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

381–390 of 698 posts

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

#381

Post by vocatus_gate »

013a wrote: post #121
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 it would be helpful to broaden your horizons a bit. Everyone is talking about Stadia; whether it will be good or not, whether it will eventually see long-term success. These are very boring questions. The more interesting question is whether cloud gaming will see success over the long term. Every major player, minus Nintendo, is entering or already in this market. Most notably, Microsoft is releasing xCloud v…

Unfortunately there's still the cold hard reality of latency (NOT bandwidth; not the same thing) and barring some sort of quantum breakthrough, latency is unavoidable and that's what renders the streaming gaming experience unpleasant.

Not to mention heavy-handed data caps in many places, unpredictable latency, etc.

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

#382

Post by akhilcacharya »

headmelted wrote: post #181
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…

Just no. "Stadia is the first offering that matches my needs of a Netflix for games" These services have existed for a while. OnLive failed because it was ahead of it's time, and lagged. GeForce Now is free, while it's still in beta. Project xCloud is free, while it's still in beta. Google Stadia is £120 down and a monthly fee... while it's clearly still in beta. "If Google doesn't drop the ball" Google already dropp…

GeForce Now was the first time I saw game streaming as feasible. Unlike Stadia you can simply login with your steam account and get started in seconds using games you already own.

If that were Stadia, I’d be more bullish.

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

#383

Post by Lev1a »

Bartweiss wrote: post #217
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 suppose the importance of "lost when the project closes" depends on the lifespan of the project. Every Flash/Shockwave browser game is becoming increasingly hard to play. Games for ancient Windows versions can be devilishly hard to get running, and games for PowerPC Macs are all but impossible. Emulation is flaky and incomplete for console games of all kinds. When it comes to something like a music library, "buy do…

> So even if Stadia looks too short-lived, the second or third big game-streaming service might convince people it'll last as long as any other software does.

Which means your (full price) "rental(s)" and the subscription fees for Stadia are gone right out the window.

Then when you want to play one of those games again you'll have to subscribe to the next GaaS and most likely buy... sorry rent that game again probably for full retail price. Rinse and repeat.

GaaS to me is an utterly nonsensical cash grab and as others ITT have mentioned a solution looking for a problem.

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

#384

Post by 013a »

Stadia is a mess of inconsistencies in strategy that I can't seem to resolve.

It provides the closest to an "awesome" experience when wired up on fast, reliable internet. But its also the most interesting in a mobile setting where I can't necessarily have dedicated gaming hardware, but where I'll also have inconsistent WiFi/LTE.

Its target market isn't really traditional gamers, instead, I guess, focusing on the untapped segment of casual "gamer-interested" people. But, these people are going to generate FAR less revenue. And, there's a free tier? Why would people who play very casually choose to pay for it? Cloud gaming is an insanely expensive infrastructure investment. What's their revenue plan?

In a couple months, xCloud will be out. XBL Gold gives me like three games per month. Game Pass has, like, 200 games including some awesome titles like Gears 5. Unclear how much xCloud will cost, but I'm certain Microsoft is willing to fight on competitive pricing. Why should I buy Cyberpunk on Stadia? Why should anyone? The incumbents have insanely good first-party studios churning out exclusives; they have brand recognition; they have consumer trust; they have the technology and DC footprint; there's no visible plan here to convince anyone that Stadia is the platform to be on, which means their customers won't be loyal. They're giving them no reason to be.

Cloud gaming, in general, is pretty cool. I love the tech, and I could see myself using it... but as a value-add to a home setup. I think that's where it'll shine, and that's what xCloud is targeting. My broader point isn't that there aren't people who will find Stadia as a good fit for them, but rather that Stadia isn't going to survive just on those people. Cloud gaming only makes sense as a value-add to a broader platform that can support it, both from a revenue and consumer experience perspective.

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

#385

Post by [deleted] »

fulafel wrote: post #108
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…

The 4k 60 fps bw requirement is just 35 Mbps, is there really catching up to do unless we're talking about mobile hotspots? Netflix 4k is 25 Mbps.

