I think people will be willing to fork over the price of a next gen console to get their 4K gaming content. (granted they have a 4K TV) Consumer statistics from the PS4 Pro & One X already prove this. Stadia will be like a primer, and then they'll upgrade to an actual console in order get consistent 4K fidelity.

I dunno.  I got a PS4 Pro and I don't intend to get a 4K TV for quite a while.  Probably not until the PS5/XBoxTwo is mid life.

A 4K TV can be had for $500 - $600. What are you waiting for? It probably won't have great HDR but 4K TV's are alot more affordable than they were 5 years ago.

Funny you mention Candy Crush. Apparently it reached more than 1 billion players, for some time the company King earned 1 million $ per day, Candy Crush brought in a three-month period in 2014 over 490M$ revenue. That shows that as an avid gamer you have a completely wrong understanding of which games can be successful. That is OK. Stadia may never be something for you and me, but still be successful.

As I wrote above, as avid gamers we see the industry with a bias. The quantity exists, because it makes money for a lot of small developers. If it wouldn't bring in the money, these devs would all go bankrupt. So it means there is a market besides the big AAA-titles you prefer. Something can miss on the big AAA-stuff and still be successful.

Yeah, exactly my opinion. Stadia will not replace traditional console gaming for a long time. But it will carve a new market which brings in a lot of new gamers.

I think slowly growing is my OK option.

Competition can and will come up. I am pretty sure Microsoft is nearing a streaming service f their own.

Onllive was a small company. Sure there are a lot of problems, but owning server centres around the world as Google does is extremely helpful.

I am not sure of how much importance the integration in Youtube is. I guess we will see. But if that works out, it can be very big.

I agree mostly. I am convinced Google might be able to overcome most challenges. Especially 1+2 seem something they are constantly working with in their other endeavours too. Pricing can always be fucked up, I hope Google does nothing stupid here. And I think point 4 is less important than people here think. If MS starts a streaming service of their own with similar impact (reach to diverse platforms), than this will matter more than exclusives for classic consoles. Because Stadia probably caters to a different audience.

Yeah, that is my thinking.

Not that reasonable. A IQ lower than this gen, needing a beefy connection. For what is expected on the next gen you would be looking for over 100MBps, that is a hard fight.

I love people saying "The YouTube players will make this huge". Sure, the guys used to watch something for free will pay an expensive subscription (maybe $20+) to play, even though they never played so far. Because there are a lot of people who love video games enough to watch a lot of videos on YT, but are too poor or not interested enough to buy a console or play F2P games, but are rich enough and interested enough to pay a subscription for a sub-par gaming experience. I don't see the demographic fitting this, except the kids able to charge mom's credit card more easily for streaming than for buying.

Of course, you always have stuff becoming popular thanks to weird thinking from the audience, but still, this one is a stretch.

But well, we have people saying "it's a blue ocean innovative product" when it's an already crowded market (even more actors than traditional consoles). So weird thinking can be found anywhere...

I don't know about Stadia in particular. But, I am nearly certain that game streaming in some form will succeed within the next decade or so. The real appeal that I see is the ability to truly play console quality games on any device, and to carry that game between devices.

As a father of a young child, my ability to sit in front of the TV for a long period to play something is pretty limited. But, I find myself playing stupid mobile games much more often than I used to, as I frequently have 10-20 mins free while mom is feeding him, he's dozed off, etc. If I could jump into Assassins Creed and knock out a couple side missions on my phone or tablet, I probably would. That possibility is what has me really excited about streaming.

Of course, somebody has to make the technology work well. If it sucks, streaming won't take off, at least not in a big way. But, if Google, MS, or anybody else have really managed to make streaming work, I think it is a near certainty that it will succeed.

Note that the success of streaming does not necessarily mean the end for traditional console or PC gaming. It may mean that in the long run, or it may not. It certainly doesn't mean that in the short run.

I agree with that it will not affect much the traditional consoles. In the presentation Google made clear they are aiming for people who are currently not or seldomly play, because it is currently too inconvenient. Sure, they will take the current gamers who are interested, or people who played in the past but now have time constraint and can only play in short bursts and only if they can play wherever they are (as you describe). But their main target seem to be people usually not playing.

That's why I see the doubters n this thread as gamers bias. Here in the forums are current gamers that are OK with the current setup you need to play. This forum doesn't contain people who might play in the future if the tech is more accessible.

I am waiting for a viable 32 inch cheap as hell 4k.

Sony innovated with Playstation Now long before. Besides nobody knows if Sony is right now getting ready to do the same thing. They just don't need to hurry.