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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Google's Stadia Streaming Service Launches Next Month - Will You Be Using It?

 

Google's Stadia Streaming Service Launches Next Month - Will You Be Using It?

Yes, at launch 14 1.27%
 
Probably, but not at launch 50 4.53%
 
Undecided 50 4.53%
 
Probably not 136 12.33%
 
No, not interested at all 846 76.70%
 
Other 7 0.63%
 
Total:1,103
CuCabeludo said:
VAMatt said:
I will definitely give it a shot, but not until I can do so without a big, upfront purchase. The idea of game streaming is very attractive to me. I'm not sure that the tech is really ready yet though. I definitely want to check it out though.

For what it's worth, I'm more.excited about MS' streaming offerings. Not only does XCloud sound better to me, but MS is a much bigger player in both cloud computing and gaming. So, they should be better positioned to deliver a good service.

Specwise stadia wins, xcloud runs xbox one s hardware, a tester posted a video showing it on a phone, played Gears 5, the latency is unnoticeable, but the stream was just 720P/30FPS. The free version of Stadia will offer 1080p@60FPS games.

It's all essentially theoretical right now.  Controlled tests and all.  But, I'm happy to see competition in the space, and I hope both succeed.  I'm just saying, if I had to bet on one of them, my money'd be on MS.  



Around the Network
VAMatt said:
CuCabeludo said:

Specwise stadia wins, xcloud runs xbox one s hardware, a tester posted a video showing it on a phone, played Gears 5, the latency is unnoticeable, but the stream was just 720P/30FPS. The free version of Stadia will offer 1080p@60FPS games.

It's all essentially theoretical right now.  Controlled tests and all.  But, I'm happy to see competition in the space, and I hope both succeed.  I'm just saying, if I had to bet on one of them, my money'd be on MS.  

He was playing at his home Gears 5 with his phone. he took down the video because MS still doesn't allow it being streamed.



About 0% interested.



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."

CuCabeludo said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

You don't get it. Most people just care if the games are free with a $10 a month subscription. By the time PS5/Scarlett comes out 1080/60 will be as outdated as 720/60. PS Now and Gamepass will allow you to download your games directly to the hardware. No streaming required. If given the choice between paying $60 a pop for games on Stadia, and just paying $10 a month plus the cost of hardware most people will choose the option that gets them hundreds of games for $10 a month. 

That's the problem you can't play the games on a phone or low-end PC, you need a gaming PC or xbox/scarlett.

You can bet that whenever it is financially interesting to put PSNow on phone they will.



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."

Cerebralbore101 said:
CuCabeludo said:

Cheaper than just buy a game and right after that stream in 1080P@60FPS in any device you already have, using any controller you already have or keyborad and mouse, without paying any subscritpion whatsoever?

Short term just buying a game on Stadia for $60 without the need for hardware would be cheaper. Long term buying a console and subbing to either PS Now or Gamepass would be cheaper. 

You have a choice between buying a $400 - $500 console and paying $5-$15 a month for access to hundreds of games, or paying $30 to $60 on a game by game basis with Stadia. 

Even if you are the average consumer buying 2.5 games a year, a console + subscription service is the better deal. For example...

John gets Stadia pays $10 a month for the 4K and buys 2.5 games a year for an average price of $40 per game. (John waits for sales on games.) After seven years John has paid $840 for Stadia Pro and $700 for his 18 games. His average price per game is $85 after the cost of Stadia Pro. 

Steve gets an XB Scarrlett for $500. He then subscribes to Gamepass Ultimate for $15 a month. After seven years Steve has paid $1260 for Gamepass Ultimate, and $0 for actual games. Steve has access to hundreds of games. Assuming Steve manages to play only 100 games over these seven years his average price per game is $17.60, after factoring in the cost of Gamepass Ultimate and the Scarrlette console ($1260 + $500 divided by 100 games.) 

Both Stadia Pro and PSN/XBL offer free games, so these cancel each other out, and don't factor into this comparison. 

If Google ever gives up on Stadia (which they most likely will) John is out $700 in games that he now has no access to. 

Even if Steve buys a few games every year for full price digital download his average price per game would still never get close to the insane $85 per game cost of Stadia. 

