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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do you think Google Stadia is doomed to fail?

 

Is stadia going to fail? (not be competitive, profitable?)

yes - (people wont pay for 4k subscription) 42 77.78%
 
no - (people want to stre... 12 22.22%
 
Total:54
Lafiel on 28 June 2019
Barkley said:

As for the 1080p limit, well Stadia has 8TF of power if I remember correctly, probably around equivelent to a GTX 1080, if you're running games at their maximum settings you probably won't get above 1080p@60fps in most titles anyway, so your choice will be between Ultra 1080p or Medium 4k. So 1080p might actually be the better option anyway, especially as it won't require as much bandwidth.

According to Google Stadia is 10.7TF (GCN 5 architecture - basically a VEGA56) per blade with the possibility of using several blades to run a game down the line (probably after a few years of service).

And I very much doubt the streaming resolution the user chooses has any influence on the resolution the serverblades render the games at. I think free users will simply get a downsampled stream (which isn't a bad thing - should result in nicer image quality than rendering at 1080p).



Around the Network
JRPGfan on 28 June 2019
Chrkeller said:

Edit

Snarky aside, given it isn't much needed, the point I am driving is console gamers tend to ignore the cost of online.  It isn't cheap over 5-7 years.

You arnt forced to pay for online though... if you want to go without you can.
If you mainly enjoy single player games, and arnt too into online shooters, you can easily go without.

Then if a game catches your fancy that needs it, just take a month or two sub.



Barkley on 28 June 2019
Lafiel said:
Barkley said:

As for the 1080p limit, well Stadia has 8TF of power if I remember correctly, probably around equivelent to a GTX 1080, if you're running games at their maximum settings you probably won't get above 1080p@60fps in most titles anyway, so your choice will be between Ultra 1080p or Medium 4k. So 1080p might actually be the better option anyway, especially as it won't require as much bandwidth.

According to Google Stadia is 10.7TF (GCN 5 architecture - basically a VEGA56) per blade with the possibility of using several blades to run a game down the line (probably after a few years of service).

And I very much doubt the streaming resolution the user chooses has any influence on the resolution the serverblades render the games at. I think free users will simply get a downsampled stream (which isn't a bad thing - should result in nicer image quality than rendering at 1080p).

Possibly but I would prefer if it did run the game at different settings depending on what resolution you were streaming at. Don't think supersampling will make that much of a difference to image quality when streaming anyway. Will a game rendered at 4k compressed into a 1080p 20mbit video stream look much better then a game rendered at 1080p compressed into a 20mbit video stream? It'll lessen the impact of it anyway.

If I were google I'd at least drop rendering to 1080p just to save on electricity costs.



CuCabeludo on 28 June 2019

Google has the advantage of chrome being the main browser of basically 90% of android mobile users, and it will be a feature upon chrome/youtube. MS has the advantage of having more games at their disposal right now.

People need to think outside the console box. Mobile gaming is bigger and there are a good amount of money to be made from mobile gamers with good internet.

Last edited by CuCabeludo - on 28 June 2019

potato_hamster on 28 June 2019
Barkley said:
potato_hamster said:

"The PS3 will not cost $599, and we both know it".
"The PS4 will at least be backwards compatible with PS1 and PS2 games, and we both know it"
"There will not be a mid-gen upgrade of the PS4, and we both know it"
"The PS4 will just have a new version of the dual shock controller, and we both know it"

I've said things along the lines of a couple of those phases myself. These are assumptions. I don't assume anything any more. I also never make wagers. It has nothing to do with my confidence level. It's a personal policy.

Anyone want to claim they know exactly what kind of console the PS5 will be, it's features, it's specs, it's price, it's controller, it's online service? Feel free to make your claims, and well, stake your credibility along with it.

Why do you think you need to be absolutely 100% certain about something? If it changes it changes, if it doesn't it doesn't. Who gives a damn? If you disagree that the price of X console will be what someone proposes then their comparison doesn't apply for you. With people who agree that it will be that price then the comparison is valid for them. Crikey!

Literally all you have to say is "I don't think it will cost this much." Rather than what you actually did.

