By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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
jason1637 on 28 June 2019

I think it will do just fine.



Around the Network
potato_hamster on 28 June 2019
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

Ahh, so Switch gets lumped into the PS4 and XBox One generation when its convenient for you. Got it. What was that about twisting? Steam isn't limited by generations, it's automatically next gen. It's obvious you made an assumption, and now you're projecting your attempts to save face on me. You keep forgetting that I don't care about my reputation here! I have no reason to try and save face when I'm wrong. But you do...

I didn't barge into this thread to have a go at you. That's just more paranoia from you. You keep acting that if you can come up with a reason why my argument could possibly be made against any poster before you that I'm targeting you as if you get to decide where arguments are appropriate and where they're not. I cannot keep stating this for you: Your opinions are not fact despite your attempts to treat them as such. And now you're backseat moderating me. What was that about standards that are appropriate for this website?

And again, nice dodge on the "straw man argument" definition you keep messing up.

I'll show you the post in question for the third time now:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9029008

JRPGfan said:

It being free at 1080p does change things somewhat.
But then again next gen consoles will all be 4k.

Does a statement refering to next gen consoles include Steam? No, definitely not, because Steam is not a console.

Is it possible that the statement includes Switch? No, because it mentions 4k resolution which Switch does not support.

Additionally, if the logical deductions of the presented quote are still insufficient for whatever reason, JRPGfan counts Switch towards the same generation as the PS4 and XB1, therefore he does not include Switch when he is talking about next gen consoles. You are free to ask him about that, if you don't believe me.

So none of this here is twisting on my part and it's all verifiable.

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.



Barkley on 28 June 2019
potato_hamster said:
RolStoppable said:

I'll show you the post in question for the third time now:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9029008

JRPGfan said:

It being free at 1080p does change things somewhat.
But then again next gen consoles will all be 4k.

Does a statement refering to next gen consoles include Steam? No, definitely not, because Steam is not a console.

Is it possible that the statement includes Switch? No, because it mentions 4k resolution which Switch does not support.

Additionally, if the logical deductions of the presented quote are still insufficient for whatever reason, JRPGfan counts Switch towards the same generation as the PS4 and XB1, therefore he does not include Switch when he is talking about next gen consoles. You are free to ask him about that, if you don't believe me.

So none of this here is twisting on my part and it's all verifiable.

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.



potato_hamster on 28 June 2019
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?



Chrkeller on 28 June 2019

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%.  



Around the Network
potato_hamster on 28 June 2019
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.



goopy20 on 28 June 2019

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.



potato_hamster on 28 June 2019
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.



Cerebralbore101 on 28 June 2019
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. 



Cerebralbore101 on 28 June 2019
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.