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

361–370 of 698 posts

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

#361

Post by Lio »

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…

> consoles force me to use a TV, Stadia will be usable on my Mac in the kitchen or the bedroom.

PS4 supports streaming to computers on the same network eg you mac.

I always assumed the Xbox offered that too.

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

#362

Post by seangrogg »

corodra wrote: post #351
turtlebits wrote: post #293

"Gamers" don't want Stadia. And all the negative reviews of Stadia are by people who already have console/gaming PCs. It's targeted for those that don't have either, like me. I carry my Pixelbook everywhere and would be nice to play games on it. I don't want another device to carry around and don't have the time or patience to wait for patches/updates or the ridiculous storage requirements games have nowadays. The on…

I'm seeing this a lot and don't understand... where the hell are you people travelling where bringing a console/game system is a concern? I travel for work or for vacation. If for work, I'm there hitting "Spit money out for me" at an ATM. Not gaming. I'm not home so I can make much better money in a short timespan to enjoy home time more. End of days is visiting restaurants/bars and either socializing or schmoozing c…

Some of us vacation to relax in our own way. I like to go to Vegas because I find it enjoyable to gamble, chill at the pools in Mandalay Bay, and day drink. If I've hit my cap for those things for the day and I'm still awake I'd much rather spend the remainder of my waking hours playing games than pretending I want to see yet another Cirque show.

This isn't a defense of Stadia, mind you. Just that vacation can mean different things to different people. Video games already let me escape reality on demand, I don't need vacation for that. Vacation can just be me wanting a change of weather.

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

#363

Post by turtlebits »

shinteao wrote: post #298
turtlebits wrote: post #293

"Gamers" don't want Stadia. And all the negative reviews of Stadia are by people who already have console/gaming PCs. It's targeted for those that don't have either, like me. I carry my Pixelbook everywhere and would be nice to play games on it. I don't want another device to carry around and don't have the time or patience to wait for patches/updates or the ridiculous storage requirements games have nowadays. The on…

>all the negative reviews of Stadia are by people who already have console/gaming PCs. I think most people who like playing video games would have some sort of video game playing hardware, yes. So, they might have opinions on what a good gaming experience is. And, if they have issues with Stadia (incl latency, graphical fidelity, and library), then it might be coming from an informed place.

> I think most people who like playing video games would have some sort of video game playing hardware, yes.

I disagree, in this age of phones/tablets, I'm pretty sure total amount of time played on these devices is greater than consoles/PCs.

That said, I don't need 4K HDR 60fps The fact is that Stadia makes it possible to play games on devices where it previously was impossible is pretty compelling. (even if it's at 720p).

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

#364

Post by Lio »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #349
bathtub365 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When buying a game on Stadia is the same price as buying it on other platforms but with the downside of a total loss of control or ability to play offline it becomes less attractive.

"Same price" if you already have a solid computer with a multi-hundred-dollar GPU.

How does Stadia compared with a used PS4 and second hand copy of a game that you can trade in again afterwards?

Also how does it compared price wise to a brand new but leased console?

It’s going to have to be pretty cheap to be competitive I think.

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

#365

Post by Jach »

corodra wrote: post #351
turtlebits wrote: post #293

"Gamers" don't want Stadia. And all the negative reviews of Stadia are by people who already have console/gaming PCs. It's targeted for those that don't have either, like me. I carry my Pixelbook everywhere and would be nice to play games on it. I don't want another device to carry around and don't have the time or patience to wait for patches/updates or the ridiculous storage requirements games have nowadays. The on…

I'm seeing this a lot and don't understand... where the hell are you people travelling where bringing a console/game system is a concern? I travel for work or for vacation. If for work, I'm there hitting "Spit money out for me" at an ATM. Not gaming. I'm not home so I can make much better money in a short timespan to enjoy home time more. End of days is visiting restaurants/bars and either socializing or schmoozing c…

> If none of that, I read a book, do work on the laptop or enjoy a movie.

I'd rather play a game, most of the time. And similarly, when I've had enough of the sand, sun, and water for the day, why not wind down with an hour or so playing something fun? If I'm on vacation, I might even be with other people I don't see all that often otherwise, and get to play some multiplayer games. (Board games on family vacations work for this too.)

But I don't disagree with anything in the thread about this product really searching for a user. Nearly 100% of my gaming is on PC. If I had a gaming laptop, why wouldn't I just bring that along wherever I go? Not a big deal. And consoles + one controller aren't really that much more space either. There's also the Switch, and even the GPD Win if you want PC games in a very mobile form factor.

