Quantcast
Google GDC Keynote Official Thread

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Google GDC Keynote Official Thread

Eh. The marketplace doesn't need another gaming platform. If it takes off, great! With so many different options (Switch, PS4, XBONE, PC, 3DS, Vita, etc.), I can't help but wonder how much of an audience there is for this. Google may be a giant, but I don't see this being a huge success. Then again, they haven't really shown anything, and I've been wrong before.



Around the Network
konnichiwa said:
Darwinianevolution said:

That's why physical gaming will always be the safest system around. And even with traditional digital-only, you download the game once and it's in your hard drive forever. Everytime you want to play with streaming, you have to charge it on your internet data cap. In the long run it depends more on it.

Sure but as an old member on VGchartz we had threads like this over and over again...we had even those movie blu ray threads with fanatics who didn't believe streaming movies services will be that popular and most will still buy movies.    You don't like streaming games like PSNOW I am fine with it and I was not happy with the service but I see the appeal for others and I believe it has a place on the market.

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.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

spemanig said:
potato_hamster said:

What's convenient about being able to play anywhere if it requires a mobile internet connection that's prohibitively expensive, has lag issues, and potentially is full of ads like youtube is?

Most people in the modern world have that mobile internet connection already, lag is not remotely the issue it used to be and is only getting better, and unless you plan on playing $60 games for free I don't see where that baseless speculation comes from.

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.



The_Liquid_Laser said:

My initial thoughts:

1.  The technology is extremely impressive.  There are two other factors that are even more important than technology though: game library and business model (discussed below).  Still, the tech is extremely impressive.  It could be a game changer depending on how the other two things play out.

2.  Game library is the most important thing.  They did announce that they have a first party development studio.  That at least shows they know a little bit about the gaming business.  However if you look at what territories they plan to launch it is basically North America and most of Europe.  To me it says that they currently have Western studios as most of their partners and have few Japanese partners.  Already it seems like their game library will be weak, but admittedly I am going off of little information here.

3.  Business model is the second most important thing and it has a unique roll given the new approach Google is taking.  I mean their business model could be terrible like the Ouya's business model and that will sink the platform.  But that is not even the worst case scenario.  The worst case scenario is that their platform becomes dominant but their business model kills off the gaming industry.  There is a big difference between being the "Netflix of gaming" and being the "Spotify of gaming". 

Netflix peacefully co-exists with movie studios and network TV.  It mostly got it's market from DVD sales and cable TV.  This is important, because Netflix did not attack content creation at it's source.  On the other hand Spotify crippled the Music industry.  Given the Music industry already took a few blows from other content sources before Spotify came along: Napster, iTunes, Pandora, etc....  But the crippling blow came from Spotify and the Music industry has never recovered.  Annual revenue is now just a fraction of what it was during the 20th century.  The quantity and quality of new music has measurably decreased.

So, basically what I am saying is: the business model matters a lot.  I would prefer that they have an account system like iTunes, where you actually buy and own your games.  That is a healthy, sustainable system.  The worst system they could use is one based entirely on ad revenue.  That is how Youtube works and Google does not make profits from Youtube and the vast majority of their content is made by amateurs on top of that.  Microtransactions...well if they go this route, they may find they attract a different type of gamer than the typical Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft gamer.  Business model can seriously affect how this whole thing turns out.

Final thought: the technology is very impressive but it is too early to tell how things will play out at this point.

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.



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

The_Liquid_Laser said:

Netflix peacefully co-exists with movie studios and network TV.  It mostly got it's market from DVD sales and cable TV.  This is important, because Netflix did not attack content creation at it's source.  On the other hand Spotify crippled the Music industry.  Given the Music industry already took a few blows from other content sources before Spotify came along: Napster, iTunes, Pandora, etc....  But the crippling blow came from Spotify and the Music industry has never recovered.  Annual revenue is now just a fraction of what it was during the 20th century.  The quantity and quality of new music has measurably decreased.

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?



Well, this is new.

Read.

Around the Network

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?



We have some hardware spec info now for their servers:

CPU- 2.7 ghz multi-core with hyperthreading, AVX2 SIMD, 9.5 MB of L2+L3 cache, said to be server class CPU, Google didn't say if it is an AMD or Intel CPU
GPU- 10.7 tflop AMD, 56 compute units, Google wouldn't comment on rather it is Navi based or Vega based, though the specs are most similar to Vega 56
RAM- 16 GB HBM2, shared system memory, 484 GB/s bandwidth
Storage- SSD's, access to petabytes of storage

Multiple servers can work in conjunction to provide more power for more demanding games. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 19 March 2019

KLXVER said:
spemanig said:

There's no reason you couldn't play this on your TV.

The potential for this is near limitless. The convenience is obviously one thing. The other is that hardware upgrades aren't forced on the consumer. In the same way that Youtube's resolution increased in time without needing to buy a new computer, within reason you'll have that same constant upgrade in power without needing to buy new hardware.

Even if you're someone who likes playing at home, unless you're someone who literally never leaves your house, just the convenience of being able to play on another TV in your home or in a friend's house or in a hotel room instantly with just a controller is convenient on a level even beyond what the Switch provides.

Well unless you don't have great internet speed. I can play on my current consoles in a vacuum. This just seem like something for extremely lazy people.

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?



Well, this is new.

Read.

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.

Last edited by DarthMetalliCube - on 19 March 2019