a console will be between $400 and $500"

"We know the price of a console will be between $400 and $500, will have an annual online pass at a cost of $80 a year, will get a mid-generation upgrade that hasn't been announced with a price between $400-$500 to compete with a Google Stadia mid-generation upgrade that hasn't even been announced yet within a defined time period that doesn't comport with the time current time span between consoles, and based off of all of this we can factual comparisons of the costs playing on each platform over a six year span."

If you can't spot the difference then get back to me when you can.


When you take everything I've said and you distill that to "I think its unreasonable to say the consoles will be roughly $400-$500, and I just don't want to say it" I just don't know how to go on from there. It just doesn't add up at all.

With your resistance to the basic ideas that the PS5 and Scarlett will likely cost between $400-500 as well as the paywall for online multiplayer continuing to exist for the PS5 and Scarlett, you've clearly entered the territory where you are willing to throw out any unreasonable argument for the sake of arguing, because not even you yourself believe in the ideas you present. You've done the same thing multiple times in the past.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:


Let's see if you can spot the difference between these three quotes:

"Let's assume that the price of a console will probably be between $400-$500 for discussions sake"

"We know the price of a console will be between $400 and $500"

"We know the price of a console will be between $400 and $500, will have an annual online pass at a cost of $80 a year, will get a mid-generation upgrade that hasn't been announced with a price between $400-$500 to compete with a Google Stadia mid-generation upgrade that hasn't even been announced yet within a defined time period that doesn't comport with the time current time span between consoles, and based off of all of this we can factual comparisons of the costs playing on each platform over a six year span."

If you can't spot the difference then get back to me when you can.


When you take everything I've said and you distill that to "I think its unreasonable to say the consoles will be roughly $400-$500, and I just don't want to say it" I just don't know how to go on from there. It just doesn't add up at all.

With your resistance to the basic ideas that the PS5 and Scarlett will likely cost between $400-500 as well as the paywall for online multiplayer continuing to exist for the PS5 and Scarlett, you've clearly entered the territory where you are willing to throw out any unreasonable argument for the sake of arguing, because not even you yourself believe in the ideas you present. You've done the same thing multiple times in the past.

Again, my resistance has never been with the idea that PS5 or Scarlett will likely cost between $400 and $500. What do you call it when someone claims another person made an argument they never actually made and proceeds to argue against that argument?

What unreasonable argument did I throw out? Where have I done this multiple times in the past?



Agreed.  Almost anything is possible.  I mean Sony could give the ps5 away fror free with 10 games.  But why focus on the possible instead of the probable?

Online isn't going to be free.  34.2 million people paying to play online is generating billions.  The odds Sony walks away from this is sub 1%.  



Barkley said:
potato_hamster said:

So you believe in that one statement he's saying he believes that the only competition to the Google Stadia will be "next gen consoles" and not the expression of a thought that contributes to his overall thought process about some of (and not only) the competitors Google Stadia will have. JRPGfan himself later clarifies exactly what he feels Stadia's competition is, but you continue to discard this because you wish to twist this one sentence to mean more than it actually says.

This is about as clear cut example of "cherry picking" as it gets. But please, go on.

Bruh, where did this "only competition" thing come from. Literally arguing something no one ever said. The original thing started as you saying that rol was the one who first mentioned comparison to ps5/xb2 and as has been proven jrpgfan referred to the ps5/xb2 first. What has it ONLY being the ps5/xb2 got to do with anything. You said Rol was first to bring up ps5, you were shown to be wrong.

It seems I did get a bit sidetracked.

So, to clarify, the argument I should have made.

Rol was the first one that made a price comparison between the two. He seems to think that because JRPG mentioned them as competition to the Stadia my comments on the ridiculousness of the level of detail Rol assumed in the comparison of the two should have been a different argument chiding JRPGfan for mentioning the XBox Scarlet/PS5 would compete against Stadia instead. Because mere mention of next gen consoles is the same as assuming the consoles cost of ownership over six years.



potato_hamster said:
RolStoppable said:

With your resistance to the basic ideas that the PS5 and Scarlett will likely cost between $400-500 as well as the paywall for online multiplayer continuing to exist for the PS5 and Scarlett, you've clearly entered the territory where you are willing to throw out any unreasonable argument for the sake of arguing, because not even you yourself believe in the ideas you present. You've done the same thing multiple times in the past.

Again, my resistance has never been with the idea that PS5 or Scarlett will likely cost between $400 and $500. What do you call it when someone claims another person made an argument they never actually made and proceeds to argue against that argument?

What unreasonable argument did I throw out? Where have I done this multiple times in the past?

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9029143

And here's an example of the same unreasonable argumentation:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8269179

You casted doubt on Switch having online multiplayer on launch day.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network

Yup I think so. If the input lag and artifacts are actually better than similar services we've seen before, it could have worked this gen. However, I think there's a reason why both Sony and MS are making a big deal out of their SSD. And my guess is that next gen games aren't going to translate well on Stadium. It can still be kinda cool though for certain games but probably not for the big blockbuster game.



RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

Again, my resistance has never been with the idea that PS5 or Scarlett will likely cost between $400 and $500. What do you call it when someone claims another person made an argument they never actually made and proceeds to argue against that argument?

What unreasonable argument did I throw out? Where have I done this multiple times in the past?

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9029143

And here's an example of the same unreasonable argumentation:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8269179

You casted doubt on Switch having online multiplayer on launch day.

Aww that's sweet that you think it's an unreasonable argument to point out real world examples where expectations of a future console based on a current console turned out to be incorrect.

Ahh, right. How could I forget that there were rumors that the Switch wasn't actually going to have any online presence at launch at it turned out the rumors
were to do with the "Nintendo Switch Online" service and not online multiplayer itself. Yeah, super unreasonable. Great job quote mining out of context!

But thanks for once again proving that you keep a document on me.



potato_hamster said:
RolStoppable said:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9029143

And here's an example of the same unreasonable argumentation:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8269179

You casted doubt on Switch having online multiplayer on launch day.

Aww that's sweet that you think it's an unreasonable argument to point out real world examples where expectations of a future console based on a current console turned out to be incorrect.

Ahh, right. How could I forget that there were rumors that the Switch wasn't actually going to have any online presence at launch at it turned out the rumors
were to do with the "Nintendo Switch Online" service and not online multiplayer itself. Yeah, super unreasonable. Great job quote mining out of context!

But thanks for once again proving that you keep a document on me.

Why don't you own up to the things you say?

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8268034

Here we have a double standard:

potato_hamster said:

What's acceptable with it? Again, it's 2017! It isn't 1997. It's not even 2007. Online play has become a fundamental part of console gaming in the past 15 years. Can you imagine Sony or Microsoft announcing their next consoles and telling people they won't have any online services for the first six months? Fuck, Microsoft tried to launch a console three years ago that required an online connection, but here we are with people trying to pass off the fact that this is missing at launch as even moderately acceptable. If this type of shit isn't ready at launch, delay your console and spare yourselves the embarassment! It has to be obvious to you at this point that the launch of the Switch has been rushed. This console isn't ready. This platform definitely isn't ready. But fuck it. Rushing things out the door in the video game industry has never worked out poorly, has it?

So you're solution is to just wait. Maybe if you watched the video in question, you'd be able to list off a bunch of reason why waiting for this information could be catastrophic for the Switch.

For someone who harasses others about making assumptions because "we don't know", you were quick to make a definitive claim that Switch is being rushed and not ready, expanding on it by strongly implying that it will result in failure. Switch went on to have the best sales during the first 12 months of a console in video game history.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Yes, yes, when you lose an argument be sure to claim your opponent is some sort of villain. I appreciate you leaving my arguments unrefuted though. :P

Digital =/= streaming access to a game. 

Online multiplayer games are approaching 50%? Of what? Revenue? Total game sales? Are mobile games excluded or included in that number? Are Mobas, and MMOs included? Are we going to count Fortnite, and other free 2 play games? What percentage of this number is sports titles, or revenue from MTX in sports titles that get released yearly? How are we counting games that have both a multiplayer element, and a single player campaign of at least 10-15 hours? Do they belong in the multiplayer section, or the single player section? 

Source? 

https://www.resetera.com/threads/sony-q4-fy-2017-ps4-software-digital-sales-reach-43-ratio.39046/

The ResetEra thread has extracted the tables from Sony's financials. The information is a bit outdated because it's a year old, but the numbers for FY16 and FY 17 show a growing trend of digital sales for PS4 games. Obviously, this ratio only applies to games that are available in both physical and digital form.

As usual, XB1 data cannot be provided because Microsoft has opted to not disclose anything.

???? Fiscal year 2017 was 32% percent digital for Playstation sales (not counting digital only games of course). I'm not sure what you're stance here is. If you are saying we will be all digital by 2030, I agree. If you are saying that physical will only account for a small percentage of the market by the time PS5/XB2/Stadia battle it out (to the point where my statements over physical media wouldn't matter), then I disagree. 

But anyway, my request for a source had to do with multiplayer. 

P.S. I bet Nintendo will still offer physical copies in 2030, because they are just so old fashioned. But if Xbox and Playstation don't by then, then the point is moot. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

potato_hamster said:
RolStoppable said:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9029143

And here's an example of the same unreasonable argumentation:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8269179

You casted doubt on Switch having online multiplayer on launch day.

Aww that's sweet that you think it's an unreasonable argument to point out real world examples where expectations of a future console based on a current console turned out to be incorrect.

Ahh, right. How could I forget that there were rumors that the Switch wasn't actually going to have any online presence at launch at it turned out the rumors
were to do with the "Nintendo Switch Online" service and not online multiplayer itself. Yeah, super unreasonable. Great job quote mining out of context!

But thanks for once again proving that you keep a document on me.

IMO rumors threads need to be quarantined in their own part of the forums. Most rumors threads are flat out wrong. What's worse is that even after a rumor gets debunked, people continue to post in said thread forever. I wish debunked rumor threads were just locked, or moved to purgatory. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true.