As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Stadia: Don’t cross the streams.

1246794

Posts

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Honestly, I'm not excited about Google having control over a sizable chunk of yet another industry/area. The same would go for Amazon or Apple. They already have far too much sway.

    NightslyrKnight_General_ArmchairZibblsnrtKetBrajoshofalltradesfurlionGennenalyse RuebenTransporterThe Deliverator
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.
    It bothered me that they didn't show off any first party games. Just tech demos and other people's games. But they claim that first party games are coming Soon (TM).

    I get the feeling they announced this now in order to generate hype and get ahead of Microsoft because Project Xcloud will likely be a huge part of Xbox's E3 presentation (along with, potentially, the new hardware they've been developing for a while). Between last year's announcement, October's hype video, Microsoft upgrading their Game Developer Kit so XBL services can be communicated with on just about every platform (including the Switch), and some other stuff being whispered about, it really seems like Microsoft is also going to be (nearly) everywhere soon.

    I do think that Stadia has a shot, specifically if they market it as the not-console for gamers who can't afford current hardware. That it's a compelling budget option that allows one to play games with some trade-offs (need good internet, performance may be uneven, etc.). That should be their direction, at least at first. Outside of a killer, must-have app (or, like, three), it's hard for me to see it making much of a dent in the others' marketshare, Google technical wizardry or not.
    Gamers that can't afford current hardware also can't afford a strong internet connection with no caps (virtual caps or hard caps).

    You're saying you don't know anybody who can't afford a few hundred dollars up front for console + game but could afford to pay like $15-20 bucks a month or whatever? That's so weird.

    Low upfront cost lowers barrier to entry too.
    The kind of internet connection that you need for this service, to play games longterm, costs way more than 15-20 bucks a month, either for a phone or an ISP. If you have the disposable income to afford a phat connection, you probably also have the disposable income to buy a console or subscribe to Netflix or whatever. I know very few people who are in poverty, but also seem to have god-like Internet. Most people who can't afford a console or even a console payment plan are leeching from their landlord's WiFi or something.

    1) Maybe I don't want to spend the money on the console. I would probably play something on Xbox or PS4 if I didn't have to buy the whole damn box. They're losing out on a sale because I have to buy into all their shit. So they could get people like me with gigabit FiOS to do shit that yes, I could afford but I don't actually want spend $400 to play God of War.

    2) If you live in the city I bet your internet connection won't have to be as amazing. If your customer base is limited exactly to people with gigabit FiOS then this will never work. As said above, it'll scale down as far as 720p if needed, which is not ideal but probably not necessary most of the time. This solves your other problem, where I could afford reasonable internet and also not have the upfront money to spend on a console, which is obviously a demographic that exists given the above Xbox payment plan.

  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    Honestly, I'm not excited about Google having control over a sizable chunk of yet another industry/area. The same would go for Amazon or Apple. They already have far too much sway.

    I'm really curious about both their subscription plan (not just cost, but what happens to your library if you stop your subscription for a time) and their developer payment structure, especially in light of the current spat between Unreal and Steam (and to a lesser extent, GoG).

    I'm also weary about what data they'll decide to sell/make ready for API consumption through this service. Google is only slightly less invasive than Facebook and Twitter when it comes to this.

  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.

    Because our industry needs a shakeup and this could be the start of something good?

    Good and Google aren't words I'd put together.

    Besides, nothing about this announcement really has anything to do with the current problems facing gaming, outside of (potentially) broadening the overall playerbase. Google isn't going to magically make EA or Activision not suck, or improve worker conditions, or promote diversity in gaming, or curb toxic bullshit online (I mean, for fuck's sake this is the same company that has PewDiePie as it's most visible employee), or get rid of the AAA mentality of "It didn't sell a billion units, so let's start shuttering studios."

    At best, this is a new player on an existing field. The field itself won't change much, if at all.

    "Game consoles cost $300+" is a current problem facing gaming. Not for the people on this forum no, but non-gaming or mobile-only customers are a huge untapped market.

  • SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    One big obstacle I see: how many stream fuck ups until you just stop bothering with this thing

    I have a Steam Link to play platformers and stuff on my big TV. It works really well probably 98% of the time. But that 2% lurking in the back of my head is usually enough to make me decide to just watch Netflix instead if I have time to kill.

    NightslyrKoopahTroopahOneAngryPossum
  • CruorCruor Registered User regular
    Honestly, I'm not excited about Google having control over a sizable chunk of yet another industry/area. The same would go for Amazon or Apple. They already have far too much sway.

    "Hey Google, how do I beat this level?"
    *google's heavily abused algorithms bring you to an alt-right youtuber's video denouncing feminism and praising the flavor of the month -gate movement*

    ronswansonthrowingawaycomputer.gif

    NightslyrmxmarksHahnsoo1KoopahTroopahTubularLuggageSmurphBrodyPolaritieKnight_CroakerMcFodderSaraLunafurlionGennenalyse RuebenTransporterJeep-EepThe Deliverator
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Zek wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.

