Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trolldefender99]

Seems Google really stepped up the quality as far as game streaming goes, especially for PC users who don't have much of a selection. However, like all streaming platforms, if you don't have unlimited bandwidth its not usable.

People ask who Google Stadia is for. And its for people like me. I have unlimited bandwidth because I'm on Google Fiber, which is actually really affordable compared to any other internet provider here. However what is not affordable is a PC upgrade. To upgrade my PC requires a new motherboard, new ram, new cpu and a new power supply. In total if I want a good quality upgrade I'd need to spend 800+ USD and I can't do that.

I have an i5 3.3 GHz CPU, btw its not a real i5 its only dual core. My motherboard only has DDR2 ram cause it can't support DDR3. I can't just do one upgrade sadly, I need to upgrade it all at once.

So that leads to Stadia. People on the internet have asked who its for, and its for exactly people like me and my situation.

Google stadia however is 129USD+tax+monthly fee (much much easier than upgrading my PC), but comes with games so I save money on buying games and I can also play high end games on my bad PC. I can also play it on mobile devices, tablets and what not which is really nice.

So I'm the target for their demographic and game streaming in general. And stadia looks like the best out of all of them, and has a nice initial lineup of games.

But what are your all thoughts? It does seem like its a niche market, so I dunno how well it will do. Stream gaming services haven't really done that well. But they are perfect for me. Sadly almost no one has unlimited bandwidth, so that is the massive limiting factor.

[BigD145]

It has failed so far. It only works with one piece of hardware "properly" and "as intended" thus far. The controller sucks. The games are lackluster. Almost every bulletpoint from before launch is 'coming eventually'. I'm expecting this to be added to the pile of things Google cancels. It's a very long list.

Games as a service is fine if you play a game for one to three weeks and then never touch it again. Also if the game is cheaper than full price, which they often are not. You're paying to rent or paying full price to not own a product you bought at 10 times a rental fee.

[Frumple]

Everything I've been hearing so far sounds like the launch is basically a gigantic clusterfuck, yeah. Notable and inconsistent lag even for people with solid connections, shallow (largely old-ish) game catalog that's substantially very much hostile to input delay, lots of features being said to come later, etc., etc., etc.

It's also notable that the fellow heading it has apparently sequentially flubbed project launches several times, with stadia just another not-exactly-feather in his cap.

Basically it doesn't sound to be going great.

Personally, I'm leery as fuck of streaming game services like stadia for similar reasons I'm leery of a lot of mmos or otherwise online-only services, so I'm... not exactly saddened by the development

[Trolldefender99]

Ah, shame that Stadia is off to a bad launch. I know a lot of people don't like games as a service, but for me game streaming is the future unless I somehow win the lottery lol. My PC can't even play red dead redemption 2 on minimum requirements, nor can it play Assassin's Creed Origins+Odyssey or many games. It even has trouble running Skyrim. So while its pretty much renting games, for me its a vastly better option than not being able play games at all.

Thats why I hope streaming games takes off, but sounds like google stadia isn't run by a competent leader sadly.

(edit: Though on the stadia reddit, a lot of people are happy with their purchase. Granted its a fan reddit for stadia, but there is positivity. Looks like a few others I've seen in my position. Have unlimited bandwidth, but can't afford a PC to play modern games.

(edit 2: Someone on facebook said he hopes I die for wanting more stream gaming and how I'm ruining gaming lol. I removed him as a friend, I only kinda knew him from school. But seems this is the position a lot of people are taking against game streaming. But no one seems to care about the people its intended for, those who can't afford a PC to play modern games. But stadia does look like it launched in a very rough state, but gamers on reddit, facebook and a couple other forums are attacking anyone that shows any positivity to Stadia. Makes me a little suspicious. At least here on bay12 its more accepting and friendly to others.

In any case, hopefully they work out the issues because game streaming is perfect for me.

[Folly]

I did the beta for Stadia and was very impressed with the technology. No lag back then, and no install times, no hard drive footprint - just connect and start playing full games instantly.

The lack of games at launch is killing it though.

[Trolldefender99]

I did the beta for Stadia and was very impressed with the technology. No lag back then, and no install times, no hard drive footprint - just connect and start playing full games instantly.

The lack of games at launch is killing it though.

Yeah even with their added games, its a little light. And pretty sure like Cyberpunk they have listed can't be played yet, I think they need to list that as "coming soon". Though what I am surprised about is Elder Scrolls Online is listed. Thats really rare for an MMO to be part of a stream service, don't think seen that before but maybe I just missed it.

