It would be the first playstation console that requires an internet connection to play a game, but you're right I do not know the PS5 will not. We really don't know much of anything about the PS5 though, do we? Yet here we are sorting out the cost of owning one because that makes sense.

I think one of the biggest hurdles the service has to clear is the current internet infrastucture. There are still a lot of places even in Europe and North America where the current internet services aren't good enough to allow video game streaming at a high enough quality to make the service feasible.

The thread compares the value of Stadia vs the value of a traditional console. Of course we're speculating the cost of owning a console. Without speculating there is nothing to discuss and this thread wouldn't exist.

Let's see... how many times did the OP mention PS5? 0
how many times did the OP mention Xbox Scarlet? 0

The OP said "Most physical consoles". You're the one that made the leap to PS5/Xbox Scarlett, so why would I reply to the OP when the point refers specifically and most appropriately to you. But I'm sure you've already decided that this is just another example of me targeting you, even though the only basis for that is imagined.

Yes, the OP's point was to compare the value of Stadia to the value of owning a Sega Saturn. Because that's where the competition is. PS5/Scarlett definitely weren't on his mind. 

If only there were some other consoles on the market we could make comparisons to instead of making assumptions... That's just too bad that the only thing we have to go by are consoles that we don't even know the names of.

Well we could compare them to current consoles, but then Stadia has an overwhelming advantage of being 4 times the power of a standard PS4/XBO and completely free at the same resolution. Wow that's an even bigger win for Stadia than comparing it to nextgen. Probably not the result you were looking for.

You're the first one to compare the two. It seems to me like that's an assumption that you made that the only valid comparison would be between Stadia and other consoles that do not yet exist, and we know almost nothing about.

So you're saying now, definitively, that a gamer that chooses Google Stadia as their primary game platform, gets two games a month, and always wants the top level of performance out of their platform of choice will definitely be less expensive than a gamer that chooses Sony's next game console as their primary game platform, gets two games a month, and always wants the top level of performance out of their platform of choice over a six year period. You're calling that right now?

What makes you think I'm "looking for" any result? I don't care whatever one comes out as cheaper, I'm just not interested in comparing assumptions to draw conclusions.

Your assumption that the average player cares about high fidelity and/or can do math is hilarious.