Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
downzy

Google's New Gaming Streaming Service: Stadia

Recommended Posts

Google is jumping into the gaming world with its online gaming platform Stadia.

More information here: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-stadia-puts-xbox-one-playstation-4-on-notice/

It would be nice not having to pay a car payment for a gaming box.  If they price this right, have enough industry support, and it performs the way it says it will, I think it could be a viable challenge to Sony and Microsoft.  Nintendo will be Nintendo (and in my opinion, that's unfortunate; wish they'd become a software company and get out of hardware).  

I only play a game or two a year so this will be something I look at going forward.  I recall the company OnLive trying to do this years ago but it never lived up to the hype.  I'm assuming Google will have a better shot at making an on-demand streaming gaming platform work.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want Nintendo to continue doing hardware. 

I have unlimited fibre internet(although hampered by NZ's distance to the rest of the world) but the infrastructure simply isn't there yet to achieve this - which when, not if but when, this becomes feasible will ruin the games industry even more, you won't own any of your purchases, they'll do things like expiry dates on games to force you to buy the new one, internet cut outs etc. I for one have zero interest in this.

Steam and Nintendo all the way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"to each their own, said the farmer and he kissed a cow"

never paid for any streaming service (be it music, series or games), and never will.

also, nintendo should above all keep being nintendo, which includes hardware and software. focus on gameplay and not on graphics and story.

I haven't had as much fun with a console since the N64, as with the switch.

Seeing how the industry is increasingly turning into corporate cancer, I'm glad the nintendo switch offers an alternative to these exhausting business practises.

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you factored how much you pay for gaming a once a month like Netflix fee would be very appealing.  

Sorry, not going to give Nintendo $300-$500 to for the privilege to play a Mario and Zelda game.  Happy to buy one main console (in my case, Xbox One X) but will be even happier if in the future all I'm paying is $10-$20 a month for 4K, 60 frames per second games that use to cost $80 brand new to buy (in addition to the $10 a month free for online game play that Sony and Microsoft now charge).

If Rockstar jumps on board then Google has me hooked.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, downzy said:

I think you factored how much you pay for gaming a once a month like Netflix fee would be very appealing.  

Sorry, not going to give Nintendo $300-$500 to for the privilege to play a Mario and Zelda game.  Happy to buy one main console (in my case, Xbox One X) but will be even happier if in the future all I'm paying is $10-$20 a month for 4K, 60 frames per second games that use to cost $80 brand new to buy (in addition to the $10 a month free for online game play that Sony and Microsoft now charge).

If Rockstar jumps on board then Google has me hooked.  

At $20 a month every 2 years you could buy a brand new console and actually own them. You'll own nothing.

How's the internet in Canadia anyway, do you all have fibre?

I hope the industry doesn't become even more of a cynical, corporate clusterfuck in my lifetime. But if it does I'll just stick to the classics. Not owning my purchases and having VR hooked to bionic implants isn't my cup of tea lol.

Edited by Oldest Goat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

At $20 a month every 2 years you could buy a brand new console and actually own them. You'll own nothing.

How's the internet in Canadia anyway, do you all have fibre?

I hope the industry doesn't become even more of a cynical, corporate clusterfuck in my lifetime. But if it does I'll just stick to the classics. Not owning my purchases and having VR hooked to bionic implants isn't my cup of tea lol.

I don't see it being $20 a month, considering Xbox Gamepass currently costs $10 a month.  And this is Google, they can afford to lose money in the first 5-10 years to get the service off the ground by making it a loss leader.

Also consider that most streaming services don't require a long term contract.  I know several people who cancel their Netflix subscriptions when they have watched everything they want to watch and sign up again when new content they're interested in is added.  I could very well see myself doing something similar.  

I only play 2-3 games a year.  If you do the math, that's $500 for the console, $270 for three new games (in Canada they're priced at $80, plus tax), $70 a year for Xbox Live, plus $120 a year for Game Pass.  That's $500 for the initial console, plus another $190 minimum a year if you don't buy or play any game that's not included in Game Pass.  Or if you prefer to own, that's a minimum of $340 per year for three AAA titles and an Xbox Live Gold membership to play online.  

Now $10-$20 a month for a streaming service starts looking like a much better value (assuming the quality and quantity of content is there).  

