Quantcast
Google GDC Keynote Official Thread

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Google GDC Keynote Official Thread

potato_hamster said:
spemanig said:

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.

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.



Well, this is new.

Read.

Around the Network

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



potato_hamster 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.

... unless any of those places don't have a great internet connection, then I guess you're just twiddling your thumbs. Ever try to stream youtube in a busy airport?

Ever try playing your PS4 in a busy airport?

Last edited by spemanig - on 19 March 2019

Well, this is new.

Read.

Games will have to be ported, then, much like I predicted. So no massive Windows backlog (or even 'present log', that is, for the matter) unlike what MS will surely bring to table. That's a massive disadvantage right there.

While the tech is good I'm unsure at whom this will be marketed at. Most eSports or other Online multiplats are well on their way to be playable on common PC hardware or even Smartphones sometimes. The core of Sony's userbarse isn't moving, Nintendo's even less so. That leaves MS's userbase, and they're going to outdo Google in this game with ease.



 

 

 

 

 

We have new latency info for Stadia now.

AC Odyssey
Xbox One X- 144ms
Project Stream Beta- 179ms
PC at 30 fps- 112ms
PC at 60 fps- 79ms

All of those tests were conducted by Digital Foundry in the Project Stream beta last year, with Ethernet connection and the same display with 22 ms of display lag deducted.

Google allowed them to do a test of the latest build of Stadia Streaming, on a Google Pixelbook. The Google Pixelbook was connected via wi-fi, not ethernet, so there would be additional lag from wi-fi, and Digital Foundry didn't know the display lag of the pixelbook so they couldn't deduct it, but even with the disadvantages of Display Lag and wi-fi, the latest build of Stadia streaming was 166ms, less than the Project Stream beta on ethernet with display lag deducted. It is quite likely that the latency for Stadia has now caught up to the 144ms of Xbox One X for AC Odyssey with an ethernet connection.

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 19 March 2019

Around the Network
haxxiy said:
Games will have to be ported, then, much like I predicted. So no massive Windows backlog (or even 'present log', that is, for the matter) unlike what MS will surely bring to table. That's a massive disadvantage right there.

While the tech is good I'm unsure at whom this will be marketed at. Most eSports or other Online multiplats are well on their way to be playable on common PC hardware or even Smartphones sometimes. The core of Sony's userbarse isn't moving, Nintendo's even less so. That leaves MS's userbase, and they're going to outdo Google in this game with ease.

Yeah. It seams like its xcloud with youtube integreted. Its like a new bttlegroun for an old fight: Microsoft vs Google

 They both has money and technology. They lack the most important factor in entertainment: Content. Content is a key (exclusive content).




spemanig said:
KLXVER said:

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?

Great comment, well spoken!

DarthMetalliCube said:

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.

The great thing about Stadia, xCloud, PS Now, and other streaming service bound to arrive, is that the Library doens't have to be incredible. If all you ever want is (1) Stadia exclusive, or (1) Xbox exclusive, or (1) PlayStation exclusive, then you don't have to make any investment to play. You can just play Halo, The Last Of Us, or whatever Google has, and play it on the Tablet, PC, SmartPhone, Set Top Box, or Refrigerator and controllers you already have.



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

spemanig said:
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?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-pop-music-evolving-or-is-it-just-getting-louder/

KBG29 said:
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.

This is a good point.  I could see them offering different pricing models based on the games.  For example, they could offer Android games based on ads/microtransactions, because that is how those games are already priced.  But with Stadia I can now play Angry Birds or some other mobile game on my TV. 

The latest Call of Duty still needs to have a $ price to it though.  Either that or they offer old AAA games on a subscription similar to how Netflix offers old AAA movies on a subscription.  Basically I think they need to choose between either a pricetag (with account) or a subscription model for AAA games.  They can use an iTunes model or they can use a Spotify model, but I don't think they can use both at the same time.  

Also I very much believe game library still matters, even if I don't have to buy a console.  I own a PC, and I never play on Steam.  First, I hate the service, so their is that.  But if they had an exclusive that I really, really wanted to play, then I would actually use them.  As much as I hate Steam, games are still the most important thing.  I really do not like gaming on a 3" screen, but I bought a Gameboy Advance, because it had games I wanted to play.  All of this applies to Stadia.  The most important thing in gaming is the games.  If it has great games, especially exclusives, then the platform will succeed.  Period.  If the platform lacks good games, then it will fail.  Period.  Successful platforms always have great games that lots of people want to play.



spemanig said:
potato_hamster said:

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.

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.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what I do and do not know. Why do you believe that if I disagree with you I must be ignorant about what the current technology allows or what the gaming community will accept? And I'm making a false equivalence that the very people behind the creation of this device currently are having issues meeting the demands of streamed video which are less than streamed gaming? Let's say GTA VI comes out on Stadia. Do you think there will be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people attempting to play at once on release? Yet you seem totally content to believe that google is capable of acceptably streaming something that is much more dependent on lag when they can't even stream an HD (non 4K) video to tens of thousands of people without lag. That makes sense, how, exactly?

Google puts ads on everything. The a huge chunk of their existing business model is entirely based on ads Why wouldn't they put ads on game streams? I think it's less realistic to think that google will put ads on games than won't.



spemanig said:
potato_hamster said:

... unless any of those places don't have a great internet connection, then I guess you're just twiddling your thumbs. Ever try to stream youtube in a busy airport?

Ever try playing your PS4 in a busy airport?

I can play my vita, or my switch, or my laptop. Stop making a false dichotomy. A home console that's not meant to be portable isn't the only other option.