As this comparison shows Stadia is a rip off compared to Gamepass + a Scarrlette, or a slightly improved PS Now + a PS5. 

You compared the price per game of someone playing 100 games over 7 years to someone playing 2.5 games per year over 7 years (17.5 games).  If dude wants to play 15 big games, plus 85 cheap games (such as most of the games available on Gamepass and PS Now) on Stadia, his average price would be far, far lower.  That would be a more reasonable comparison.  

Also, Stadia will be available without a monthly subscription.  That changes the math substantially.  

Finally, even if the average price per game is lower over a seven year period, that doesn't take into account the time value of money.  That $500 upfront purchase is a different animal than an occasional outlay for a game, or even a monthly subscription. 

Then there's the fact that Stadia doesn't bind one to a console. The Stadia player can fire up his games at his friend's house, in his hotel room, etc.  That's a lot harder to do with a console.  So, there's really no comparison in terms of convenience.  And, as a lifelong gamer myself, this is where I see appeal in streaming services. I don't need to buy consoles for every TV in my house to be able to game in any room.  I don't need to miss out on gaming when I'm traveling, etc.  



Around the Network
VAMatt said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Short term just buying a game on Stadia for $60 without the need for hardware would be cheaper. Long term buying a console and subbing to either PS Now or Gamepass would be cheaper. 

You have a choice between buying a $400 - $500 console and paying $5-$15 a month for access to hundreds of games, or paying $30 to $60 on a game by game basis with Stadia. 

Even if you are the average consumer buying 2.5 games a year, a console + subscription service is the better deal. For example...

John gets Stadia pays $10 a month for the 4K and buys 2.5 games a year for an average price of $40 per game. (John waits for sales on games.) After seven years John has paid $840 for Stadia Pro and $700 for his 18 games. His average price per game is $85 after the cost of Stadia Pro. 

Steve gets an XB Scarrlett for $500. He then subscribes to Gamepass Ultimate for $15 a month. After seven years Steve has paid $1260 for Gamepass Ultimate, and $0 for actual games. Steve has access to hundreds of games. Assuming Steve manages to play only 100 games over these seven years his average price per game is $17.60, after factoring in the cost of Gamepass Ultimate and the Scarrlette console ($1260 + $500 divided by 100 games.) 

Both Stadia Pro and PSN/XBL offer free games, so these cancel each other out, and don't factor into this comparison. 

If Google ever gives up on Stadia (which they most likely will) John is out $700 in games that he now has no access to. 

Even if Steve buys a few games every year for full price digital download his average price per game would still never get close to the insane $85 per game cost of Stadia. 

As this comparison shows Stadia is a rip off compared to Gamepass + a Scarrlette, or a slightly improved PS Now + a PS5. 

You compared the price per game of someone playing 100 games over 7 years to someone playing 2.5 games per year over 7 years (17.5 games).  If dude wants to play 15 big games, plus 85 cheap games (such as most of the games available on Gamepass and PS Now) on Stadia, his average price would be far, far lower.  That would be a more reasonable comparison.  

Also, Stadia will be available without a monthly subscription.  That changes the math substantially.  

Finally, even if the average price per game is lower over a seven year period, that doesn't take into account the time value of money.  That $500 upfront purchase is a different animal than an occasional outlay for a game, or even a monthly subscription. 

Then there's the fact that Stadia doesn't bind one to a console. The Stadia player can fire up his games at his friend's house, in his hotel room, etc.  That's a lot harder to do with a console.  So, there's really no comparison in terms of convenience.  And, as a lifelong gamer myself, this is where I see appeal in streaming services. I don't need to buy consoles for every TV in my house to be able to game in any room.  I don't need to miss out on gaming when I'm traveling, etc.  

Average price certainly would fall (and he considered 40USD per game instead of 60), but list the 85 games he would buy and price to include in the total amount expended versus PSNow "game netflix".

Money is still money upfront or not, but if you want to make a present value comparison please do it and show us the difference.

The amount you are willing to pay more, get less performance, just for the occasional time you want to play elsewhere is quite different than most people in 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."