As for owning, I'm more into utility.  Everyone is different, but personally I never play a game again once I'm done.  So owning a game isn't that important to me.  It's not as though those games are worth much after you're done playing them anyway.  

Yes, we have fibre, but not in all areas.  We just moved and our new spot is getting fibre later this year (we get 50 mb/s download speeds so enough to stream 4K content).  Most major cities are all wired up.  Google did announce that Strata would be available in Canada at launch, so I guess they think our internet pipes are capable to handle the demand.

What I don't understand is the allegiance to a company or hardware.  I love Nintendo games, but I see no reason why I have to buy a specific console to play a couple Nintendo games.  I do love the classics as well, but again, access to them can come in many forms, whether it be by owning or streaming.  Most gamers love Netflix and other streaming platforms but seem adverse to streaming video games.  Objectively it's making less and less sense to own when almost everything is available online for a small monthly fee.  But hey, that's just me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, downzy said:

I don't see it being $20 a month, considering Xbox Gamepass currently costs $10 a month.  And this is Google, they can afford to lose money in the first 5-10 years to get the service off the ground by making it a loss leader.

Also consider that most streaming services don't require a long term contract.  I know several people who cancel their Netflix subscriptions when they have watched everything they want to watch and sign up again when new content they're interested in is added.  I could very well see myself doing something similar.  

I only play 2-3 games a year.  If you do the math, that's $500 for the console, $270 for three new games (in Canada they're priced at $80, plus tax), $70 a year for Xbox Live, plus $120 a year for Game Pass.  That's $500 for the initial console, plus another $190 minimum a year if you don't buy or play any game that's not included in Game Pass.  Or if you prefer to own, that's a minimum of $340 per year for three AAA titles and an Xbox Live Gold membership to play online.  

Now $10-$20 a month for a streaming service starts looking like a much better value (assuming the quality and quantity of content is there).  

As for owning, I'm more into utility.  Everyone is different, but personally I never play a game again once I'm done.  So owning a game isn't that important to me.  It's not as though those games are worth much after you're done playing them anyway.  

Yes, we have fibre, but not in all areas.  We just moved and our new spot is getting fibre later this year (we get 50 mb/s download speeds so enough to stream 4K content).  Most major cities are all wired up.  Google did announce that Strata would be available in Canada at launch, so I guess they think our internet pipes are capable to handle the demand.

What I don't understand is the allegiance to a company or hardware.  I love Nintendo games, but I see no reason why I have to buy a specific console to play a couple Nintendo games.  I do love the classics as well, but again, access to them can come in many forms, whether it be by owning or streaming.  Most gamers love Netflix and other streaming platforms but seem adverse to streaming video games.  Objectively it's making less and less sense to own when almost everything is available online for a small monthly fee.  But hey, that's just me.  

To each their own I guess. It wouldn't really bother me at all if it was just an option in the future but it will become the only option eventually, hopefully not anytime soon. You get 50mb/s? That's pretty good, do you ever have to buffer Netflix? I was going to say I get 5mb/s but just tested and it says 38mb/s download and 14mb/s upload. We're supposed to have a giant cable going across the Pacific ocean connecting us to America to solve the distance issue but I don't know wtf is happening with that.

In the future even MyGNR will be streamed. Also, there'll be no drinking water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it all boils down to the age-old choice between renting and buying

streaming services are "like" renting since they are service based.

But unlike with, say, renting a house or renting a car, a streaming service can take away your games without notice. Clever lawyers will have made sure this is implemented in the small text.

so in a way, a streaming service is more like having a haircut. It's very volatile. at least with renting a house, you can't be forced out of the house whenever the owner feels like it. There are very stringent rules on this.

Wit streaming services, you basically pay money for the possibility to play a game. But don't expect your favorite game to be on there, tomorrow.

if you don't play that many games, like @downzy, then I can see paying 300 $ for a console is too much, and a streaming service can have it's appeal.

but if you're a retro-collector, like me, and playing games is your number one hobby since school, then there are all sorts of boxes that streaming service do not tick.

but I want to have the option and choice to make for myself. if hardware disapeared, then I don't care since I have a huuuuuge retro backlog with great games. the joke is on the companies who will lose a customer

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, action said:

it all boils down to the age-old choice between renting and buying

streaming services are "like" renting since they are service based.

