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

When will Google shut down Stadia?

stadiacountdown.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 662 posts

Re: When will Google shut down Stadia?

#551

Post by radium3d »

Narishma wrote: post #516
radium3d wrote: post #108

I have zero interest in Stadia personally and I would consider myself a gamer. I just feel like I want less latency and video over internet doesn't seem like it's going to catch up with a 4-6ft video cable direct to my monitor / TV. If Stadia is successful I can see it being a way to pay for new data centers for Google's cloud infrastructure. If you consider that most consoles last a 4-5 years, they cost ~$299-500 ov…

> If you consider that most consoles last a 4-5 years That was the case decades ago when technology was advancing fast. The last couple of generations are more like 7 years and future generations will probably last even longer.

Even better for Google as that means they don't have to upgrade their gaming servers as often = more data centers from Gamer money.

Re: When will Google shut down Stadia?

#552

Post by krzyk »

knodi123 wrote: post #318
rstupek wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion is that Sony doesn't have the cloud chops to put something like that together.

They already did it five years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Now

I think that was an acquisition, and the choice of games is very poor, it looks like they use PS3 there.

Re: When will Google shut down Stadia?

#553

Post by radium3d »

mopsi wrote: post #210
radium3d wrote: post #108

I have zero interest in Stadia personally and I would consider myself a gamer. I just feel like I want less latency and video over internet doesn't seem like it's going to catch up with a 4-6ft video cable direct to my monitor / TV. If Stadia is successful I can see it being a way to pay for new data centers for Google's cloud infrastructure. If you consider that most consoles last a 4-5 years, they cost ~$299-500 ov…

> I just feel like I want less latency and video over internet doesn't seem like it's going to catch up with a 4-6ft video cable direct to my monitor / TV. It's already close, I've gotten stable <20 ms over 100 m distance with Steam Link in standard 1 gigabit ethernet LAN without any tweaks (QoS etc). This is enough to play slower performance-heavy games like citybuilders without noticing any difference compared to p…

Dunno, I also game in 144hz+ so I'm definitely not their target audience and I'll never sign up likely. Not only that but my next monitor will be HDR color and at least 144-240hz which will just not be possible via the web for a long time to come.

Re: When will Google shut down Stadia?

#554

Post by monocasa »

joshuamorton wrote: post #506
monocasa wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Play Music/Spotify/Apple Music is next to free to run, it's basically just a CDN on their end. There's almost no user data that didn't come from user machines originally. Stadia has all the user data on the backend, _and_ is expensive to run since all the processing happens on their end too.

Reading spotify's most recent filing, there was an increase in its compute costs of ~25 million dollars in 3Q2019 when compared to 3Q2018, mentioned in a footnote. In other words, a compute cost increase of $100 million a year was a footnote. That was an increase of about 1.5% of their gross operating income. The full hosting costs are not public, but we're easily talking hundreds of millions a quarter. Practically f…

So, an increase of about $1/yr/user? Including I'm sure all of the money they're wasting training half baked ML models? Yeah, that's pretty damn close to free.

Now compare that to stadia which'll probably be dedicating high CPU and GPU to each logged in user, in addition to the low latency video compression hardware they're pretty much guaranteed to have?

Re: When will Google shut down Stadia?

#555

Post by findjashua »

dylan-m wrote: post #293
iamsb wrote: post #88

A good model will be to start working on a new startup with a competing product as soon as google launches something. In couple of years when they shut down, provide migration paths. Swim in $$$.

This is, to some extent, what Feedly did. They started off as a really nice, somewhat niche magazine-style news reader built on Google Reader. When Google Reader shut down, it was in their best interest to implement the API themselves. They had the very clever idea to make that a _public_ API, just like Google Reader, so in the end all kinds of apps and services wanted to use it, and it seems they're doing really wel…

if someone's looking for an rss reader recommendation - i tried feedly, but inoreader is my favorite by far

(not affiliated, just a v happy user)

Re: When will Google shut down Stadia?

#556

Post by glangdale »

msh wrote: post #430
NotATroll wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the thing I don't get. Who precisely is this concept even marketable to? People with high speed internet, that also can't afford a gaming console? But can afford a device capable of handling all of the inputs & playback of the video. So lets low ball and say a $140 chromebook. + the cost of the games. How many people is this? Genuinely.

Well I bought stadia. With 3 young kids and a busy job i don't have a lot of time to game so I want something where I can just sit down and game. No wasting time downloading/installing games. No patches. Just games ready to play. A second point, sometimes i play coop games with my wife. Its nice not needing 2 consoles or gaming pc's. One can play on the TV and the other on a tablet or cheap laptop.

I don't doubt your motivation here and am not going to sit her and debunk your thought process - but I do wonder how many people match your template, which seems to be "people who want to play AAA games but not very much".

I game on PC, my kids use PC and consoles, and I can't say that "downloading/installing games" is a significant time sink - and if your network isn't good, Stadia isn't going to work either.

The other thing that I think will break the Stadia business model is that the free access costs Google money unless it recoups the spending on the games. So while we're hearing about reasonably competitive Day 1 prices for games, will we see the pattern of discounting that all other games go through? Second-hand console games?