[Kanil]

I think I'd have to move to a city in order to have acceptable ping times to play stuff on the service, and that sounds a lot more expensive than just buying a new computer every 5 years. Nevermind that Comcast gets pissy if I use more than 1 TB a month... which is both a lot, but also not enough for Stadia.

[Trolldefender99]

I think I'd have to move to a city in order to have acceptable ping times to play stuff on the service, and that sounds a lot more expensive than just buying a new computer every 5 years. Nevermind that Comcast gets pissy if I use more than 1 TB a month... which is both a lot, but also not enough for Stadia.

Yeah, this is the massive limitation tbh. Out of everything wrong with streaming its this since its such a niche audience. Most people don't have unlimited bandwidth. And the providers that do provide it as an option, its so expensive that you may as well buy a new PC instead. This is definitely where streaming fails, because a lot of people in every country don't get unlimited. I think streaming is too early to be successful because of this. While it benefits me personally because for me a PC is just too much to upgrade, it is VERY niche in its userbase. If I didn't have unlimited bandwidth, it be a waste of money and cost more in bandwidth fees than just buying a PC would. It sucks up bandwidth like crazy.

[nenjin]

Even though the current reality of software licenses already basically ensures we don't own our games, I am loathe to further that model by straight up renting games directly from publishers. This is their wet dream and I'm not interested in partaking. Sure it means people that don't own a PC or build one or keep it up to date can just jump right in, vastly increasing a game's potential buyer base. For those of us that do own PCs though, it is giving up a significant layer of control over our experience. If the internet just died tomorrow, I'd still have a hard drive full of games to play. Call it the "Desert Island" fallacy if you want, but I feel way better owning games I can play under many circumstances than renting games and being fully at the whim and will of the platform and publishers.

While a lot of this is in the realm of "probably would never happen", they can arbitrarily raise or lower prices, revoke access, make changes to gameplay you have no control over (even in single player games, bait and switches in MP online games are already the norm now), no modding, absolutely positively no possibility of resale, all with the technology firmly on their side and under their control.

With the world we live in today, that sounds like an even more shit deal just waiting to happen.

[Trolldefender99]

Even though the current reality of software licenses already basically ensures we don't own our games, I am loathe to further that model by straight up renting games directly from publishers. This is their wet dream and I'm not interested in partaking.

Since no one has responded about who its target audience is for. What about the people who can't afford a new PC to play modern games? No one cares about us who can't play modern games because upgrading a PC is too expensive. That is the audience its intended for is people like me, though made niche in that it needs unlimited bandwidth. It isn't for people who can just buy anything they want and always have a top end PC.

[nenjin]

Even though the current reality of software licenses already basically ensures we don't own our games, I am loathe to further that model by straight up renting games directly from publishers. This is their wet dream and I'm not interested in partaking.

Since no one has responded about who its target audience is for. What about the people who can't afford a new PC to play modern games? No one cares about us who can't play modern games because upgrading a PC is too expensive. That is the audience its intended for is people like me, though made niche in that it needs unlimited bandwidth. It isn't for people who can just buy anything they want and always have a top end PC.

This has been a reality in the console market forever. Can't afford to pay "X" for the console to get access to the games? Buy used or GTFO. Was that way since the first console was created, it's an upfront investment in the media. So from your side I can see the benefit, sure. And I don't think you should "die" as your ex-friend on Facebook said. But I do agree that your desire to play games without investing in the technology (and the subsequent personal level of control it affords), you are in a way eroding support for the market that does. If it's more profitable to stream games to everyone than distribute games to a subgroup of those gamers that own their own hardware, you are in a sense helping sell out that basic level of consumer freedom in terms of major AAA game publishing.

Obviously, there will always be people making games for PC hardware, much like consoles will probably always be a thing. But sorta like when mobile games go to the PC market and they just charge more "because PC users will pay it", I can easily see the same thing happening if game streaming really takes off. My sense is though that the internet bandwidth requirements will freeze out a ton of consumers (depending on their wealth and their ISP, a monopoly of sorts all it own), which kinds of brings us back to the same overall point: you need to have X amount of money to enjoy video games regardless of the medium you choose. I mean....the PC you can stream games to wasn't cheap either.

[Trolldefender99]

Even though the current reality of software licenses already basically ensures we don't own our games, I am loathe to further that model by straight up renting games directly from publishers. This is their wet dream and I'm not interested in partaking.

Since no one has responded about who its target audience is for. What about the people who can't afford a new PC to play modern games? No one cares about us who can't play modern games because upgrading a PC is too expensive. That is the audience its intended for is people like me, though made niche in that it needs unlimited bandwidth. It isn't for people who can just buy anything they want and always have a top end PC.

