"Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it" • Hacker News Board

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#81

Post by alpaca128 » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

ArmandGrillet wrote: post #36

I want Stadia. I've read reviews yesterday and was amazed by the lack of a long term vision from the reviewers. If Google doesn't drop the ball (which is a huge if knowing the company's history), Stadia makes a lot of sense. I want to play Red Dead Redemption 2, the cheapest way to do that as I don't have a console nor an expensive computer is Stadia. And when I will want to play Cyberpunk 2077, Stadia will be the ch…

It's not a Netflix for games if you still have to buy every game individually. It's like every other console except you always have more input delay in exchange for not paying any hardware.

For me the important question is: will the game pricing be comparable with Steam or more with PSN etc.? Considering Sony still asks almost full price for some 8 year old games the pricing can make a huge difference.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#82

Post by mping » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

ArmandGrillet wrote: post #36

I want Stadia. I've read reviews yesterday and was amazed by the lack of a long term vision from the reviewers. If Google doesn't drop the ball (which is a huge if knowing the company's history), Stadia makes a lot of sense. I want to play Red Dead Redemption 2, the cheapest way to do that as I don't have a console nor an expensive computer is Stadia. And when I will want to play Cyberpunk 2077, Stadia will be the ch…

Netflix is a good comparison because google will need to secure rights for AAA games, and some games don't appear in all platforms.

Fortunately, a user can install Steam/GOG/Origin whatever and just pay for a single game, unlike video streaming platforms.

In terms of pricing, 9$99 for 4K/60Hz games is 120$/y; if you buy two AAA games (around 59$) it's already the same price, so in the end the appeal is NOT having a beefy computer to play whatever game you'd like. My guess is that hardcore games will have their own PCs, console gamers prefer TVs but the "casual" gamer may be attracted depending on the catalog of games.

edit: it seems you have to buy most of the games too? So google is basically renting a gaming PC with a higher latency.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#83

Post by Eridrus » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

ArmandGrillet wrote: post #36

I want Stadia. I've read reviews yesterday and was amazed by the lack of a long term vision from the reviewers. If Google doesn't drop the ball (which is a huge if knowing the company's history), Stadia makes a lot of sense. I want to play Red Dead Redemption 2, the cheapest way to do that as I don't have a console nor an expensive computer is Stadia. And when I will want to play Cyberpunk 2077, Stadia will be the ch…

I think cost is what people are missing: Stadia hardware is much cheaper than consoles now, and when the next generation of consoles come out, they will be even more expensive, but Stadia will be the same cheap price.

"Gamers" might not care about this, but parents buying their kids consoles definitely will.

Obviously this is predicated on Google sorting out the content situation, but if you look at the Education/Chromebook market you can clearly see the vision of cheap hardware with most of the processing on servers already succeeding in a market that cares about cost.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#84

Post by choppaface » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

ArmandGrillet wrote: post #36

I want Stadia. I've read reviews yesterday and was amazed by the lack of a long term vision from the reviewers. If Google doesn't drop the ball (which is a huge if knowing the company's history), Stadia makes a lot of sense. I want to play Red Dead Redemption 2, the cheapest way to do that as I don't have a console nor an expensive computer is Stadia. And when I will want to play Cyberpunk 2077, Stadia will be the ch…

What about OnLive? oh ...

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#85

Post by edent » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

archie2 wrote: post #48

The original iPhone was not a product that existed because people "wanted it". It existed because Jobs had a vision - and he was effective at convincing people that they actually did want it. Stadia unfortunately misses the mark on the second part due to sloppy implementation and just boneheaded PR. I think game streaming can be viable - but I doubt Google will be the one to crack this nut. My money is on Microsoft w…

That's an interesting look at history. The original iPhone was a synthesis of existing phones. People who wanted a touchscreen had a SE p900, people who wanted a decent camera got an N95, people who wanted a decent web browser installed Opera - and so on.

The iPhone succeeded (eventually) because it looked at what a diverse group of people wanted and (eventually) put the best features in one package.

Regarding Stadia - there are a huge number of gamers who buy fewer than 2 games per year. An expensive console is a turn-off for them. There are a huge number of gamers who want to play every single game - subscriptions are their saviour. Stadia could - eventually - bring together what a diverse group of gamers want.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#86

Post by SparkyMcUnicorn » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

tikkabhuna wrote: post #60

EugeneOZ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With such latency we would have 0 online shooters. But we have a lot of them.