"these comparisons are ridiculous because we literally don't know anything about the pricing of PS5 or Xbox Scarlett. How about we wait until we have more information".

"Sure they are, look we can totally make these educated guesses! We know things about these consoles that haven't been stated!"

"Look at all of these educated guesses other people would have made that turned out to be totally wrong. Isn't it better to wait until we know more?"

"who cares if all turns out to be wrong, it can be true to some people now!"

If that's how you want to do it, man.

Also, where did I make a positive or negative claim about anything around the price of the PS5 or its features?





Around the Network
Barkley on 28 June 2019
potato_hamster said:
Barkley said:

Why do you think you need to be absolutely 100% certain about something? If it changes it changes, if it doesn't it doesn't. Who gives a damn? If you disagree that the price of X console will be what someone proposes then their comparison doesn't apply for you. With people who agree that it will be that price then the comparison is valid for them. Crikey!

Literally all you have to say is "I don't think it will cost this much." Rather than what you actually did.

"these comparisons are ridiculous because we literally don't know anything about the pricing of PS5 or Xbox Scarlett. How about we wait until we have more information".

"Sure they are, look we can totally make these educated guesses! We know things about these consoles that haven't been stated!"

"Look at all of these educated guesses other people would have made that turned out to be totally wrong. Isn't it better to wait until we know more?"

"who cares if all turns out to be wrong, it can be true to some people now!"

If that's how you want to do it, man.

Also, where did I make a positive or negative claim about anything around the price of the PS5 or its features?

If you don't want to take part in any discussion where not everything is a 100% fact be my guest, most people don't live like that. Stop starting petty arguments. If you don't disagree the consoles will be roughly $400-$500 then there's nothing to argue about. If you do disagree that will be the price that's all you have to say.



potato_hamster on 28 June 2019
Barkley said:
potato_hamster said:

"these comparisons are ridiculous because we literally don't know anything about the pricing of PS5 or Xbox Scarlett. How about we wait until we have more information".

"Sure they are, look we can totally make these educated guesses! We know things about these consoles that haven't been stated!"

"Look at all of these educated guesses other people would have made that turned out to be totally wrong. Isn't it better to wait until we know more?"

"who cares if all turns out to be wrong, it can be true to some people now!"

If that's how you want to do it, man.

Also, where did I make a positive or negative claim about anything around the price of the PS5 or its features?

If you don't want to take part in any discussion where not everything is a 100% fact be my guest, most people don't live like that. Stop starting petty arguments. If you don't disagree the consoles will be roughly $400-$500 then there's nothing to argue about. If you do disagree that will be the price that's all you have to say.


Let's see if you can spot the difference between these three quotes:

"Let's assume that the price of a console will probably be between $400-$500 for discussions sake"

"We know the price of a console will be between $400 and $500"

"We know the price of a console will be between $400 and $500, will have an annual online pass at a cost of $80 a year, will get a mid-generation upgrade that hasn't been announced with a price between $400-$500 to compete with a Google Stadia mid-generation upgrade that hasn't even been announced yet within a defined time period that doesn't comport with the time current time span between consoles, and based off of all of this we can factual comparisons of the costs playing on each platform over a six year span."

If you can't spot the difference then get back to me when you can.


When you take everything I've said and you distill that to "I think its unreasonable to say the consoles will be roughly $400-$500, and I just don't want to say it" I just don't know how to go on from there. It just doesn't add up at all.



Barkley on 28 June 2019
potato_hamster said:
Barkley said:

If you don't want to take part in any discussion where not everything is a 100% fact be my guest, most people don't live like that. Stop starting petty arguments. If you don't disagree the consoles will be roughly $400-$500 then there's nothing to argue about. If you do disagree that will be the price that's all you have to say.



"We know the price of a console will be between $400 and $500"

If you need someone to explicitly tell you that an unannounced price is a prediction/guess that's your problem.



potato_hamster on 28 June 2019
Barkley said:
potato_hamster said:



"We know the price of a console will be between $400 and $500"

If you need someone to explicitly tell you that an unannounced price is a prediction/guess that's your problem.

