Like, the tech stuff behind Stadia is really cool. And they're trying to make games more accessible to more people by reducing the fixed costs people have to pay to access games (the hardware + software costs).
But also the business models I envision them doing is just...yuck.
Naturally the extent to which these savings occur will be the determining factor, but if you told me I could either pay $60 for a game, or sit through an hour of advertisements and then pay $30 instead, I'd consider that a pretty good deal.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they went with a model where the price is the same as on whatever platform, just you're buying it through Google so they get a cut. Running ads through it I hadn't even considered and... boy that does not sound appealing.
I don't understand why having a Netflix for games would be a bad thing.
That's not the bad part. That's pretty cool!
It's the business models you can easily envision Google using alongside Stadia. Again, Google generates almost 90% of its revenue from selling advertisements. I can't imagine them not continuing that even with a subscription model.
+4
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
oh my god we could inject ads for other games into a game while a game is loading
watch an ad to upgrade your lootbox from rare to legendary
interstitial ads for Appleby's and Grammarly during cutscenes
abilities on cooldown? watch this ad to speed it up!
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
Games with advertising already existed. That's already a thing.
I doubt they'd edit games into the code of a game or something, more likely you'll see ads around the frame of the window (which you can hide if you don't want to see it by going full screen). Sort of like how IGN has advertising that changes the color/theme of their site. Along with your usual top/bottom/side/wherever banner ads.
Asking data scientists to be more human is a fools errand. Their lives are not guided by empathy as much as the relentless pursuit of objective fact.
I think it's neat, as the whole game console cycle is enormously wasteful. Think of system/game updates, download time, cable hookups etc. Just gone. No one will miss anything but offline function. That said, I have full faith Google will screw this up.
Games with advertising already existed. That's already a thing.
I doubt they'd edit games into the code of a game or something, more likely you'll see ads around the frame of the window (which you can hide if you don't want to see it by going full screen). Sort of like how IGN has advertising that changes the color/theme of their site. Along with your usual top/bottom/side/wherever banner ads.
it was fine. at the time it was a convenient and novel service that did just well enough to get me the game (some Splinter Cell sequel) at just enough quality and speed to be playable at a time i didn't have a good computer to play it
but digital ownership & services have gotten so insanely sketch over the past few years this is no longer on the table for me
it's bad enough using a reputable service like PSN and getting locked out of your save files because you're not online for it to call home
i buy discs any time it's convenient for me to do so
I guess maybe I'm in a weird space where I simultaneously hate consumerism but like having private property.
Having grown up with shitty internet I just always think back to that kind of stuff when it comes to this.
Also, again, it's Google. They are basically The Corporation now
+2
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
edited March 2019
Honestly I'm OK with renting media and at least these services will remove that weird grey area. It's explicitly a service that you use to play games. Ownership never enters the equation.
Now I do hope that methods remain to purchase games and own them. As they are two very different markets, especially in regards to the average persons internet access (speaking of the usa specifically)
"I like being able to own stuff but I dislike the horrific remorseless drive for profit and the exploitation of workers and consumers thereof that is the hallmark of modern capitalism, and the more I think about it the more it disturbs me" is a pretty reasonable and increasingly common take I think
"I like being able to own stuff but I dislike the horrific remorseless drive for profit and the exploitation of workers and consumers thereof that is the hallmark of modern capitalism, and the more I think about it the more it disturbs me" is a pretty reasonable and increasingly common take I think
Pretty much yeah. Like, people on the left call me a capitalist because I like having ownership over things, people on the right call me a socialist because I hate the drive for profit and want to work in government service (at the local sector) and hate consumerism.
It's always a fun place to be ideologically speaking.
+1
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Yeah I feel like google should already be broken up as a monopoly so *shrug*
They kinda half-assedly already did that! Now there's Alphabet!
0
Options
DepressperadoI just wanted to see you laughingin the pizza rainRegistered Userregular
I've resigned myself to the fact that our children and their mutant children will grow up in mega-cities surrounded by blasted wasteland, and I think the United Google Cities would probably be the best to live in
I could definitely reasonably argue the right to personal property in a socialist context being extremely important in any free society, so I definitely don't think they're incompatible by any stretch.
Although I suppose that's more personal than private property
Yeah. I see having a copy of your favorite movie or game on a disk as being personal property which is distinct from private property which is the means that capital uses to exploit Labor...
For example imho youtube? It's used to spread lets plays and game reviews and video essays and the like. And Google exploits the labor of the uploaders to make huge advertising profits.
That there makes youtubes nature as proprietary tech and as a corporate commercial instituition a decent example of private property in the modern age. Much like Factory space and machines last century.
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Oh yeah personal property is a thing socialists don't want to touch, you are absolutely allowed to have your own toothbrush. Only capitalist trolls insist that socialism means everyone shares the same bowl and spoon.
It's more that private property is bad - one person should not be able to have total ownership and control of a national airport, for example - it should be owned and controlled by the people of that nation (even if by an elected governing body of citizens and industry experts as opposed to having to hold a national referendum on every decision made at and for said airport - if the carpet in departure lounge B is getting a bit stained and ratty, let it be replaced efficiently without having every adult in the country vote on it)
Yeah I feel like google should already be broken up as a monopoly so *shrug*
They kinda half-assedly already did that! Now there's Alphabet!
that's not breaking them up, that's a holding company they created to own "google inc." for legal fig leaf reasons I don't entirely understand
they're not splitting off the operating parts into independent companies
Yeah I feel like google should already be broken up as a monopoly so *shrug*
They kinda half-assedly already did that! Now there's Alphabet!
that's not breaking them up, that's a holding company they created to own "google inc." for legal fig leaf reasons I don't entirely understand
they're not splitting off the operating parts into independent companies
I don't understand why having a Netflix for games would be a bad thing.
