Google Stadia will succeed... and here is why

[Mnementh]

shikamaru317 said:

HBninjaX said:
What about input delay?

I play fighting games mostly, and other games where reflexes and reaction time can mean victory or a frustrating loss

Will the nature of the technology mean input delay or input lag will be an issue? I genuinely would like to know.

Digital Foundry got to test the latest Stadia build, and there was only 22 extra ms of input lag compared to playing AC Odyssey on XB1 X. However, it is worth noting that the X gameplay had display lag deducted and was done on ethernet, whereas their Stadia test was on wifi without display lag deducted, so the actual additional latency is likely below 10ms. MS also just revealed that they are getting less than 10ms of added latency with their xCloud streaming services. 

Yeah. What really got me was bringing id software to the stage and show off Doom Eternal. Because that surely is a game you don't wanna have lag. That said to me: Google has the problem contained enough for id software to be convinced.

pokoko said:
All I can do is shrug. I live in the rural US and something like this is worthless to me. Internet speeds haven't improved in a decade--in fact, they're going backwards. I'm grandfathered in at 3Mbps but if someone new wants to hook up to DSL in my area, they can only get 1Mbps. Price keeps going up, however, even though the quality is garbage. Others nearby don't have DSL at all and depend on satellite internet. Cable companies say that there aren't enough houses per mile to be worth their time. I live only 25 minutes away from a medium sized city, so it's not like I'm in the middle of nowhere.

Call me when internet coverage and quality improve.

I agree that this will not reach everyone, everywhere. But that is not the point. It will not replace traditional local gaming (not in the near future at least). But in the areas with decent internet (and these are big enough by now) it will reach people that currently find gaming too inconvenient.

The_Liquid_Laser said:

Mnementh said:

1) The game library is in my opinion something Google has covered. In my opinion it is pretty telling, that their first public pitch is not to gamers, but to game developers. And they bend over backwards to explain, that dev can develop games faster with lower investments, reach a bigger userbase, are less restricted by hardware while they actually can access additional ways to implement their artististic vision. This says to me Google is aware of the importance to have devs on board for a diverse library. They also have secured Ubisoft, id software and smaller studios like the Rime people. They also said they develop first party. While they didn't detailed that it also shows Google is aware of the importance of a first-party setup.

2) The business model is more of a variable here. But two things make me optimistic here. First Google has shown in the past they are the master in finding business models that are satisfying for the users, third-parties and themselfs. I don't see a reason why they fail this time. Secondly it seems Google is all in and willing to play the long game. They have money to burn, so they can secure a model that is good for gamers and devs while taking a loss themselfes for some time.

1)  You may be right about this.  I feel I actually need to see more games before I can make a judgement on it, but I don't discount that you could end up being exactly right.  The business model can also affect how excited devs are to put their games on the platform.  That leads to

2)  This is the part that has me worried.  Google tends to rely on ad based revenue.  That is their model for both their search engine and Youtube.  Ad based revenue is terrible for any entertainment industry.  For example, movies sell tickets while TV uses ad revenue.  It should be obvious that the budget for any Marvel movie blows away even the most expensive TV show.  By the same token AAA games are not sustainable on ad revenue.  They require actual sales.  Or I suppose a subscription model for older AAA games would be fine too.  But ad revenue for AAA games does not work, neither does a subscription model for the day 1 AAA third party games.

But another reason why I need to know more details is that I need to figure out who they are competing with.  They may end up competing with Valve even more than the big 3.  Valve keeps their data fairly secret, but one thing I have gathered is that Steam is a lot more popular in areas where a console is hard to get.  I am pretty sure Steam is the main platform in a country like Russia, while North America, Japan and Western Europe prefer consoles.  A lot of people play on Steam, because it is really the only choice.  So even if this service does not appeal at all to console gamers it might attract most of the Steam community away. 

So, having said that, I don't think 50m by 2024 is an unreasonable prediction.  I still want to know more details, but that is more so I know if this will eventually replace consoles or if it will more be competing with Steam.  And all of this assumes they don't mess up a key detail, which is possible for a company that is new to this type of gaming.