This has been a reality in the console market forever. Can't afford to pay "X" for the console to get access to the games? Buy used or GTFO. Was that way since the first console was created, it's an upfront investment in the media. So from your side I can see the benefit, sure. And I don't think you should "die" as your ex-friend on Facebook said. But I do agree that your desire to play games without investing in the technology (and the subsequent personal level of control it affords), you are in a way eroding support for the market that does. If it's more profitable to stream games to everyone than distribute games to a subgroup of those gamers that own their own hardware, you are in a sense helping sell out that basic level of consumer freedom in terms of major AAA game publishing.

Obviously, there will always be people making games for PC hardware, much like consoles will probably always be a thing. But sorta like when mobile games go to the PC market and they just charge more "because PC users will pay it", I can easily see the same thing happening if game streaming really takes off. My sense is though that the internet bandwidth requirements will freeze out a ton of consumers (depending on their wealth and their ISP, a monopoly of sorts all it own), which kinds of brings us back to the same overall point: you need to have X amount of money to enjoy video games regardless of the medium you choose. I mean....the PC you can stream games to wasn't cheap either.

Yeah I can see that. If streaming took off (but I don't see that happening with Stadia, too few have unlimited bandwidth) then people who don't want that are kinda forced into game streaming. Like, PC games used to be the big thing and then consoles took off so a lot of games got developed for them instead of PC. But then mobile games took off and that of course became a massive money making venture, which in a way screwed so many games with the loot box and microtransaction junk. All that really started with mobile games. And "funny" enough, reason mobile became so popular was for people who...couldn't afford PCs or even consoles. Besides the ease of accessing a mobile game from anywhere with wi-fi. So I'm just in a way saying the same thing a lot of mobile game users said, that it was cheaper and easier to play mobile games. Though of course mobile games nickle and dime you for everything lol, but that is what I read back when mobile games were taking off.

As for my PC, yeah it was like a 1.5k PC when I bought it. But I got it before amazon was really a thing, though it did exist. PC prices have gone down a lot actually, and black friday/holiday sales are pretty much the best time to buy a PC at all. So longterm, tbh upgrading my PC is more economical, and I'd get access to a ton more games. So stadia definitely is really niche, if anything else because you need unlimited bandwidth. Almost no one has unlimited bandwidth.

As for buying used games. I thought they did away with that with new consoles? Can you still buy used games in the console market? I know they tried stopping it cause companies didn't like it.

[nenjin]

The EU IIRC is still fighting for the right to re-sell with online distributors.

Also I don't think I know any gamer who just plays mobile games. Just saying. There is an issue of scale and the user experience with mobile that will forever set it apart from other kinds of games. It's not a replacement good, is what I'm saying. More of an accessory to the established gaming market, still, although that is changing and deeper, more fully fledged games are starting to come out for mobile. But nowhere near to the level that PC games are at. Even the best mobile developers claim poverty and the inability to get what they think their games are worth as the reason they are the size they are, not the tech or anything else. I remain a little unconvinced on that front, I think most mobile games as they stand are as much as you can expect from a mobile device.

And those still install to your device. TBH I'm sort of surprised we didn't see streaming in the mobile space before PCs.

[Folly]

Yeah, this is the massive limitation tbh. Out of everything wrong with streaming its this since its such a niche audience. Most people don't have unlimited bandwidth. And the providers that do provide it as an option, its so expensive that you may as well buy a new PC instead. This is definitely where streaming fails, because a lot of people in every country don't get unlimited. I think streaming is too early to be successful because of this. While it benefits me personally because for me a PC is just too much to upgrade, it is VERY niche in its userbase. If I didn't have unlimited bandwidth, it be a waste of money and cost more in bandwidth fees than just buying a PC would. It sucks up bandwidth like crazy.

Do you actually have any sources for these claims?
I could not find any statistics in a quick search, but I had been under the impression for a while now that unlimited data was very much the standard for home internet in most densely populated areas.
I also would not expect the bandwidth usage of streaming services to be as 'crazy' as you describe.

[Frumple]

Do you actually have any sources for these claims?
I could not find any statistics in a quick search, but I had been under the impression for a while now that unlimited data was very much the standard for home internet in most densely populated areas.
I also would not expect the bandwidth usage of streaming services to be as 'crazy' as you describe.

Can't be arsed to dig up where, but I've seen statement that stadia's bandwidth usage is about on par with netflix. Bit more, maybe, but not to a huge degree. Bandwidth isn't likely to be a huge issue outside of folks that are data capped, basically. Latency et al is the bigger damnation, there.