I've lately started bringing my Steam Link (which I got for $2.50) and a controller with me when I travel, since Valve opened it up to support remote play. Sometimes I use it, sometimes I don't. It works better than I expected though. When I can access my full PC library remotely with no monthly subscription and the base hardware was only $2.50 (remote play also works with your phone, if it's powerful enough, so it can cost literally nothing), why would I ever pay Google money. Stadia is useless to me.

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

#366

Post by JohnFen »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #344
JohnFen wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but also against playing any MMO. MMOs are a case where the game itself inherently requires a serious server in order to work. I don't play MMOs myself, but if I did, I would not be bothered by their server-based nature as there's an obviously inescapable reason for it. That is not representative of most games.

What do you mean by a serious server? Most MMO stuff could easily pick a player to handle the processing of their immediate area on a background thread. And the bandwidth requirements aren't that big either. Figuring out how to trust the processing is the biggest problem to solve, but that can be solved on a tiny simple server just as easily as on a serious server.

I mean a server that can handle clients at scale. Certainly, it's possible to do this sort of thing in a more decentralized fashion, but the games that I'm aware of don't do this.

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

#367

Post by drusepth »

perennate wrote: post #132
mrep wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure you won't need that when the free 1080p base version comes out next year. I played 30 hours of assassins creed during the beta last year on my macbook pro with a xbox 360 controller.

Is Stadia only targeting console games? Maybe I'm confused by this controller requirement because I'm assuming that I should be able to play e.g. Cities: Skylines on my Chromebook without a controller. (something which you can already do on NVIDIA GeForce NOW in the beta) I don't get why the marketing has to be so confusing for these platforms. Stadia in Google Store focuses on these physical products instead of the…

I'm not sure, but I think it's targeting only console games. It feels like a gigantic value-add for Chromecasts first (which generally live in living rooms with more controllers than keyboard/mice), which also happens to be capable of working on phones/pcs using the same streaming technology so it's also available there.

Here's the list of the launch day games [1] -- I'm not familiar with them all, but even ones like Farming Simulator say they have full controller support on their Steam page. I wouldn't be surprised if Stadia required a controller at least for a while, but eventually got PC-only games that could use a mouse/keyboard.

[1] https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-play-games-on-google-stad...

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

#368

Post by tootie »

turtlebits wrote: post #293

"Gamers" don't want Stadia. And all the negative reviews of Stadia are by people who already have console/gaming PCs. It's targeted for those that don't have either, like me. I carry my Pixelbook everywhere and would be nice to play games on it. I don't want another device to carry around and don't have the time or patience to wait for patches/updates or the ridiculous storage requirements games have nowadays. The on…

I still think they're not really getting to any sort of market fit. There's avid gamers who will buy a serious console or gaming PC and is likely spending quite a bit on games. Then there's casual gamers who getting their fix by playing Candy Crush on the subway. Google seems to be aiming for some middle ground of people willing to dedicate time and money, but just not that much. I'm not sure that market even exists or if their product is hitting it effectively. It seems like yet another technology-driven product launch.

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

#369

Post by vocatus_gate »

Jyaif wrote: post #162
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…

> i can imagine all the negative potential it has But you fail to imagine all the positive potential. Terabyte-sized games with 0 download time, more interactions between players, better graphics, no more cheating, no more piracy (which leads to more games or bigger games), and better utilized HW (which is good for your wallet and the environment), and obviously you can play wherever you want. Streaming games is the…

> Streaming games is the future, deal with it.

So, so wrong.

1. Much of the world has heavy-handed data caps. Those aren't going away any time soon. Streaming two ways eats into that quickly.

2. Input latency is real, and super annoying. And it's not just that there's latency; that you can get used to. It's that there's highly unpredictable latency which is super frustrating when playing anything but turn-based games. And at that point, why not just run it browser-based and be done with it?

3. Packet loss. Packet loss doesn't matter on streaming video because you can just wait for the server to re-send it, or just buffer till you get far enough ahead. On games, real-time response is critical, and there's no tolerance for waiting to "catch up on the stream."

The Internet will never be a good streaming platform for real-time gaming, not without some serious protocol upgrades. Everyone focuses on Netflix like it's remotely the same; it's not. Netflix is one-way, loss-is-okay, and latency (round-trip time for the packets, NOT the same as bandwidth) doesn't matter. Gaming is exactly opposite.

Without proper end-to-end QoS or dedicated circuits ($$$) Google Stadia will fail just like every other games streaming platform before it.

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

#370

Post by p1necone »

It was obvious from the start to me that Stadia was not going to succeed. Sure it's totally plausible tech, and it does work relatively well if you have a stable, fast, non data capped internet connection that's close to a data center. But the portion of the population that doesn't have all those things is way too high and the negative PR about Stadia being awful for those people is going to sink it.
Post reply on HN