But unlike with, say, renting a house or renting a car, a streaming service can take away your games without notice. Clever lawyers will have made sure this is implemented in the small text.

so in a way, a streaming service is more like having a haircut. It's very volatile. at least with renting a house, you can't be forced out of the house whenever the owner feels like it. There are very stringent rules on this.

Wit streaming services, you basically pay money for the possibility to play a game. But don't expect your favorite game to be on there, tomorrow.

if you don't play that many games, like @downzy, then I can see paying 300 $ for a console is too much, and a streaming service can have it's appeal.

but if you're a retro-collector, like me, and playing games is your number one hobby since school, then there are all sorts of boxes that streaming service do not tick.

but I want to have the option and choice to make for myself. if hardware disapeared, then I don't care since I have a huuuuuge retro backlog with great games. the joke is on the companies who will lose a customer

Yeah I'm not even a collector but frankly there's so much already there's plenty of quality for the rest of our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be swaying a little off subject here but the problem I have with Nintendo is there lack of new exclusives.

 

There are only so many times I can play Mario Party and Metro they seem to be all out of fresh ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

Might be swaying a little off subject here but the problem I have with Nintendo is there lack of new exclusives.

 

There are only so many times I can play Mario Party and Metro they seem to be all out of fresh ideas.

nintendo games are much fun. Me, and my family have spend many hours enjoying their games.

breath of the wild: sets the new standard for open world games. No loading when entering buildings, climeable surfaces, complex physics 

arms: fresh take on the fighter genre

splatoon: fresh take on the online shooter genre

labo: a little bit too creative, not my cup of tea but it's certainly fresh

You've got your mario karts and 2d mario games that offer hours of single and couch-multiplayer fun

nintendo games are not about being the next "cool thing" on the schoolground, for two weeks. They are about lasting fun and having a good time. that's why nintendo games never drop in price, and retro nintendo games are highly sought after.

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

Maybe when my kids older I will enjoy it more 

if you have a wii laying around gathering dust: don't throw it away! so glad I've kept mine all these years (played it a couple of times and quickly got bored), unplayed in the box and still pristine.

I've had golden moments with my son of 6 playing wii sports. tennis, baseball, golf, bowling....

I never imagined the wii having a top spot under my television in 2019, but here we are.

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, action said:

it all boils down to the age-old choice between renting and buying

streaming services are "like" renting since they are service based.

But unlike with, say, renting a house or renting a car, a streaming service can take away your games without notice. Clever lawyers will have made sure this is implemented in the small text.

so in a way, a streaming service is more like having a haircut. It's very volatile. at least with renting a house, you can't be forced out of the house whenever the owner feels like it. There are very stringent rules on this.

Wit streaming services, you basically pay money for the possibility to play a game. But don't expect your favorite game to be on there, tomorrow.

if you don't play that many games, like @downzy, then I can see paying 300 $ for a console is too much, and a streaming service can have it's appeal.

but if you're a retro-collector, like me, and playing games is your number one hobby since school, then there are all sorts of boxes that streaming service do not tick.

but I want to have the option and choice to make for myself. if hardware disapeared, then I don't care since I have a huuuuuge retro backlog with great games. the joke is on the companies who will lose a customer

It doesn't have to be an either or proposition.  Xbox Gamepass allows people to buy the game if they wish to retain the ability to play it forever.  

I think it's possible for the new Google service to allow both a subscription and purchase model.  You pay $10 a month to stream available games and pay a discounted rate to own games should the streaming rights end at some point.  It might actually entice more developers to release their games on Google's service since there's the possibility of getting paid twice for the same product.

I would say that gamers like yourself are in the minority.  Most gamers are probably not playing old games.  I loved Super Mario Bros 1-3, but I haven't played any of them in decades even after buying the NES and SNES classic.  Both those mini systems got turned on a couple of times and now just collect dust.  I also don't see why Nintendo can't license their back catalogue to Strata.  Think how much better it would be for consumers to only have to pay $10 a month to play old Nintendo games and not have to buy a new console every four to five years.  It's reported that Nintendo makes very little to no money on the game console itself.  Again, I don't understand why we stick to this business model if current technology allows for better access with lower cost barriers for consumers?  Think of how many more people would be playing games if they didn't have to fork over $300-$500 for a game console?  I would love to play Breath of the Wild or Mario Odyssey, not to mention a few games that came out on the Wii U, but not if I have to spend the money to buy the machine.  