DonFerrari said:
VAMatt said:

You compared the price per game of someone playing 100 games over 7 years to someone playing 2.5 games per year over 7 years (17.5 games).  If dude wants to play 15 big games, plus 85 cheap games (such as most of the games available on Gamepass and PS Now) on Stadia, his average price would be far, far lower.  That would be a more reasonable comparison.  

Also, Stadia will be available without a monthly subscription.  That changes the math substantially.  

Finally, even if the average price per game is lower over a seven year period, that doesn't take into account the time value of money.  That $500 upfront purchase is a different animal than an occasional outlay for a game, or even a monthly subscription. 

Then there's the fact that Stadia doesn't bind one to a console. The Stadia player can fire up his games at his friend's house, in his hotel room, etc.  That's a lot harder to do with a console.  So, there's really no comparison in terms of convenience.  And, as a lifelong gamer myself, this is where I see appeal in streaming services. I don't need to buy consoles for every TV in my house to be able to game in any room.  I don't need to miss out on gaming when I'm traveling, etc.  

Average price certainly would fall (and he considered 40USD per game instead of 60), but list the 85 games he would buy and price to include in the total amount expended versus PSNow "game netflix".

Money is still money upfront or not, but if you want to make a present value comparison please do it and show us the difference.

The amount you are willing to pay more, get less performance, just for the occasional time you want to play elsewhere is quite different than most people in here.

I'm not willing to pay more for less performance.  I am only interested in paying less, or possible about the same amount for more convenience.  I see that Stadia (and other streaming services) may allow me to pay less.  Right now, I need at least two, preferably three consoles (not different platforms, but three XBs or PSs, for example) to hit most of the places I'd like to play. I wouldn't buy more than one at launch, which makes gaming even less convenient in the short run for me.  But, I'd pick up one or two more as prices drop.  So, let's say $1000 of consoles over the generation.  Then I have a $60 per year subscription to play online.  Then I have game purchases on top of that.  With Stadia, everything except the game purchase is eliminated.  Or, if I want to spend $10 a month for improved performance, it will take 8 years before I spend that $1000 that I would spend on consoles.  And, I still save the online game subscription.  After all of that savings, I have more convenience gaming too.  

I don't know how streaming is going to work out.  I plan to continue buying consoles for the foreseeable future.  But, I do see that streaming has potential to make gaming much more convenient, and possibly more affordable.  

I am also interested to see how Gamepass (and similar services) works cross-gen.  I already own two XBones.  So, if all games are cross-gen for a while, I could add just once Scarlett on my main gaming TV, then put the bones at the other TVs.  That would kind of give me the best of both worlds, without spending a ton of money.  



VAMatt said:
DonFerrari said:

Average price certainly would fall (and he considered 40USD per game instead of 60), but list the 85 games he would buy and price to include in the total amount expended versus PSNow "game netflix".

Money is still money upfront or not, but if you want to make a present value comparison please do it and show us the difference.

The amount you are willing to pay more, get less performance, just for the occasional time you want to play elsewhere is quite different than most people in here.

I'm not willing to pay more for less performance.  I am only interested in paying less, or possible about the same amount for more convenience.  I see that Stadia (and other streaming services) may allow me to pay less.  Right now, I need at least two, preferably three consoles (not different platforms, but three XBs or PSs, for example) to hit most of the places I'd like to play. I wouldn't buy more than one at launch, which makes gaming even less convenient in the short run for me.  But, I'd pick up one or two more as prices drop.  So, let's say $1000 of consoles over the generation.  Then I have a $60 per year subscription to play online.  Then I have game purchases on top of that.  With Stadia, everything except the game purchase is eliminated.  Or, if I want to spend $10 a month for improved performance, it will take 8 years before I spend that $1000 that I would spend on consoles.  And, I still save the online game subscription.  After all of that savings, I have more convenience gaming too.  

I don't know how streaming is going to work out.  I plan to continue buying consoles for the foreseeable future.  But, I do see that streaming has potential to make gaming much more convenient, and possibly more affordable.  

