Google stadia games performance...

[Elim Garak]

Steam is to big to fail.
Valve has to many valuable ''assets'' not to be a interesting buy for major publishers or companies like apple and google who are trying toe enter into gaming.

Blockbuster was too big to fail

[Kujako]

And Australia as well, we would be way behind the US.. Our government has been spending billions on a hodgepodge of fibre, copper, WiFi and satellite.. And we are still behind the rest of the world.. lol

Now imagine if it were a bunch of corporations, that had divided up the country and agreed to not compete with each other. That's 'merica. There is often only a single choice in internet providers, they don't improve, because they have no reason to. It's not like we can go to their competitors, because they don't have one.

In conclusion, Stadia won't work for most people and for those it does work it seems to not work well. On top of that you're paying a monthly subscription price and often above full retail price for the games. Then when Google decides to pack it in, your games go away with Stadia. Compared to XCloud, it seems like a really bad platform. Sure, XCloud is still in beta. But frankly so is Stadia, Google just chose to charge people for it.

[grexly75]

Now imagine if it were a bunch of corporations, that had divided up the country and agreed to not compete with each other. That's 'merica. There is often only a single choice in internet providers, they don't improve, because they have no reason to. It's not like we can go to their competitors, because they don't have one.

In conclusion, Stadia won't work for most people and for those it does work it seems to not work well. On top of that you're paying a monthly subscription price and often above full retail price for the games. Then when Google decides to pack it in, your games go away with Stadia. Compared to XCloud, it seems like a really bad platform. Sure, XCloud is still in beta. But frankly so is Stadia, Google just chose to charge people for it.

Yikes that is bad, and I thought we had it bad here is Oz.. We three have major players when it come to internet, Telstra, Optus and TPG.. There are a few minor players but not enough to make a difference..

And that is the main sticking point, if Google bin Stadia there would be a lot of really pissed of people who lost money.. I just think that yes Stadia is garbage and I don't see it lasting long, as we all know that Google do not stick with things for long (Google Glass)..

If I was to get something like this then I would go for the one that Microsoft has (PC Game Pass), you pay a subscription and get a bunch of games in the cost of that sub..

Either way it will be interesting to see how long Stadia lasts..

[Witchblade77]

Now imagine if it were a bunch of corporations, that had divided up the country and agreed to not compete with each other. That's 'merica. There is often only a single choice in internet providers, they don't improve, because they have no reason to. It's not like we can go to their competitors, because they don't have one.

this is more or less my situation. where i live in theory I have 3 options. satellite, Verizon dsl (regular, not fios) and cable company. first 2 are not even really an option due to datacaps AND slow speeds, so i'm stuck with my cable company, paying $100 a month for my internet, because alternatives are that much worse. I was actualy surprised recently when they removed data caps for my plan, while also reducing the cost ($100 is AFTER reduction, it used to cost me $130). becasue i immediately went looking if new isp is in town, or Verizon finally bothered to add fios to our area, but couldn't find anything. but i'm still convinced that i'm missing something here, because companies here don't improve service while dropping prices like that for no reason. (am I cynical? yes. yes i am. I think most US residents will agree that when it comes to ISP companies, I have a good reason to be cynical)

but anyways, yeah, Stadia has uphill battle to fight due to infrastructure alone, and their added costs do not help at all.

[Stormspark]

FYI, you don't own shit on Steam, if steam goes - your game collection goes, unless they specifically let you transfer it off steam or it's some Uplay/Origin game that you can access there, but when they go... you will have to pirate the game to continue playing it - which you will be justified to do - but that's beside the point.

Strawman arguments and slippery slope fallacies don't make Stadia look any better. It has ALL the issues you mention, and in fact is at MUCH MUCH greater risk for them. Especially since Valve has stated many times they have a backup plan to let everyone keep their games if for some bizarre reason they did go under.