<my point>










































<your head>



Cerebralbore101 on 28 June 2019
Barkley said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Selling your original system for $200 when getting the mid-gen upgrade isn't a deal. It's economics. If Stadia offers up yearly subscriptions for a lowered price, I'll factor that in when they do it. I'll also factor in lowered console prices, whenever the PS5/XB2 get their first price drop, instead of speculating on potential future price drops. We shouldn't be factoring in any price drops for either side until they are announced. That's only fair. Refusing to accept someone else's epistemology =/= moving the goal posts. You just ignored the extra internet cost for Stadia. I realize that not everyone will need to pay extra for internet, but not everyone needs to pay for XBL/PS+ either. So we can either keep the extra internet cost for Stadia, and keep the XBL/PS+ cost, or drop both of them. Either way the price of the consoles come out on top. You also ignored the cost of losing games you paid for, as well as the inability to resell them. And let's be honest, losing games you paid for is inevitable, when it comes to a streaming service. There's no speculation there. 

"We shouldn't be factoring in any price drops for either side until they are announced." - Yet assuming $400 for a nextgen system is generous, this price isn't announced. You also assume $400 for a Pro system down the line.

"You just ignored the extra internet cost for Stadia. I realize that not everyone will need to pay extra for internet" - Exactly, my internet is already more than good enough and the cost has nothing to do with Cloud Gaming.

"But not everyone needs to pay for XBL/PS+ either." - Not everyone needs to pay for 4k streaming. After all you may prefer Ultra Settings at 1080p than Medium settings at 4k.

At the end of the day there are many different situations and options, either console or Stadia can come out on top.

I didn't assume anything for the prices of next gen consoles, or the Pro systems. Rol was the one who started arguing with the assumption that it
would be a $400 system and mid gen upgrade. I just rolled with it for the sake of argument. 

Stadia is offering a choice between 1080p ultra settings and 4K mid settings? Source?

RolStoppable said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Selling your original system for $200 when getting the mid-gen upgrade isn't a deal. It's economics. If Stadia offers up yearly subscriptions for a lowered price, I'll factor that in when they do it. I'll also factor in lowered console prices, whenever the PS5/XB2 get their first price drop, instead of speculating on potential future price drops. We shouldn't be factoring in any price drops for either side until they are announced. That's only fair. Refusing to accept someone else's epistemology =/= moving the goal posts. You just ignored the extra internet cost for Stadia. I realize that not everyone will need to pay extra for internet, but not everyone needs to pay for XBL/PS+ either. So we can either keep the extra internet cost for Stadia, and keep the XBL/PS+ cost, or drop both of them. Either way the price of the consoles come out on top. You also ignored the cost of losing games you paid for, as well as the inability to resell them. And let's be honest, losing games you paid for is inevitable, when it comes to a streaming service. There's no speculation there. 

At this point I am pretty sure that you have the clear goal to arrive at the conclusion that consoles are cheaper.

As for losing games, there are games taken down from console marketplaces too. Lots of people buy digital console games which can't be resold. You use a very subjective perspective for your analyses when the concerns you raise don't look like concerns for what will soon be a majority of PS and Xbox consumers. Digital ratios of game sales have been steadily growing and are commonly exceeding 30% by now while online multiplayer games are approaching 50% already. That's a trend of proper game ownership ceasing to be an important factor, so Stadia doesn't face a significant disadvantage here.

Yes, yes, when you lose an argument be sure to claim your opponent is some sort of villain. I appreciate you leaving my arguments unrefuted though. :P

Digital =/= streaming access to a game. Being taken down from a console marketplace =/= being removed from stadia. The console games that were taken down can still be played by people that had them in their HDD prior to the game being delisted. 

Online multiplayer games are approaching 50%? Of what? Revenue? Total game sales? Are mobile games excluded or included in that number? Are Mobas, and MMOs included? Are we going to count Fortnite, and other free 2 play games? What percentage of this number is sports titles, or revenue from MTX in sports titles that get released yearly? How are we counting games that have both a multiplayer element, and a single player campaign of at least 10-15 hours? Do they belong in the multiplayer section, or the single player section? 

Source? 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 28 June 2019