It just feels like it's aiming at a niche while building out a huge system that's only going to be viable if it achieves mass adoption.

Re: When will Google shut down Stadia?

#557

Post by dageshi »

dimino wrote: post #548
dageshi wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the daily hate on google thread. It doesn't really matter what specifically google is or isn't doing you'll see the same litany of complaints repeated over and over. HN has become painful in that regard.

There's a certain old-guard zealotry that's a common thread on HN, amplified by the echo chamber. Can't wait until it dies off.

I don't really know what happened. This place used to be excited about new tech nowadays it's... curmudgeonly.

Re: When will Google shut down Stadia?

#558

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

falcolas wrote: post #526
SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PC's don't generally need a subscription service to access games or multiplayer, but your upfront hardware costs to play modern AAA games are huge. And existing consoles require you to: * pay a large upfront fee for the hardware * purchase games at full price * buy a recurring subscription service for access to updates and essentials, like multiplayer. Stadia doesn't seem unreasonable at all by comparison.

$400 amortized over a lifetime of 5 years (10, at the outside). ~$6 a month. You can also buy a console used for less than half the price at this point in the console lifecycle. The game purchase story is identical. The multiplayer subscription is approximately another ~$4 a month, and includes an average of two new, free, games per month. It's also not required outside of multiplayer. So, the deal is virtually ident…

So cost of ownership over time is similar and competitive for the non-free Stadia. But I'm not sure I really care about that, or that most people think of money that way. Its just easier to part with a few bucks every month for most people, than it is to part with $400 at one time.

You can look at the cost another way: Buying a console is like buying a 5-year pre-paid plan for a subscription service. That puts it in clearer terms, to me.

Anyhow, once Stadia's free version is released, unless its drastically limited in someway, it will be cheaper than everything. Honestly, I don't know why they didn't advertise as a primarily free service. People think of it as a paid service first, that has a crappy free tier, rather than a free service that has a value-add pro tier.

Re: When will Google shut down Stadia?

#559

Post by nwah1 »

mmanfrin wrote: post #202
40acres wrote: post #174

I understand the cynicism of this community to Stadia but implore you all to think a little broader. Stadia is different, with this product Google is trying something really innovative. For one, the fact that Stadia actually costs money should be a signal of Google's long term ambition here. Yes, Fiber also cost money but was bogged down by the hell that is infrastructure development. Stadia will require a substantia…

Glass cost money, more than 10x what this cost, and that was not a signal of their long term ambition. The problem with Stadia is that it costs money, the service costs a monthly fee, and on top of it you have to buy the games. What happens to those games if you stop paying the fee? If you stop using Stadia? If Google deprecates Stadia like many are worried. I'll tell you: you lose the game. If I, conversely, buy the…

This could be solved in theory by a streaming service that didn't try to lock you in. Alas, almost every streaming service of every kind does want to lock you in, and often the licensing agreements necessary to offer competitive pricing require it.

But having a pricier option where you can save your content offline would be a way to satisfy both audiences.

Although in this case, I personally think a pure subscription model should replace the fee + pay-per-game model as the basic streaming option.

Re: When will Google shut down Stadia?

#560

Post by joshuamorton »

inetknght wrote: post #545
joshuamorton wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the sender isn't authentic, then the sender is spam. What's your definition of authentic? Is a self-hosted email server authentic? How do you decide? > If the user reports the sender as spam, then don't permit the sender to send more messages to the person who complained. If 10000 yahoo accounts are sending spam emails to other websites, what do you do? Block all yahoo senders? Try to block the yahoo accounts as…

> What's your definition of authentic? Is a self-hosted email server authentic? How do you decide? Authentic in terms of DNS. That means using and enforcing DKIM at the minimum. Also in terms of from: and reply-to: addresses matching each other. > If 10000 yahoo accounts are sending spam emails to other websites, what do you do? Block all yahoo senders? Try to block the yahoo accounts as they appear? If 10000 yahoo a…

> Authentic in terms of DNS. That means using and enforcing DKIM at the minimum.

Sure, these are basic things that are generally used as strong signals, but all this does is filter out the incompetent spammers. If you're sending from yahoo or from gmail, you've already solved the reputation problem. And there are other ways of doing the same.

> If 10000 yahoo accounts are sending spam emails, then that's a Yahoo problem. Yes, I would refuse to accept incoming mail from @yahoo.com until they've fixed their complicity.

I'd expect that this is approximately the baseline number of yahoo accounts sending spam when they aren't being actively targeted. Its less than 1% of 1% of the active monthly accounts on yahoo. So you'd like to just block yahoo constantly?

> I disagree about not knowing that they do.

Sure they know, in the sense that I also know that there are always people spamming from every major ISP. That doesn't mean that they can immediately address things. And while you're busy blocking all comcast users from sending your users email, your users are busy moving to a different email provider that identifies individual spam senders so that they can still receive legitimate email.

In closing, a simple question: if solving spam is this straightforward, why hasn't an upstart competitor (yahoo, protonmail, etc.) taken advantage of this strategy to fix the spam problem? It appears you're presuming a centralized system, which defeats the point of email and significantly simplifies the problem.

Post reply on HN