Stadia - Google's vision for the future of gaming

Shadow? PS Now? GeForce Now?

Hard to compare Stadia and xCloud since neither of them are available to the public as of yet, unlike those three above.

Heck, pretty soon you won’t have to press any buttons at all, it’ll just hit all the ones you meant to hit!

This is true, but the trend in tech over the last couple of decades is to make it “good enough” such that even though it’s worse than what they have now, people will flock to it in the name of convenience. Convenience is the only thing that seems to matter to the bulk of consumers these days, and once they latch on to something “convenient” it’s not long before the old, better thing is out of business and no longer available to those who can tell the difference.

PS Now, as currently constituted (specifically in it’s streaming form), isn’t competing with anything, haha. Latency is terrible (especially during peak hours), and the game selection, while large, is not new games at or around release, like Stadia and xCloud are aiming for.

Shadow and GeForce Now I’m not familiar with, as one is in beta, and the other isn’t available in my country.

You have a client in quakeworld that you run locally. Stadia doesn’t run locally, it runs on the cloud. So you can’t reduce lag from stadia to your display/input device with this. You can only reduce your lag to another user in multiplayer games - at least as described. Maybe they are doing something more interesting…

No one knows what business model xCloud is aiming for at this point.

I was talking about rollback networking, which does seem very similar to clientside prediction.

People forget that this only makes any sense for a a very specific tiny percentage of people:

  1. they must be gamers, else they wont pay for a subscription for gaming
  2. they must be in some financial position where the economics of an ongoing subscription is affordable but a decent gaming PC is not
  3. They must ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY be interested in playing games that work well with latency, because otherwise they DO need a gaming PC and thus the biz model is pointless
  4. They must have a rock-solid internet connection. Almost certainly fiber to the premises
  5. They must have uncapped bandwidth, or incredibly high bandwidth caps.
  6. They must EXCLUSIVELY be interested in only ever playing games that have a deal with stadia, otherwise…they need a gaming PC and again…the biz model is pointless.

This is a venn diagram with a trivial number of people in it. There is zero business model here. It will fail.

  1. video games are the largest media segment by dollars spent. there are plenty of gamers
  2. at $20/month or whatever, it would take 5-6 years for a subscription to outprice a decent gaming PC. the economics probably favor a subscription. also, convenience.
  3. the subset of games that won’t work with latency is tiny: fighting games and shmups… that’s about it
  4. i have cable and streaming works just fine for me
  5. streaming gaming video is no more bandwidth intensive than streaming non-interactive video
  6. i guess? who knows what that looks like at this point

You might be right and this will fail. I actually think it’s more likely that Google abandons it on a whim. But I think that streaming gaming will start to capture significant market share, particularly if it’s convenient and painless.

Yup. Stadia may totally fail because Google. Game streaming is inevitable. Publishers and platform owners love it. It’s the ultimate secure recurring revenue stream and it’s already accepted by consumers for music, TV, movies, etc.

Absolutely agree. Mainstream gaming will be streaming in <10 years, but it will not necessarily be on Stadia.

Same, and I did most of my streaming over wi-fi. It was pretty damn solid. Not perfect, but if streaming becomes a thing, I’ll connect my gaming PC by wire.

I just don’t really understand the predictions on doom on streaming. It solves so many problems that the major players in the industry have hated for years. They hate giving away a bunch of money to piracy, grey market keys and used games. Streaming solves most of those issues in one fell swoop.

Because it also solves the problems of people actually owning things, having to compete with old stuff (without selling it over and over again) and having affordable prices, in exchange of not doing much of anything for the customers who lose the capability of modding and preservation.
Thanks, I hate it, along with their already exaggerated entitlements.

Well said.

That’s solving so called problems for the industry not consumers.

The continued claims this stuff works fine now on almost all games is just laughable. When Google proves this works across millions of homes with all sorts of different internet connections, by different ISP’s, at any time of day including primetime hours then I’ll start to buy into it as a possibility.

No ones also mentioned they won’t ever have the big platform exclusives either. No Nintendo, PlayStation or XBox games.

negative latency, i think they mean they can use more than one process for a game, so if the player press button A, they have already rendered the frame, but if the player press button B, they have already the frame.

this would require the game to run multiple predicted versions, and I don’t think they will do that, since would require way more CPU and GPU. They can.

where they are … too creative… is in labelling this negative latency. They continue acting has is only the server and client that matters, but here we have a architecture of server-client-remote access. The data may be generated fast in the client, but for your eyeballs to see it, it must be downloaded to your machine to be rendered in your screen.

is strange that they continue this path, it only created distrust from technical people

they already created consoles so they have full control, but PC gaming still exist.

Only when the last script engine or compiler is removed from a pc, pc gaming will stop
and while pc gaming exist, people will own games, mod games and create new genres like Mobas, Battle royales, etc.

monopolies are strong economically, but not very creative, and this is a creation industry

yep, thats my conclusion too. They can do this. They will probably not. They are not going to assign 10 machines to a single user so his lag is lower.

anyway all this will do is cut the server (client) response… the data is still on a google computer farm, and not on your screen, … must travel from google to your screen, and there will incurr in a latency, hence the latency will be positive.

Your logic breaks down already at this first step, since you appear to have the basic facts wrong.

This is exactly the surprising part about the apparent endgame of Stadia business model. It’s not really a subscription model; access to game isn’t gated by subscriptions, you have to buy the games. The part that is gated behind a subscription is access to the 4k streaming, but access to 1080p60 is free.

With no subscription fee, all of your points 1, 2, 3, and 6 are invalid. For points 4 and 5, Google would literally be the best placed company to in the world to know whether the conditions are now in place or not, just from Youtube traffic data. Why would they be launching this if a sufficient penetration of high speed internet access wasn’t there?

Of course no platform has access to the exclusives of other platforms. That’s what the word means! But none of the three platforms you listed has access to the exclusives of the two other platforms either. Microsoft hardly has barely had any exclusives for this whole generation (and paid the price for it).

But it’s an interesting question whether the exclusives matter that much in the streaming model. They’re important with physical consoles since that’s what gets people to buy the hardware, and once they have the hardware the hope is that they’ll buy the non-exclusives on that platform as well. But there’s basically no up-front investment required here.

Try making that completely logical argument to the people hating on the Epic store.

At any rate, exclusives certainly matter to the stores, even if consumers shouldn’t care.

Yea they matter. It one of the several factors to keep people with the other platforms. If the people are still getting a machine like the PS5 or Scarlett for exclusives then why bother with streaming? Google has to offer something clearly superior or clearly less expensive with the same library or gamers are just going to shrug and go play their PlayStation, Xbox and or PC still.