I mean, “noticeable” input lag is just worse than what I can do right now with a PC. Why would I ever want this? It’s like telling me how great it would be if I stopped using my OS directly and did everything within a virtual machine… hosted in the cloud. With a monthly fee.
Any PS3 game is streaming only, and PS4 games are download only on your PS4, but you can play PS Now games on your PC via streaming as well. For a long time it didn’t have PS4 download support either so I would assume that most of it’s rise has been streaming.
Sure - but I think the appeal is more around the idea that you can do this on machines w/o the graphic power to run locally but with a decent wireless connection. Like maybe you’re on your work laptop and bring up a browser screen to play Witcher 3 for a few hours before turning in.
Sure, I guess. I think the disconnect here for me is that sort of use case doesn’t interest me (not to mention I can’t imagine employers being cool with it) for a variety of reasons. For one, when I’m playing a game I like to be where I’m comfortable, not using some shitty mouse from the office. And if you need the controller, I’m not sure how useful it is to bring that to the library, work, a hotel, or wherever I may be that I just have to bust out some Doom. And again, I can’t imagine this doesn’t require a good amount of data to transfer between host and client, which is going to be something someone notices if that’s the sort of thing someone has to keep an eye on.
And for those that don’t have a console or a decent gaming PC and instead pay for this (which I assume is a subscription model, it would be even more useless if it’s just a store front for games you can only play from the cloud) that’s just … a bad way to invest your funds, imo. I mean, anyone with a good enough internet connection to take advantage of this probably already has a gaming rig/console, I would bet (or they aren’t gamers and have a lot of bandwidth for other reasons, but they probably won’t be subscribing either).
I think the potential for the tech is neat, but like folding phones, it doesn’t do much for me.
They’ll just block it like many employers already block objectionable or time wasting sites.
300 posts and nobody’s even mentioned YouTube, which as far as I can tell is the main reason that Google is doing this.
This seems to be the key point. The only way it seems to make a lot of sense is as a big bet on 5G. At the moment, the market of people with top-notch bandwidth and no data caps, but no real gaming hardware, has to be pretty small. If 5G a) works as advertised, and b) takes off, that’s going to change. Big ifs, though, at least for the next few years.
5G is likely to have caps to start with.
Fixed broadband outside the USA doesn’t really have caps so it will probably do fine in Europe.
5G has nothing to do with this. 5G has terrible range:
5G is not going to be deployed in a way that this investment would pay off for 10-15 years, and even then it’s not clear that a significant amount of people would have access to it. Also the technology that communicates with 5G is extremely power hungry, complicated, and expensive (as you can see by reading the Ars Technica article) and most likely those won’t change anytime soon since 5G requires beamforming and 3-5 radio systems.
Stadia is 100% not a bet on 5G, they are just making a bet that enough of the population has 15-25mb internet and is close enough to at least one Google data center to make it work.
If you work in IT, you know what this is really about… the cloud. Google wants a steady stream of revenue that only it controls completely. Moving not only customers but also the developers into the cloud means they control every piece of the revenue stream. This is what companies are doing to us in IT with the software they used to sell us. They want to make everything into a service you pay for, and make you pay for “better” service in every way they can after the fact (which is often not better at all).
Up to now we’ve really only seen this services stuff hammering customers via the games as a service designs that have started to become popular. There’s just as much if not more money to be made by having developers paying for your servers and your services. They’re not going to let you into the Google data center for free no matter who you are unless it’s a sweetheart deal to get things off the ground.
The Cloud will eventually consume everything and we will all be miserable because of it because everything in your life including gaming will feel like a recurring bill.
What’s the stick here, though, especially for developers? Unless this is wildly popular with consumers (presumably because it works and is cheap), there’s nothing forcing devs onto the platform. They can’t even, as you could imagine Amazon doing, say you can’t have your game streamed on Twitch unless you use Stadia.
I don’t think there really is a “stick” with this proposal to devs. It’s all carrot. “Put your game on our service, and here’s all the awesome stuff we can do for you.”
Depending on the pricing model, I can imagine the benefits are pretty significant.
I should probably go back and qualify my comment about “I did notice latency issues”.
So, now that I’m starting to get the “old”, I have noticed my reaction time decrease. So it’s starting to get to the point that I am right at the edge of missing things in quick timing games. Playing Dead Cells on my PS4 I notice this quite a bit, even though I’m pretty good at the game. Every so often, like maybe 5% of the time on things that require quick timing, I’ll hit the button and say, “hey, I hit that” but really my reaction is just a little slower than it used to be so I’m right up against the last moments of the window most of the time. So, it’s about 5% of the time playing Dead Cells locally. AssCreedO requires less careful timing and playing earlier entries in the series I very rarely missed any timed things in combat. On Project Stream I was missing the quicker events around 5-10% of the time there. My guess is that this is because the latency is exaggerating my existing slower-than-I-remember reaction time delay. I used to notice this stuff only playing rhythm games on slow-ass LCDs in the past (the TVs with like 100ms delays, if you remember what I mean). I should go back and play some Gitaroo Man and see how far I’ve fallen some time. :D
Most of the time it was totally fine though. Obviously all of this is super anecdotal, I wasn’t measuring my network latency or anything, it’s all just going by feel.
what if Stadia isn’t a case of Google aggressively entering a new business sphere, but rather a defensive one to protect its existing kingdom?
Yes, it’s cute that Google printed the Konami code on the underside of its Stadia controller, but look at the unique buttons the company has put on the top: one is for Google Assistant and the other is for screen capture. Those are your Google priorities printed in crisp white iconography atop a smooth black surface. The capture button is there to make sharing to YouTube as effortless and frictionless as possible, while the Assistant’s inclusion is there to help gamers stuck on a level find guides or tips on YouTube without having to leave their gaming session.
I mean, every other console has a share button on its controller too.
I think the latency issue is solvable. As Carmack said:
I just can’t see how the costs work out with a pricing model people will tolerate. They have to allow for free to play or it will have a hell of a time taking off. Even Nintendo bowed to Fortnite on the Switch!
I don’t find “some people are dumb, so we’re going to provide that inferior experience to everyone” a compelling argument for. This coming from someone who tested Project Stream and felt it was pretty good.
Google management of Youtube is atrocious. Content creators hate them.
Google is good with search engines, and apps like Gmail or Google docs. Not much else.
How selfish do you have to be to call people “dumb” because they don’t care about the same things you do?
Most people just don’t find latency that big of a deal and don’t care. That doesn’t make them dumb.
I’m going to call people dumb if they don’t know about a feature on their TV that’s specifically made for their use case. That makes them dumb. Would you prefer I say ignorant?