[Kujako]

FYI, you don't own shit on Steam, if steam goes - your game collection goes, unless they specifically let you transfer it off steam or it's some Uplay/Origin game that you can access there, but when they go... you will have to pirate the game to continue playing it - which you will be justified to do - but that's beside the point.

I can if I choose, download my steam library off line and play it whenever regardless of if steam goes offline or not. Excepting of course those with third party installers and DRM. But that's not really a steam issue...

[zilehuma]

Wow, wonderful work! keep it up

[ati87]

Blockbuster was too big to fail

No it wasn't.
Blockbuster didn't have any asset worth buying when it failed, a company like Valve and Netflix has so much user data that they don't need that these companies don't need to make a profit.

As long as gaming exist Valve is safe one, sure there might be some other company that kills of Valve but then you will always find a buyer.

[Vash The Stampede]

No it wasn't.
Blockbuster didn't have any asset worth buying when it failed, a company like Valve and Netflix has so much user data that they don't need that these companies don't need to make a profit.

The death of BlockBuster was a mixer of Netflix and piracy, and piracy was always eating away at the heels of BlockBuster as far back as when Divx was this underground video codec that could only do fast motion or slow motion video encoding capabilities. Netflix shifted people away from Blockbuster, but so did the overpriced Blu-Ray format that cost $1k for the player and $60 per movie.

As long as gaming exist Valve is safe one, sure there might be some other company that kills of Valve but then you will always find a buyer.

The only thing that'll kill Valve is another Valve, like Epic. Valve had stopped making games for such a long time that when Epic finally had a hit game called Fortnite, they used their new found popularity to push their store. So long as Valve can count to three they won't be going anywhere. Some of the most popular games are played on Steam, like PUBG, CS:GO, DOTA2, and etc.

[Tech614]

Blockbuster was too big to fail

My dude is shameless now with the arguing in bad faith.

He has nothing else to backup why Stadia is DA FUHTAH and now he is running out of apples to oranges comparisons that he is bringing blockbuster of all things into the discussion? Yikes.

[Stormspark]

My dude is shameless now with the arguing in bad faith.

He has nothing else to backup why Stadia is DA FUHTAH and now he is running out of apples to oranges comparisons that he is bringing blockbuster of all things into the discussion? Yikes.

Well every single one of his arguments in favor of Stadia are either strawman, slippery slope, or false dichotomy fallacies so...

[Vash The Stampede]

At this point I think the argument should shift into what Stadia should do to save itself, as they screwed up badly. Also having more competitors in the gaming industry is never bad, so long as it doesn't cause nothing but exclusives.

Firstly, Stadia should shift focus away from streaming and become another Steam or Epic. Streaming won't go away, but this way they can focus on more important things like growing a community and getting customers. You won't get that with streaming games exclusively. Considering that Google likes to use Linux for everything they do and Stadia is running games on Linux, they could put more emphasis on getting gaming on linux. Clearly Valve hasn't given up on Linux with anther massive update to Proton, so Stadia should also focus on Linux. It shouldn't cost them much to get Stadia games running on Ubuntu or Debian. BTW, I am talking about running games local, not just streaming. Windows is a crowded environment right now so unless they have some good exclusives...

Which brings me to the second thing Stadia needs, and that's good exclusives. Spend money on studios and get some good games on Stadia. Nobody is going to use Stadia just to play the same games on Playstation or Steam with even less friends and players. They should also allow modding of their games like PC does, because that would make their streaming service unique to others. They also definitely need to expand that library super fast.

Finally, Stadia needs to fix their streaming service. It'll never be as good as local gaming but if they insist to make it better they made some mistakes. Stadia needs to upgrade their hardware. The Vega 56 cards are already dated and needs to be something based off RX 5700, or even go Nvidia and get Ray-Tracing support. They should probably get much faster CPU's as the better the performance of the game then the less input lag there is. They also need a thin client that doesn't add another 100ms of input lag just by using it **cough** ChromeCast Ultra **cough**. They should also be honest with what each game can do in graphics, because it's better to be honest than to be caught a liar. It would also help to have more data centers to help reduce the input lag. You'll never eliminate the input lag but if you can get it down to 100ms or less then some games that use turn based combat would play just fine. Fist person shooters and even 3rd person perspective games are a lost cause for Streaming.