I am also interested to see how Gamepass (and similar services) works cross-gen.  I already own two XBones.  So, if all games are cross-gen for a while, I could add just once Scarlett on my main gaming TV, then put the bones at the other TVs.  That would kind of give me the best of both worlds, without spending a ton of money.  

So you have bought 3 PS4 or X1 to game? If not you are just making silly point to inflate something.

Per your post if you bought one PS4 at launch at 399 and one on a discount 199 how would that amount to 1000? Strange math over there. Online play sure you could pay 60USD, or use any of the regular discounts for under 39, not that it would make much difference anyway.

Your console management seems quite odd.

If you want to play 1080p30fps to avoid paying 10 bucks for subs, then you may as well not even go next gen since you already receive 1080p30fps this gen with plenty of games. If you are willing to compare the experience of the local console giving you pristine graphics at 4k versus 1080p30fps plus latency "for convenience" well enjoy yourself.

I'm pretty satisfied with my PS4 sitting on one TV and carrying it over when I travel and want to play, bought PS4Pro for added performance not because I needed to use on a different TV. My son have received the PS4 to play though.



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."

DonFerrari said:
VAMatt said:

I'm not willing to pay more for less performance.  I am only interested in paying less, or possible about the same amount for more convenience.  I see that Stadia (and other streaming services) may allow me to pay less.  Right now, I need at least two, preferably three consoles (not different platforms, but three XBs or PSs, for example) to hit most of the places I'd like to play. I wouldn't buy more than one at launch, which makes gaming even less convenient in the short run for me.  But, I'd pick up one or two more as prices drop.  So, let's say $1000 of consoles over the generation.  Then I have a $60 per year subscription to play online.  Then I have game purchases on top of that.  With Stadia, everything except the game purchase is eliminated.  Or, if I want to spend $10 a month for improved performance, it will take 8 years before I spend that $1000 that I would spend on consoles.  And, I still save the online game subscription.  After all of that savings, I have more convenience gaming too.  

I don't know how streaming is going to work out.  I plan to continue buying consoles for the foreseeable future.  But, I do see that streaming has potential to make gaming much more convenient, and possibly more affordable.  

I am also interested to see how Gamepass (and similar services) works cross-gen.  I already own two XBones.  So, if all games are cross-gen for a while, I could add just once Scarlett on my main gaming TV, then put the bones at the other TVs.  That would kind of give me the best of both worlds, without spending a ton of money.  

So you have bought 3 PS4 or X1 to game? If not you are just making silly point to inflate something.

Per your post if you bought one PS4 at launch at 399 and one on a discount 199 how would that amount to 1000? Strange math over there. Online play sure you could pay 60USD, or use any of the regular discounts for under 39, not that it would make much difference anyway.

Your console management seems quite odd.

If you want to play 1080p30fps to avoid paying 10 bucks for subs, then you may as well not even go next gen since you already receive 1080p30fps this gen with plenty of games. If you are willing to compare the experience of the local console giving you pristine graphics at 4k versus 1080p30fps plus latency "for convenience" well enjoy yourself.

I'm pretty satisfied with my PS4 sitting on one TV and carrying it over when I travel and want to play, bought PS4Pro for added performance not because I needed to use on a different TV. My son have received the PS4 to play though.

I do not have three of any console right now.   I have two XBones, as I said.  I only have one PS4.  This lack of a console on every TV is a big part of what makes me interested in streaming.  

My math is based on the expected $500 launch price of next gen systems.  I'm not inflating anything.  I'm using reasonable numbers to demonstrate how streaming may work well for some gamers.  

I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up over someone else having different gaming priorities than you.  Streaming services may be good options for some gamers, like me.  If you don't like streaming, don't buy it.  There will still be consoles, especially if streaming fails to deliver quality experiences.  So, I see no reason that anyone should dislike streaming as an option for people that are interested.  

I do not expect that streaming will replace local devices for me anytime soon.  I am hoping that streaming will supplement consoles, and add a new gaming option for me, and anyone else that's interested.



VAMatt said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Short term just buying a game on Stadia for $60 without the need for hardware would be cheaper. Long term buying a console and subbing to either PS Now or Gamepass would be cheaper. 