Most adult gamers don't have the time or resources to play a lot.  If I can slice out a little time to play, it's going to be something new that I haven't played before.  In the last 12 months I've played Wolfenstein II, Forza Horizon 2, and RDR2.  I have Far Cry 5 and the recent Call of Duty game, but both are still in their packaging as I haven't had time to play either.  A lot of my friends are in the same boat, with many just having time to play the latest iteration of Madden or NHL.  It's a lot of money to play only a couple of games a year.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 1:17 PM, downzy said:

It doesn't have to be an either or proposition.  Xbox Gamepass allows people to buy the game if they wish to retain the ability to play it forever.  

I think it's possible for the new Google service to allow both a subscription and purchase model.  You pay $10 a month to stream available games and pay a discounted rate to own games should the streaming rights end at some point.  It might actually entice more developers to release their games on Google's service since there's the possibility of getting paid twice for the same product.

I would say that gamers like yourself are in the minority.  Most gamers are probably not playing old games.  I loved Super Mario Bros 1-3, but I haven't played any of them in decades even after buying the NES and SNES classic.  Both those mini systems got turned on a couple of times and now just collect dust.  I also don't see why Nintendo can't license their back catalogue to Strata.  Think how much better it would be for consumers to only have to pay $10 a month to play old Nintendo games and not have to buy a new console every four to five years.  It's reported that Nintendo makes very little to no money on the game console itself.  Again, I don't understand why we stick to this business model if current technology allows for better access with lower cost barriers for consumers?  Think of how many more people would be playing games if they didn't have to fork over $300-$500 for a game console?  I would love to play Breath of the Wild or Mario Odyssey, not to mention a few games that came out on the Wii U, but not if I have to spend the money to buy the machine.  

Most adult gamers don't have the time or resources to play a lot.  If I can slice out a little time to play, it's going to be something new that I haven't played before.  In the last 12 months I've played Wolfenstein II, Forza Horizon 2, and RDR2.  I have Far Cry 5 and the recent Call of Duty game, but both are still in their packaging as I haven't had time to play either.  A lot of my friends are in the same boat, with many just having time to play the latest iteration of Madden or NHL.  It's a lot of money to play only a couple of games a year.  

I've been looking at this Stadia thing just recently.  I think streaming is 100% the future of gaming, but I don't think this is going to be the game changer just yet.

 

The concept is perfect, never have to buy hardware again.  I agree with you that it isn't a cut and dry ownership thing, and the fact that everyone has or is about to roll out streaming services will get people on board with the concept in the next few years.  I think the only thing holding it back ATM is internet capability.  I was reading that the majority of the US doesn't have the bandwidth required to play at 4k (apparently the UK has way better internet... bastards) and that will be a roadblock with a large part of the gaming community that is hung up on visual fidelity.  For me, the final nail in the coffin is the inherent lag.  By all accounts, it's enough to make any competitive games a tad too frustrating.

 

It's greatest boon, not having to buy new hardware is not an issue for me personally, but I can see a lot of kids jumping on board with this, hardcore gamers though?  Not with the next consoles right around the corner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

I think the only thing holding it back ATM is internet capability.  I was reading that the majority of the US doesn't have the bandwidth required to play at 4k

Can you share this article?  

I've read the opposite.  The average download speed in America is roughly 93 mb/s.  Google recommends a download speed of 35 mb/s and upload of 10 mb/s.  

Where I live we only get 15 mb/s and we're able to stream 4K movies from Netflix.  I've heard 25 mb/s is needed for 4k streaming, but we've gotten by with less somehow.  

Granted, internet speeds vary depending by region.  But 80 percent of Americans live in an urban area, which means in a country of 323 million people, 258 million people likely have access to internet speeds fast enough to support the service.

Ultimately, I doubt Google, Microsoft, and Sony would be investing in and rolling out streaming gaming services if they felt few would be able to enjoy the service.  I think there will be enough people living in areas that provide fast enough internet speeds to make this presently viable.  It's unlikely to take over the gaming industry in the next few years but this will likely be a long-term bet/strategy with eyes on profitability and mass usage 5 - 10 years down the road.  

Internet speeds will become irrelevant to these kinds of online activities in five years anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×