Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

threader.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 698 posts

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

#241

Post by pnutjam »

alpaca128 wrote: post #81
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.

Have you checked out the Xbox plus subscription, it includes PC games now.

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

#242

Post by rstupek »

akvadrako wrote: post #104
evervevdww221 wrote: post #47

I used to work on (the second generation) cloud gaming. It's very difficult to be profitable. Most people would think that the challenge is latency, streaming quality. But the real challenge is cost management. The cost can be easily as high as $2 per hour. At this rate, the monthly cost will buy you a decent computer or a console. It doesn't make sense. Plus, to make cloud gaming work, you have to own everything. Fr…

How does it make sense that a computer at home, with 5% utilization and retail power prices, can be less per hour than a computer with 50% utilization and wholesale power? Even if all you do is host single-user machines with retail games installed and some kind of imaging solution, it seems like it should pay off.

Because to run the service you have to pay for that 50% utilized computer and associated infrastructure where you don't when its someone else's?

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

#243

Post by skohan »

jcranberry wrote: post #195
Crinus wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the lack of a long term vision How about this for a long term vision: any game you buy now will be totally lost in the future ("long term") when Google decides to shut down the service (which happens all the time) or deactivate your account (which also happens all the time) while developers will have moved on and/or closed and wont give a second thought about. In the meanwhile, while Stadia exists, any games will b…

Movies still come out on disc even though netflix and streaming services in general have been very successful. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be the same with games.

Game developers would have more to gain from a streaming-only model:

1. It's expensive to develop for multiple platforms. If you can get people to buy into streaming, you theoretically have only one hardware target.

2. Streaming is more effective at enforcing DRM for games. You can make a recording of a movie you're playing on Netflix, but games would require remote execution which can't be copied.

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

#244

Post by durpleDrank »

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…

If Google starts renting games it's competition for other mass market paradigms. Buying digital downloads will be niche. I have a balls to the wall gaming PC and plenty of consoles, however, I don't want to spend 90$ every other week to see the hot new game everyone is talking about. $5 for a weekend rental is great for me (matches blockbusters old $4.75 weekend rental fee). A little lag won't be an issues especially considering most new games are story driven cakewalks anyway.

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

#245

Post by xemdetia »

jupp0r wrote: post #210
chrischen wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can play new AAA games on high with just a $150-$200 GPU. Every other piece of your computer doesn't really matter.

You do need a desktop to put the GPU into and the space in your house forever taken up by that rig. I'd rather sit in a comfy chair with my Macbook.

You can also buy a business laptop with an embedded Quaddro and have the same sit in the chair experience at that moderate graphics level without much difficulty. In a lot of ways some of the recent generations for Intel embedded graphics have been baseline requirements for many games (mostly driven by F2P and MMO games) and you don't even need a real GPU just to play vs. having a AAA ultrahigh setting experience. I mean if I can beat Dark Souls on a $300 staples laptop and enjoy the ride I don't see where these grandiose requirements are coming from.

If there were more PC exclusive games that were truly GPU required monsters I could see the point of Stadia, but as time has progressed most AAA games that end up targeting PC usually have a generous minimum requirement threshold, and often its so generous that most things can actually do the job. The only place where the GPUs have been really required in the last few years is the VR stuff which because of general latency of input/response for Stadia would probably cause a lot more motion sickness in people than a local system. Stadia's benefit is capturing the kind of user that doesn't care about quality (because if you did you'd just buy that tower), but those are the kind of users that would make do with what they already had anyway for cheap.

In my opinion this feels like the same slow death as OnLive, with even less benefit in knowing that OnLive's entire focus was on streaming gaming rather than Google who would put this product on ice in 3 years.

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

#246

Post by odessacubbage »

skybrian wrote: post #223
AlexandrB wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually the perfect comparison. I can still watch movies from the 1950s on various media. Good luck playing a Stadia exclusive in 2090 in any format. Treating games like a disposable commodity is short-sighted and undermines any claim the medium might have to being an art form.

This seems like a good argument against buying Stadia exclusives, but also against playing any MMO. It's a matter of degree, depending on the whims of the market and dedication of the emulator scene. Not all old movies or games are available. Not all art has survived. And apparently the old World of Warcraft is back?

quite a number of 'dead' mmos still have active and dedicated communities on private servers, smt imagine comes to mind. no stadia exclusive will have that longevity.

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

#247

Post by sjs382 »

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'm pretty much the perfect audience for Stadia.

I have three HDTVs on my house, none of which are 4K and I don't plan on upgrading unless one of them bites the dust. I imagine that I'll do most of my playing on my phone or at the office during lunchtime (in the browser), but it's nice to quickly "deploy" Stadia to each TV I have by attaching a $69 Chromecast Ultra.

I don't want "stuff" in my house in the form of game discs and consoles. I'm not a collector. I don't engage in a second-hand market. And I can't imagine myself in 10 years being nostalgic about games that i played in my 30s. I don't really care that I'm just "licensing" digital copies of games and that it might go away at some point.

Over the years I've occasionally seen a game that I might be interested in—I just want to be able to drop $50 on it and play half-way through until I lose interest.

Stadia gives me all of that. Maybe some day I'll get "serious" about gaming again and want a full-fledged console. In the mean time though, I'm happy to pay $80 for a controller and $10/month (until it's free) for Stadia.

If you consider yourself a "gamer", then there are definitely better options for you than Stadia. But for me, this is perfect.

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

#249

Post by touchpadder »

Someone1234 wrote: post #178
kyrra wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $129 starting bundle gives you a controller ($69), and a Chromecast Ultra ($69), which is... $138. Plus the bundle gives 3 months of "Stadia Pro" which is the 4k streaming support (plus other goodies). So the $129 is more of a starter bundle. If you just want to play on your phone or PC, it's free (outside the cost of buying games). You can plug a PS4 or XBox controller into your PC, or pair them with your phone…

Just to be clear the XBox One S for $150/$200 listed above also included a controller, it isn't just a bare console with no way to play on it. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

As an author of a browser game https://bad.city I noticed that over the last 5 years browser performance became 10x faster. The game currently works at 60fps, even on 2 year old Galaxy Note and has 0ms lag. With web workers and web assembly soon we'll see AAA games running in the browser on any device. No need to download 50gb game when you can progressively stream the 3d models in real time while playing and it will not depend on latency. It's already possible to run local wifi game servers on the phones.

I see Stadia working for casual games on smart TVs but not for any competitive gaming. This process creates too much lag: send controller input over the wire, render on server, compress 4k video, send over the wire to the client, decompress 4k video, display in the device

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

#250

Post by sjs382 »

perennate wrote: post #76
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 is the advantage of Stadia over NVIDIA GeForce NOW? I just learned today that Stadia requires games to be specifically developed for the platform, and you need to purchase a controller in order for the system to function. On the other hand, AFAIK, NVIDIA's product allows you to play most major Steam games that you own without requiring you to purchase a second physical device. I think even the Steam mods work, b…

Stadia only requires the Stadia controller if you're playing on a Chromecast Ultra.

If you're playing on a Phone or in a browser window, then you can use most third party gamepads (8bitdo, Xbox, PS4)

Post reply on HN