You are right that ad-revenue will not cut it. Basically for the business model I have nothing to go for, than confidence in Googles experience and the showing that they thought about the other area. Would be a glaring oversight, if the business model is the one thing they didn't thought through.

BasilZero said:
Tech is impressive but the world isnt ready for it, its still a couple of years too early.



But those who can manage to run it and use it will have a great time (providing the library is good).

This already says that anyone entering the market now with decent enough tech is going to see constant growth over the coming years. And Google certainly can eat up a few years of losses at the start to be the market leader in the biggest growth spurt.

EricHiggin said:

Cerebralbore101 said:
Just going to repost what I said in the other thread....

I don't want this to take off, but I have to admit that USA internet speed averages around 24 mbps right now. Internet speeds are growing by 22% a year. So streaming could actually take off. The only downside to this is that the word average is misleading. If one person out of ten has ultra fast 100 mbps internet speed, and the other 9 have 15 mbps then the "average" speed comes out to around 24 mbps. Just for reference you need 9 mbps to reliably stream PS3 games on PS Now. So for 4K or 1080 you would need a lot more. I'm no tech junkie but I would imagine that since 1080p is about 2.5 times 720p then you'd need about 22 mbps to stream games in 1080p. But I suppose the casuals that this device is targeting won't really care about resolution. If they are willing to play on their phones, then they won't care if the resolution is 720p, or 1080p in a console generation where upscaled, or native 4K is pretty much guaranteed.

Something else to take into account is how many regular internet users in each home? It's one thing if your the only one streaming, while somebody else is just light surfing or whatever, but what about when there's 2 or 3 people bogging things down? Netflix + Stradia + Xcloud , etc. It's going to be a long, long, time before game streaming services really start to see worthwhile growth. The main reason Netflix has seen such growth, is because it's TV and movies, plus it was the first big paid streaming service and had little competition as well as streaming period. (YouTube but it's free)

Well, one thing they showed was couch coop with only one streaming connection. Allows for multiple people in the household to play while using only streaming once.

Azelover said:

This will be a long process.

Google will build the infrastructure, and in about 5 years, this thing will eat up the whole market. And they'll be the ones with the most gas going. More developers on board, more money, and games made specifically for this kind of thing.

It kind of reminds me of the PlayStation. New games are gonna come that are tailor made for this kind of thing. And then in the future, most genres will be playable in a decent fashion. Nintendo will survive, because all of their power comes from within. Microsoft will do well, because they are software and service based, and will likely develop an alternative service that does the same thing.

Sony however, is FUCKED... in my opinion. Because their feet will be tied to the hardware side of things, and this will greatly diminish their ability to do this well.

I agree Google is well positioned to take the streaming market (although MS and Amazon might become good competitors). But I don't see how this fucks Sony.

Random_Matt said:
Yes, yes, Sony is doomed.

See my answer above. I don't think this will bring Sony into hot water in the short term (long term a lot can happen). The Playstation brand is especially strong in "Rest of the world". Exactly these regions, where stable internet has the biggest problem. They will still buy classic console.

twintail said:

Mnementh said:

So, why do I think this? First of all, this was a presentation clearly intended for game developers (no surprise at the Game Developers Conference). And from the perspective of a game developer there was a lot to love. This was not a presentation for gamers - I expect this will happen later. So from a gamers view some things still seem unclear.

Yes, because Google advertised the reveal and streamed it live for everyone in the world to watch because it was only for developers

Look at what they presented. Sure, they streamed it online and made it flashy for everyone to use, because they know such a reveal to game devs would've been leaked anyways. But the presentation clearly missed stuff consumers would be interested (pricing, game lineup), while it contained everything game devs are interested. Not only contained, they put time into each detail how the service can help game developers realize their game vision.

vivster said:
Children today are growing up seeing games as services that are always and anywhere available. Adoption among young players should be good, especially since the parents don't have to buy an expensive plastic box. I believe the success is all up to 3rd party support. The convenience and quality for streamed gaming will only grow and if 3rd parties jump on it it's only gonna be a matter of time until it develops into a successful industry.

Yeah. I see adoption can be high enough now to be viable and will only grow from here.