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
dharh said:
TranceformerFX said:
Even IF it gets developer traction and they get a bunch of companies to release their games on Stadia, what does that really do? What advantage does Stadia REALLY have other than the platform being "pro stream"?

We all know that Microsoft and Sony will NEVER jump on board with Stadia and their exclusive games as they will most definitely want their games for their next gen consoles. (PS5/X2)

So don't expect to play Halo 6 or The Last of Us 2 on Stadia - it's not gonna happen. And the worst thing for Stadia is that the PS5 and X2 will ALSO be able to play multi plat games.

So what will you "really" gain by opting to not have a digital/physical copy of a game and pay for a streaming subscription fee?

"You can stream in 4K resolution". So f***ing what? That doesn't mean shit if said person's bandwidth can't handle that content. Not everyone has fiber optic cable internet like you Google exec's do. Get your head out of your asses.

Google Stadia, regardless of cheaper subscription fee price vs owning the game - WILL CRASH AND BURN.

_WE_ most likely won't gain anything.  We, on this site, are avid gamers.  The target for now are not us, but the more casual gamer.  The ones still gaming on previous gen consoles or old PCs or are only playing mobile games.

Also UP to 4k.  Who's to say that it won't also do 1080p or 720p thus lowering the required bandwidth.  I for one will be sticking with 1080p for quite some time.  I have no intention of replacing any of my 1080p tv's for at least 5 years.

requirement is 25Mb to 1080p60fps and 20Mb to 1080p30fps from what was said here.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
dharh said:

_WE_ most likely won't gain anything.  We, on this site, are avid gamers.  The target for now are not us, but the more casual gamer.  The ones still gaming on previous gen consoles or old PCs or are only playing mobile games.

Also UP to 4k.  Who's to say that it won't also do 1080p or 720p thus lowering the required bandwidth.  I for one will be sticking with 1080p for quite some time.  I have no intention of replacing any of my 1080p tv's for at least 5 years.

requirement is 25Mb to 1080p60fps and 20Mb to 1080p30fps from what was said here.

Seems reasonable.  It's a tight fit as far as demographics go that someone would rather spend money on good internet (if they even have access to it and can afford it) vs just buying a console.  Then again if the business model is there streamers could end up saving money since they don't have to buy an expensive console for one, but might save if its a subscription model or if its like a rental model or if there is some discount for 'purchases'.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.



dharh said:
DonFerrari said:

requirement is 25Mb to 1080p60fps and 20Mb to 1080p30fps from what was said here.

Seems reasonable.  It's a tight fit as far as demographics go that someone would rather spend money on good internet (if they even have access to it and can afford it) vs just buying a console.  Then again if the business model is there streamers could end up saving money since they don't have to buy an expensive console for one, but might save if its a subscription model or if its like a rental model or if there is some discount for 'purchases'.

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.



TranceformerFX said:
dharh said:

Seems reasonable.  It's a tight fit as far as demographics go that someone would rather spend money on good internet (if they even have access to it and can afford it) vs just buying a console.  Then again if the business model is there streamers could end up saving money since they don't have to buy an expensive console for one, but might save if its a subscription model or if its like a rental model or if there is some discount for 'purchases'.

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 warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.



dharh said:
TranceformerFX said:

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.



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:

I see several roadblocks they will need to overcome:

-Lack of high speed internet access in rural areas. Looking like this will take at least 5-10 years to overcome this roadblock, as ISP's are being slow to roll out white space internet and super wi-fi to provide high speed to rural areas

-Many ISP's, including the largest in the US, Comcast, have data caps. Comcast has a 1 TB a month cap, and it is being reported that Stadia will use 20 GB per hour, which means you would eat through your entire 1 TB allotment in just 50 hours of gaming. The only thing that is likely to overcome this roadblock is government oversight, the government stepping in to force the ISP's to get rid of data caps, because they have no intention of getting rid of them on their own.

-Many ISP's are known to throttle connection speeds for users who do alot of streaming on Netflix and the like, they will very likely do the same for Stadia, which will effect the image quality of the stream. Once again, government oversight is the only thing likely to overcome this barrier, as the ISP's have no intention of getting rid of streaming throttles.