The real issue would be the Spotify for games. Because while triple A games take in cash and would probably survive. This would give fuck all to indie developers.
I have a 6 mbps connection, max. Usually hovers around half that. It is literally my only option. Streaming videos games at better then 480p is not an option for me or millions of other people. Plus, all of you in the US realize that buried deep in the fine print you have a data point at which your ISP will throttle your speed right? How long do you think you can stream a game at 4k, around 60mbps, before your ISP throttles you down to dial up? This wasn't a viable market last time and I don't think it is one now.
Looks like the next generation of Apple Airpods got announced. Going to give those a shot
You can get them with or without a wireless charging case. With case they are $200. With non-wireless case they are $160. The case can be bought separately for people with old airpods for $80.
Looks like the next generation of Apple Airpods got announced. Going to give those a shot
You can get them with or without a wireless charging case. With case they are $200. With non-wireless case they are $160. The case can be bought separately for people with old airpods for $80.
Yeah I just put in an order for the normal case. Not at all interested in the wireless charging, figure the amount of charge the case can hold will make it really not that much of a burden to plug it in on occasion
Posts
Naturally the extent to which these savings occur will be the determining factor, but if you told me I could either pay $60 for a game, or sit through an hour of advertisements and then pay $30 instead, I'd consider that a pretty good deal.
"It's kind of awesome, but I'm kind of legit shook"
Yeah same.
Watching this google conference on Stadia legit makes me less and less interested in games.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Good font. Looks nice. Very sleek. Much wowe.
That's not the bad part. That's pretty cool!
It's the business models you can easily envision Google using alongside Stadia. Again, Google generates almost 90% of its revenue from selling advertisements. I can't imagine them not continuing that even with a subscription model.
watch an ad to upgrade your lootbox from rare to legendary
interstitial ads for Appleby's and Grammarly during cutscenes
abilities on cooldown? watch this ad to speed it up!
I doubt they'd edit games into the code of a game or something, more likely you'll see ads around the frame of the window (which you can hide if you don't want to see it by going full screen). Sort of like how IGN has advertising that changes the color/theme of their site. Along with your usual top/bottom/side/wherever banner ads.
I think it's neat, as the whole game console cycle is enormously wasteful. Think of system/game updates, download time, cable hookups etc. Just gone. No one will miss anything but offline function. That said, I have full faith Google will screw this up.
And I definitely don't like it.
it was fine. at the time it was a convenient and novel service that did just well enough to get me the game (some Splinter Cell sequel) at just enough quality and speed to be playable at a time i didn't have a good computer to play it
but digital ownership & services have gotten so insanely sketch over the past few years this is no longer on the table for me
it's bad enough using a reputable service like PSN and getting locked out of your save files because you're not online for it to call home
i buy discs any time it's convenient for me to do so
Having grown up with shitty internet I just always think back to that kind of stuff when it comes to this.
Also, again, it's Google. They are basically The Corporation now
Now I do hope that methods remain to purchase games and own them. As they are two very different markets, especially in regards to the average persons internet access (speaking of the usa specifically)
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Pretty much yeah. Like, people on the left call me a capitalist because I like having ownership over things, people on the right call me a socialist because I hate the drive for profit and want to work in government service (at the local sector) and hate consumerism.
It's always a fun place to be ideologically speaking.
They kinda half-assedly already did that! Now there's Alphabet!
Yeah. I see having a copy of your favorite movie or game on a disk as being personal property which is distinct from private property which is the means that capital uses to exploit Labor...
For example imho youtube? It's used to spread lets plays and game reviews and video essays and the like. And Google exploits the labor of the uploaders to make huge advertising profits.
That there makes youtubes nature as proprietary tech and as a corporate commercial instituition a decent example of private property in the modern age. Much like Factory space and machines last century.
It's more that private property is bad - one person should not be able to have total ownership and control of a national airport, for example - it should be owned and controlled by the people of that nation (even if by an elected governing body of citizens and industry experts as opposed to having to hold a national referendum on every decision made at and for said airport - if the carpet in departure lounge B is getting a bit stained and ratty, let it be replaced efficiently without having every adult in the country vote on it)
that's not breaking them up, that's a holding company they created to own "google inc." for legal fig leaf reasons I don't entirely understand
they're not splitting off the operating parts into independent companies
Yeah, not even close to the same thing.
Private property is not the same thing as personal property
and you can't do SHIT to stop me
why would i want to
normally i have to pay for such services
Don't threaten me with a good time.
PSN:Furlion
The real issue would be the Spotify for games. Because while triple A games take in cash and would probably survive. This would give fuck all to indie developers.
Satans..... hints.....
PSN:Furlion
The network infrastructure to accommodate this kind of platform doesn't exist. There simply isn't enough fibre in the ground
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
You can get them with or without a wireless charging case. With case they are $200. With non-wireless case they are $160. The case can be bought separately for people with old airpods for $80.
Bit better battery and integrated hey Siri. Considering my watch does hey Siri anyway, these aren't really functions that I'm after.
I might get the new case though.
Satans..... hints.....
Yeah I just put in an order for the normal case. Not at all interested in the wireless charging, figure the amount of charge the case can hold will make it really not that much of a burden to plug it in on occasion
PSN: Robo_Wizard1