There is a bunch of tricks that go into the netcode though. A slight delay on hit recognition is noticeable and sometimes annoying, but movement can be silky smooth. With Stadia, wouldn't that latency open you up to input lag?

I've used Parsec. It's not perfect, but better than a low to mid-range gaming machine. The input delay isn't as much of a problem as bandwidth, but it could definitely be improved. The problems arise when setting it to 120+ FPS.

60FPS works surprisingly well, and for single player games you probably wouldn't even notice the input delay.

Stadia is most likely much more optimized.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#87

Post by edna314 » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

ArmandGrillet wrote: post #36

I want Stadia. I've read reviews yesterday and was amazed by the lack of a long term vision from the reviewers. If Google doesn't drop the ball (which is a huge if knowing the company's history), Stadia makes a lot of sense. I want to play Red Dead Redemption 2, the cheapest way to do that as I don't have a console nor an expensive computer is Stadia. And when I will want to play Cyberpunk 2077, Stadia will be the ch…

This. Stadia is about convenience and price not about bringing a 'new' gaming experience with exclusive titles and what not. This will be the first time in over 10 years I will be able to play up to date games as it just doesn't make sense to me to buy hardware dedicated for gaming if it costs more than a chrome cast and a controller.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#88

Post by ben_jones » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #49

I read the article, but it feels like "don't build anything until you are sure users want X". The problem is that nobody knows what users actually want, especially when you build something new. And the market will keep throwing ideas in several directions until one day, an idea sticks and becomes successful. Like, no gamer in pre-Wii times "wanted to play hours standing with a motion controller". Nintendo released th…

If you're a serial entrepreneur trying to get rich, or maybe a corporate product manager trying to get a juicy bonus, ya you'll have no clue what the users want because you'll be forcing it. But if you are one of the users you are very much aware of what your problems are and what might solve them - even if you don't have whatever domain experience is necessary to solve them.

I agree with your overall point, that things are worth trying even if they don't inherently scream success. But that doesn't mean we need to try everything and abandon common sense at the door. In this case I don't think Stadia defies common sense, I think it defies consumer benefit: gamers should own the games they buy, freemium services powered by ads are dubious, and products which need to be advertised dishonestly to sell well probably shouldn't be sold at all.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#89

Post by OedipusRex » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

I said this in another thread about Stadia, the market for Stadia is vanishingly small. The people who have high enough internet speeds that either can't or won't get a "traditional" console or PC is extremely small. Too small to signal to Google that this is worth maintaining (https://killedbygoogle.com/).

For Stadia to survive, Google needs to bring in new "gamers", because existing "gamers" already have their own in-house platforms to play on. OnLive tried streaming games a few years ago (granted, without the Google advertising budget and infrastructure) and it was too unstable to play.

On top of all this, Stadia is going to have to either pony up and pay an existing company to include Stadia players in their online servers (Steam, Epic Games, etc) or silo all the Stadia players together. The first time input lag causes you to lose a fight is the day you cancel your subscription. "Gamers" are not very forgiving.

It's a terrible idea that was built because Google can build it (as stated in article). It may live on with a cult following but I highly doubt it.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#90

Post by ender7 » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

danielrpa wrote: post #39

eternalny1 wrote: post #14

Stadia to me may not be ready yet, but I have no doubt in the future this is how we will be gaming. Once bandwidth is ubiquitous enough to stream 4K games at 60 FPS without having to INSTALL anything or even OWN A GAMING PC/CONSOLE, this is a no brainer. Why shell out for a new 2080TI card when you can just pay another month to Stadia and let them handle all the hardware to run Red Dead Redemption 2 at 4k 60 FPS? No…

I can see it running many games in "very good" frame rates and quality. But the economics don't make sense for Google if it tries to match the true high end PC configs. Once RDR2 is at 60fps, there will be other games pushing the envelope that won't be at 60fps on Stadia. Same applies to other consoles, of course... I'm saying that PC Gaming will still allow premium experiences for a while.

Console hardware is vastly underpowered compared to PCs and yet frequently competes with mid-tier graphics cards in terms of performance and graphics quality.

The reason is that game devs are able to optimize their games specifically for the GPUs in the console hardware. Google is presumably betting that if they get enough market share, devs will start to optimize for _their_ hardware, and reap similar rewards.