[Puupi]

If they can't fix the lag (which I think they can't), then anything they do is a colossal waste of money. Just let the project die, bury it as soon as possible with minimal costs. That's what Google should do.

[dope_danny]

At this point I think the argument should shift into what Stadia should do to save itself

You say that like it will be around in a year. As long as it made more money than it cost to produce its a win that can be dropped onto the list: https://killedbygoogle.com/

[Kujako]

At this point I think the argument should shift into what Stadia should do to save itself...

Give everyone their money back, shift to a free beta period, offer games (free and less than physical media).

[Krastyn]

Lots but out of curiously I looked at Stadia's reddit and found memes that complain about other people complaining. Very entertaining.

Indeed. You can make meme's about anything. It's why they hold no actual weight.

You're betting on it will get overturned while it currently isn't. I'm pragmatic, so I'll wait to see who's correct, but as it stands the French believe you own your digital downloads.

No, but most think this will get struck down by the EU.

It also doesn't statehow they have to allow the resale, just that they have to allow the sale of them. They can simply charge a fee for it.

Not to mention as well, if the ruling stands, it will be way more detrimental to indie studios than AAA studios, and will further shift things to GaaS and microtransactions.

In a year from now the PS5 and Xbox Series X will be released and even Stadia will be obsolete. If Stadia can't do 4k properly now then what'll happen once these consoles are released?

you'll maybe have to spend another $70 to upgrade? It all depends on how they set up the processing. If all the heavy lifting is done server side, they can infinitely upgrade the system. That's the main advantage to streaming.

The games they offer are already discounted on PC and PS4, and in time they'll be even cheaper than whatever discount Stadia will have.

Depends on what Stadia uses for a pricing model going forward, if you go with the paid subscription or not, if you play games when they come out right away, as well as other factors. It's almost like there are options for people, and they can pick what best suits them.

Lots of people still hold onto hardware from 5 years ago and play games just fine. An i5 2500K with a GTX 970 will still play games better than Stadia.

I don't think I've had a PC in my lifetime where I haven't upgraded some component in it every 5 years or less. To each their own.

Once new consoles come out and 4k graphic cards are $250 then the adoption of 4k will be even faster. As of right now 1080p is pretty much everywhere to the point where the Nvidia Shield TV plays games at 1080p, and that costs $150 for the 2016 model.

So you agree that 4k is not actually the standard right now. It will be the standard at some point, but not now.

My point is that Stadia is not immune to hardware failure, and because it depends on the internet, then the chances of it failing are even greater.

Any game requiring internet also have that same failure. That's not a unique failure to Stadia. Furthermore, the number of things that could fail on Stadia are less than that of a console, and way, way less than that of a PC.

Probably because a year ago PC was doing very well, and that article was earlier this year.

And once again, from your own article:
"the sheer volume of Switch, PS4 and Xbox One systems should continue outpacing the desktop- and laptop-driven segment."

Thanks again, for finding a source to prove me correct.

The point you're missing is that very few people buy games on mobile but mobile does have their whales with micro-transactions, but PC+console likes to buy their games but hates micro-transactions. Lets be honest here, most mobile games look like they could run on a Playstation 1 with some exceptions. Two very different markets with very different purchase habits.

Source it, please. Otherwise you're just stating opinions. I've bought games on mobile, Almost every person I know has. Games are shifting to the mobile monetary system because charging $60 for a game is becoming less and less viable.

You're also making the assumption that what people really want out of a game, is shiny 4k graphics.

The Switch does well because it has Nintendo games and it's cheap. The portability is nice but not the sole reason it does so well. Also where do you see the mobile and console+PC marketing merging? What examples can you give?