You have a choice between buying a $400 - $500 console and paying $5-$15 a month for access to hundreds of games, or paying $30 to $60 on a game by game basis with Stadia. 

Even if you are the average consumer buying 2.5 games a year, a console + subscription service is the better deal. For example...

John gets Stadia pays $10 a month for the 4K and buys 2.5 games a year for an average price of $40 per game. (John waits for sales on games.) After seven years John has paid $840 for Stadia Pro and $700 for his 18 games. His average price per game is $85 after the cost of Stadia Pro. 

Steve gets an XB Scarrlett for $500. He then subscribes to Gamepass Ultimate for $15 a month. After seven years Steve has paid $1260 for Gamepass Ultimate, and $0 for actual games. Steve has access to hundreds of games. Assuming Steve manages to play only 100 games over these seven years his average price per game is $17.60, after factoring in the cost of Gamepass Ultimate and the Scarrlette console ($1260 + $500 divided by 100 games.) 

Both Stadia Pro and PSN/XBL offer free games, so these cancel each other out, and don't factor into this comparison. 

If Google ever gives up on Stadia (which they most likely will) John is out $700 in games that he now has no access to. 

Even if Steve buys a few games every year for full price digital download his average price per game would still never get close to the insane $85 per game cost of Stadia. 

As this comparison shows Stadia is a rip off compared to Gamepass + a Scarrlette, or a slightly improved PS Now + a PS5. 

You compared the price per game of someone playing 100 games over 7 years to someone playing 2.5 games per year over 7 years (17.5 games).  If dude wants to play 15 big games, plus 85 cheap games (such as most of the games available on Gamepass and PS Now) on Stadia, his average price would be far, far lower.  That would be a more reasonable comparison.  

Also, Stadia will be available without a monthly subscription.  That changes the math substantially.  

Finally, even if the average price per game is lower over a seven year period, that doesn't take into account the time value of money.  That $500 upfront purchase is a different animal than an occasional outlay for a game, or even a monthly subscription. 

Then there's the fact that Stadia doesn't bind one to a console. The Stadia player can fire up his games at his friend's house, in his hotel room, etc.  That's a lot harder to do with a console.  So, there's really no comparison in terms of convenience.  And, as a lifelong gamer myself, this is where I see appeal in streaming services. I don't need to buy consoles for every TV in my house to be able to game in any room.  I don't need to miss out on gaming when I'm traveling, etc.  

Well I was trying to be generous to Stadia by only assuming the Gamepass user would have a value of 100 games. In reality there are hundreds of games on Gamepass and PSN. But sure let's assume our Stadia user is playing 15 big name games for $60 on release, and 85 $20 games. After the $10 monthly price of a 4K Stadia sub their average price per game would be $34.4. That's still higher than the Gamepass user's $17.60, and we haven't even factored in possible internet overage charges, or the cost of a Stadia Controller + Dongle. I intentionally left those two things out of the comparison because I wanted to give Stadia a favorable comparison. 

Also, Stadia will be available without a monthly subscription.  That changes the math substantially.  

Sure, but XBL and PS+ are optional too. And a 1080/60 with lag gaming experience isn't comparable to a 4K/30-60 gaming experience with no lag. It has to be a 1:1 comparison.  So I left Stadia Pro in. And again, to give Stadia a leg up I left XBL or PS+ in as well. You need Stadia Pro to do 4K. You don't need PS+ or XBL to do 4K. 


Finally, even if the average price per game is lower over a seven year period, that doesn't take into account the time value of money.  That $500 upfront purchase is a different animal than an occasional outlay for a game, or even a monthly subscription. 

Sure thing. Let's assume somebody put the $500 they saved into stocks that gave a 5% return per year. After inflation and seven years of interest that $500 would be worth about $700. And a used console even from last gen usually sells for $100. So there's a time to value difference of $100. But you're also saving money from gamepass and we would have to account for the time value of not paying $34.4 on average per game (and instead paying $17.60 on average.) 

I think the ability to play anywhere is overvalued. But that's subjective so I'll leave it alone. I'd like this conversation to be about the value of Stadia vs the value of Gamepass Ultimate + Scarrlett and/or PS Now + PS5. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 18 October 2019