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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Google Stadia will succeed... and here is why

 

Will Stadia succeed?

It will crash and burn. 35 37.23%
 
It will slowly but steadily grow. 32 34.04%
 
It will explode. 4 4.26%
 
I don't know yet, need to know more. 23 24.47%
 
Total:94

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.



Around the Network

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.



Mnementh said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
I totally agree that the technology is impressive. Everything you are saying about the technology is 100% correct. I also want to add that online multiplayer games are going to perform much better on this system. I remember how impressive Ultima Online and other MMOs were when they were first released in 1997, just because the games were running on dedicated servers. This technology has the potential to have the same effect, but with all online multiplayer games.

Having said all of that, I still think there are two even more important factors that we don't know about yet. 1) Game library and 2) business model. I need to know more about these two things before I make a final call on this. If they don't get enough good games, or if their business model is bad, then it won't matter how good the tech is.

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.

Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 19 March 2019

quote: "...we only succeed, when our partners do..."

https://youtu.be/nUih5C5rOrA?t=1356

- - Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google



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.

Yeah, there are rural areas within 10 miles of my 25,000 population city that have the exact same issue, Comcast provides coverage for my city and about a 2.5 mile radius around my city which covers some rural areas, but that is it. The only other options past that radius are 3 mbps DSL and satellite internet (which while fast enough for general usage and Netflix streaming, doesn't work for gaming due to massive latency caused by bouncing a signal into space and back down to Earth). 

White space internet seems to be the best option for providing high speed to rural areas, but the rollout will take awhile. MS began the process in 2017: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/microsoft-will-help-isps-bring-wireless-internet-to-12-us-states/

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 19 March 2019

Around the Network
John2290 said:
shikamaru317 said:

Why would anybody switch to wireless for their primary internet when wireless has tiny data caps? I sure wouldn't. 

Maybe in America, but here in Ireland everyone is moving to 4g as it's just as fasr if not faster in with no data caps, can confirm (at least the switching) for England in the UK also. 

Y'all are lucky. Here in the US I think every single mobile service has data caps, even the ones that claim to have unlimited will cap you to 3G speeds if you pass a certain data threshold. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 19 March 2019

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).



    

Basil's YouTube Channel


                    

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)



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)

Excellent point! Just two people using the internet at once cuts the speed in half. The people most likely to want to Stadia are going to be casuals with families. Also internet seems to drop off a cliff around 5 to 6pm even if you are a single person household. Too many people in your town or neighborhood using the internet all at once bogs things down a bit. 



If it is successful, It makes me wonder what unforeseen consequences it could bring. For example running 4k at 60fps isn't free, it requires them to allocate a real 10.4 TF machine to every user logged in. It wouldn't take long for all PC gaming hardware to be consumed by Google trying to satiate their user concurrent counts. Of course, we don't know what the price model is. This could be another pie in the sky Google project that will be way too expensive to catch on like Glass.