The Switch IS a portable system. That's what it is, at its core. It's a larger DS/3DS.

As for the markets merging, you can see it in multiple areas. The technological capabilities of phones are increasing every year. Games that have been traditionally PC or console have been ported to mobile. The market is speaking that it wants more mobile gaming. I'm pretty sure if you polled gamers and asked if they would be interested in playing PC/Console quality games on mobile if they would be interested, and the answer would likely be a resounding yes.

If you're lucky the PS4 might gain market, but sure as Stadia the Xbox One won't sell more consoles.

Yep. XboxOne is going to sell zero consoles over the next two years. Is that seriously your stance?

But you can't divorce Nintendo from the market since they are part of the console market, and they lost a lot of customers. You could add the WiiU+Switch and you still wouldn't come close to the Wii in sales. Then there's the problem of the 3DS as nobody is sure if Nintendo will continue to support it and if they'll make another portable console. The Switch maybe batting for two as a home and portable console. The DS had an amazing 150 million units sold while the 3DS has 75 million sold.

And nothing will ever match the DS or 3DS in sales because they have been replaced by phones. As stated before, the Switch is a portable game system. It's literally why it has a screen.

It's like arguing that laptops and PC are identical. They're similar, but they serve different primary goals.

Yea, I'm not doing your homework for you. Bing it, Google it, and post it here with a snippet that shows that Stadia has a market.

You actually are, as everything you have linked so far about market data has backed up what I've said, and refuted what you have said.

The answer is you get a Switch, which solves many problems and the Switch Lite is now $200, which is like $70 more than the Stadia starter pack.

And how are you going to play those online games on the Switch, in a Wi-Fi deadzone?

[Stormspark]

And how are you going to play those online games on the Switch, in a Wi-Fi deadzone?

What online games? I only know of ONE game on the Switch that requires internet to play (Warframe - which as an MMO-ish game makes sense). Do other games have optional online components? Yep. Are the online components required to play the game? Nope. In Mario Odyssey the only thing I can't do when I don't have internet is play the Luigi's Balloon World thing (where players hide balloons and other players find them for coins). A lot of Switch games have local co-op too, where you can play multiplayer with multiple Switches and no internet.

[Vash The Stampede]

Yea @Krastyn, I'm not responding to all that because Stadia is dead. I already gave my suggestions on how to fix Stadia, you can relay them to your Google boss. The advice is free of charge. Remember first Stadia needs to have a downloadable service like Epic and Steam, and second it needs good exclusive games, and finally it needs to fix its streaming service via the suggestions I gave. Merry Christmas.

[Elim Garak]

What online games? I only know of ONE game on the Switch that requires internet to play (Warframe - which as an MMO-ish game makes sense). Do other games have optional online components? Yep. Are the online components required to play the game? Nope. In Mario Odyssey the only thing I can't do when I don't have internet is play the Luigi's Balloon World thing (where players hide balloons and other players find them for coins). A lot of Switch games have local co-op too, where you can play multiplayer with multiple Switches and no internet.

You can play non-cloud offline games on your phone too. It's hardly an issue considering that you can't really play any cloud game on your phone without streaming it from the cloud.

It's like what's the complaining all about? Google says - here play all these console and PC games on your phone from the cloud, and you go "no thanks, I have poor internet connection therefore you suck, Google, you hear me? You suck!"

[Awelon]

If they can't fix the lag (which I think they can't), then anything they do is a colossal waste of money. Just let the project die, bury it as soon as possible with minimal costs. That's what Google should do.

Truth. I've been toying with Stadia a few times, but the lag problems are just way too much. I've 1GB fiber connection (FTTH) and yet still I can't play a game without a considerable lag. I'm sure Stadia is great for those who couldn't care less about performance, lag, issues, crashing and whatnot. It would be fun if it would've been free, but at this price point this experience is just a waste of money.