This. There are still plenty of practical obstacles here. Streaming games is clearly going to be a lot more data intensive than binge watching Stranger Things or the latest anime series. I have a good internet speed at home (120 Mbps DL speed), but at 20GB/hour I could blow through my 1TB data cap quickly, and I don't have the money to be spending on overage fees. As I play video games for a good bit more than 50 hours per month, it would be prohibitively expensive for me to stream. It's honestly going to be cheaper to just keep playing games the way I always have, with a one-time purchase of a disc/cart for $60 or less. And of course even ignoring the data cap issue there's the fact that even single-player games will cease functioning if you lose connection to the streaming service for any reason.

And this is to say nothing of the issues with streaming that don't have to do with internet connections. There's also the fact that there's nothing preventing entire games from vanishing forever in a streaming regime. If a game is removed from the service for any reason, you can no longer play it, period, and there's no guarantees that a game that's removed will ever come back. The biggest thing that worries me about digital distribution is the erosion of concepts of ownership as they pertain to purchased goods, and streaming greatly amplifies those concerns. As if the fact that even single-player games would be dependent on a constant connection to some service to function isn't bad enough, the simple fact that any game can potentially be cast into outright oblivion is incredibly worrisome.

It is not a future I want to invest in.



Zoombael said:
I think "It will explode". Its entrails splattered all over the place and everyone. People will be disgusted by the gore and awful smell. Like in Galaxy Quest, when they beamed up the pig lizard. Thats how its going to turn out.

Exclusives they have? Prbly candy crush clones and indie-cheap stuff. After all, they will have to aim for a large, sufficiently bandwithed audience.

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.

Random_Matt said:
Zoombael said:
I think "It will explode". Its entrails splattered all over the place and everyone. People will be disgusted by the gore and awful smell. Like in Galaxy Quest, when they beamed up the pig lizard. Thats how its going to turn out.

Exclusives they have? Prbly candy crush clones and indie-cheap stuff. After all, they will have to aim for a large, sufficiently bandwithed audience.

A streaming service could never be sustained with AAA games at the lets say $15 a month or whatever. What's the average AAA budget? Multiply that by half a dozen, how many subscriptions would you need to sell to make that money back?

Personally it will be like game pass, quantity rather than quality.

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.

freebs2 said:

It will eventually succeed because convenience always wins over fidelity, it happens in any medium.
This doesn't mean the demand for dedicated gaming hardware will cease to exsist anyway.

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.

The Fury said:
Where's the option for "It looks like it will be okay."?

Biggest issue it has is competition. As in the games it has are only what it can get it's hands on, so anything not available on PC, anything Nintendo or PS exclusive. I'm not even sure MS would like their biggest games on there while they would be fine for them to be on steam as it is in direct competition with Game Pass.

What was the streaming gaming service that launched a few years ago and failed? OnLive, that's it. Failed. Okay so it'd didn't have a brand like google behind it but still.

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.

foodfather said:
It is impressive. I have always wonders if the people who watch these youtube streams cause a dent in the sales of a game but that hardly seems to be the case. It seems these people who just watch youtube don't really have the interest / access to play games and would prefer watching them. This Stadia could be enticing for that crowd.

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.

Mospeada21CA said:

To recap overall feedback, the following challenges exist:

1) infrastructure - existing networks, fiber optics
2) ISP - cost, bandwidth, stability
3) Stadia pricing model?
4) Competition from big 3, all with deep histories, libraries, and pockets

The winner is the consumer, because we're free to choose, and reject losers and liars.

[edit: fixed my spelling typo up there]

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.

jonathanalis said:
There is hundred millions of people that are 'youtube players'. These seems to be the main market of stadia.
For us, dedicated console gamers that care about buying consoles and look forward new exclusives and that care about input lag for competitive play, if will flop.
But the market is not only formed only by us.
Seems a blue ocean thing.

Yeah, that is my thinking.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year], [1], [2], [3], [4]

dharh said:
DonFerrari said:

requirement is 25Mb to 1080p60fps and 20Mb to 1080p30fps from what was said here.

Seems reasonable.  It's a tight fit as far as demographics go that someone would rather spend money on good internet (if they even have access to it and can afford it) vs just buying a console.  Then again if the business model is there streamers could end up saving money since they don't have to buy an expensive console for one, but might save if its a subscription model or if its like a rental model or if there is some discount for 'purchases'.

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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

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.