61–70 of 698 posts
the combination of "dumb screen(TV?) as interface" with "any/all content* you want (cheaper with ads)" will be very attractive to the 99% of humans who dont want to think about computing
is widespread personal physical ownership and control of general purpose computing a feature of the future ?
what laws do we need to think about to prevent harm that may cause ?
*text/radio/TV/movie/social/web/games/etc
Offtopic, but why someone bothers to type a proper blogpost in Twitter? It's such a crap experience read something there that multiple thread reader projects exists. I can only think of the simplicity to publish content makes it too easy for lazy authors.
So, for me, the experience is fine. I grew up with blogs and all the bells and whistles.
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…
Bandwidth isn't the problem. Latency is. Multiple gigabits of bandwidth won't help you when it takes half a second for your character to start jumping after you hit the button.
A drastic improvement to input/rendering delay for "cloud gaming" (It's exciting what the future might hold.
Stadia is a staple of what the open web should be for games. Just open a web browser and the game is available. Much in the same way that Photoshop should be available on the web. Unfortunately it had to be Google that had to get their oar into this space and therefore it looks like just a toy demo for them. I do wish engineers at Google should instead contribute to the technologies that advance the open web instead…
That's not to say there shouldn't be online options for things, but it seems inevitable that as those options become increasingly viable, software vendors will aggressively push consumers toward them so they can have an excuse to have a recurring revenue model.
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…
Yeah this ^ I guess Google did an MVP and everybody is expecting it to be a fully-fledged offering already. That might have been due to Google promoting it as such of course (and asking the price for it). What I also see happening is that as soon as they have a free tier, people are gonna try to play a game for 5 minutes because they saw something on Youtube or somewhere else and then 1 in X will just buy the game on…
I take solace knowing that the $60+ games I buy for my PC or Switch are mine because I have local copies. I am not going to spend that same amount on a game that I don't control. And Google is now infamous for terminating services that people like and use with little notice.
I think the tech is fine. I think they'll get the latency issues worked out for most uses. Fighters, rythem games, or fast-paced shooters were never going to work well streaming from the cloud. The physics just don't work. But there are many games that would be enjoyable streaming and ~150ms of latency wouldn't matter much.
Sadly, I think the negative press from this launch is an early nail in the coffin. I don't know if Google cares enough about the product itself to turn it around.
Stadia exists because Google is a perpetual spaghetti throwing machine. Mainframe-style gaming is possible and they have the resources to try it so... here we are. If it doesn't take off, Google will have no problem killing the program in 3 or 4 years. That said, I really don't see the problem with this strategy. It surely makes much more sense than having an ever growing stable of also-ran offerings. The upshot of c…
Stadia is unique though that there are people buying digital games locked to the platform. So its entirely possible when the inevitably kill it those games could just be lost. So I hope for the people's sake that buy into it that Google won't shut it down (or at least have a way to add your purchases to steam or something), but its a different risk this time.
They have done that previously with all discontinued products. Even hardware they tend to refund in full if it fails during the warranty and they don't have stock of that model anymore, or if they shut down the servers.
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…
The article addresses that exact point:
> I think the answer's obvious. Because they designed the product backward. They didn't think "what do people want?", or even go Apple and think "what COULD people want, if we showed them why they wanted it?".
Your issue is largely addressed by their second Apple example. They're talking about the thinking that ultimately results in the product, and how Google's (and Sun's) thinking is focused on themselves and e.g. Apple's thinking is still user-orientated even if they have to "sell" an original concept.
So absolutely try something new, but as the article says, it still has to be designed for an actual audience rather than just being created to further that company's own interests without offering enough value for their market.