[deleted]

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

#386

Post by ProZsolt »

nkrisc wrote: post #322
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…

If this is true, I'm genuinely curious to see how big the cross section is of people who don't have a gaming-capable PC nor console and people who are willing to pay full value for AAA games.

This exactly!

I'm playing 4-5 games a year. Currently, I buy a few year old games from Steam that can run on my laptop. there is tons of great games out there for a less than $10 https://xkcd.com/606/ This would be a perfect solution for me if I didn't have to play full price

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

#387

Post by p1necone »

roel_v wrote: post #138
Iv wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see playing RTS or tactical RPGs, but it is a very poor idea to propose FPS. It is already hard to have a reactive system locally, proposing remotely is. You need to react in 16ms if you want a snappy 60Hz. 1000 km from the server is adding 6 ms of ping. At one point, proposing this kind of service has the speed of light as a "technical constraint".

Nvidia is going to add negative lag to their service, so there's that...

Nvidia can say they're going to break the laws of physics all they want. They're not going to though. It could be feasible for certain classes of games where the options for "what thing can the player do next" are very limited, but literally anything with analog controls just can't work like that.

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

#388

Post by paulmd »

Lio wrote: post #364
Dylan16807 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I'll go a step farther, it only makes sense as part of a "PS Now" like service, where you pay a monthly fee and you get access to a catalog of games. Nobody is paying for locked-in games that only run on Stadia given Google's track record of goldfish-like attentions span on these projects.

If you are just renting hardware then you need to run a local Steam cache (this exists), and allow players to use their existing game catalog. This is basically the "GeForce Now" model.

And yes, you may note that I am referencing other game streaming services. Google is late to this party, and they have nothing unique to offer, nor a particularly compelling business model, nor the trust of their userbase. Stadia is DOA.

If Google wants it to be not-DOA with their current business model, nothing short of a guarantee that if they fold within the next 10 years then they will issue a full and unconditional refund is going to do it. Nobody is going to pay full price for locked-in games on a platform with a track record like Google's.

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

#389

Post by drusepth »

TylerE wrote: post #302
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 will be the most enjoyable option too No it will not be, because latency exists. It will be the opposite of enjoyable unless you like feeling motion sick.

People used to (still?) say people wouldn't enjoy VR because they'd feel motion sick also.

There are games that do make me feel nauseous occasionally, but that hasn't stopped me from putting over 1,200 hours into the games that don't. Even if latency is an issue on Stadia (contrary to what people who've tried it so far have said), there's gonna be plenty of games that don't need the lowest of latencies to enjoy.

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

#390

Post by FussyZeus »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #357
corodra wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your post makes sense if the only travel you do is your 2-week vacation you get every year while always returning to a permanent living fixture, like a house you own. Or if you just don't mind owning a bunch of appliances. I'm someone who lives abroad and doesn't like hunkering down with any equipment, not even a bookcase. I don't like staying in one apartment for a long time. The only cooking appliance I own is a si…

> I'm someone who lives abroad and doesn't like hunkering down with any equipment, not even a bookcase. I don't like staying in one apartment for a long time. The only cooking appliance I own is a single cast iron skillet. Something like Stadia interests me if it can deliver.

But that's the rub innit? The only people who are going to be really interested in this product are the hypermobile, and I don't know about your experience with mobile internet, but my LTE can barely keep a YouTube video in decent quality going. With remote gaming, you're now adding controller input to that datastream, outbound, and then rendering those actions and transmitting back to the device to enable anything remotely approaching a good gaming experience seems like science fiction.

The people who will be most interested in this are those without a "home" setup, and the less "home" you have, the more appealing, but also seems like it would in turn be the most frustrating experience to try and use. Which is sort of what this piece is getting at:

- Gamers don't want it, because we already have our libraries and such tuned to existing platforms and devices

- Casual gamers may want it, but they're already spoiled for choice in a massive mobile market, where games just happen on their already very powerful phones

This puts Stadia in an awkward position of in theory being the worst of both worlds: the limitations of console, with the network requirements only high tier residential internet can deliver, over devices with limited network capability.

Post reply on HN