    Because our industry needs a shakeup and this could be the start of something good?

    Good and Google aren't words I'd put together.

    Besides, nothing about this announcement really has anything to do with the current problems facing gaming, outside of (potentially) broadening the overall playerbase. Google isn't going to magically make EA or Activision not suck, or improve worker conditions, or promote diversity in gaming, or curb toxic bullshit online (I mean, for fuck's sake this is the same company that has PewDiePie as it's most visible employee), or get rid of the AAA mentality of "It didn't sell a billion units, so let's start shuttering studios."

    At best, this is a new player on an existing field. The field itself won't change much, if at all.

    "Game consoles cost $300+" is a current problem facing gaming. Not for the people on this forum no, but non-gaming or mobile-only customers are a huge untapped market.

    Nah it's totally still a problem for people on this forum. What percentage of people own all three options? I mean it's inflated on this forum but I'd still say less than 10%. A thousand dollars is a lot for the vast majority of people and then you still don't have access to PC exclusives.

  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    Zek wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.

    Because our industry needs a shakeup and this could be the start of something good?

    Good and Google aren't words I'd put together.

    Besides, nothing about this announcement really has anything to do with the current problems facing gaming, outside of (potentially) broadening the overall playerbase. Google isn't going to magically make EA or Activision not suck, or improve worker conditions, or promote diversity in gaming, or curb toxic bullshit online (I mean, for fuck's sake this is the same company that has PewDiePie as it's most visible employee), or get rid of the AAA mentality of "It didn't sell a billion units, so let's start shuttering studios."

    At best, this is a new player on an existing field. The field itself won't change much, if at all.

    "Game consoles cost $300+" is a current problem facing gaming. Not for the people on this forum no, but non-gaming or mobile-only customers are a huge untapped market.

    True, but how will that make gaming the industry better? I mean, yeah, if this works, the consumer side has more access. But I don't see how that appreciably changes how the supply side goes about its business.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    .
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Honestly, I'm not excited about Google having control over a sizable chunk of yet another industry/area. The same would go for Amazon or Apple. They already have far too much sway.

    I'm really curious about both their subscription plan (not just cost, but what happens to your library if you stop your subscription for a time) and their developer payment structure, especially in light of the current spat between Unreal and Steam (and to a lesser extent, GoG).

    I'm also weary about what data they'll decide to sell/make ready for API consumption through this service. Google is only slightly less invasive than Facebook and Twitter when it comes to this.
    Everyone is just assuming a subscription plan (and to be fair, I would assume one, too). But this is, by far, the most difficult way to implement monetization for this process because publishers are utter butts about it. None of the existing streaming services started out with a subscription plan (and they all did poorly until they did, granted), but part of this is because publishers in the video game industry are difficult to work with when it comes to adding games to a subscription service.

    Google does have the money to money-hat this problem, of course. But will it be profitable?

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
    Nightslyr
  • dipuc4lifedipuc4life ... In my own HeadRegistered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Digital foundry over at Eurogamer just posted a hands-on article, where they said that


    If you have a very wide internet connection, Stadia supports 4K video at 60 frames per second with HDR support. However, based on conversations with Google, we expect that 1080p streaming is more likely to be the norm on connections with around 25mbps of bandwidth. Stadia will go lower, dropping down to 720p60 with connections in the region of 15mbps - but having seen it in action with an artificial cap in place, it's clear that fast action causes obvious artefacts on a large, living room display. Google itself considers this to be a 'worse case scenario'. The experience would likely hold up much better on a smaller screen, however.


    Welp, that rules me out. In my country, you CAN get 15mbps easy ... for a highly extortionate price. The fact that even with that speed you have artifacting (at the bare-minimum bandwidth) is concerning. You say that your service can reach 2 Billion people. I'm curious how many of those 2 billion have the required bandwidth to actually 'use' your streaming service. I'll just stick to the regular console makers for now. Maybe in 10 to 15 years when 15mbps is ubiquitous to all connections, I'll take it for a test drive. Or even better I could root up my whole life and move somewhere with decent internet. Thanks Google.

    dipuc4life on
    NNID: SW-6490-6173-9136
    Playstation: Dipuc4Life
    Warframe_Switch IGN: ONVEBAL
    Jeep-Eep
  • KoopahTroopahKoopahTroopah The koopas, the troopas. Philadelphia, PARegistered User regular
    edited March 2019
    They mentioned partnering with Unreal Engine 4. Put Fortnite on Stadia and show me the results. It's cool that we're all speculating and all that, but the clear lack of demonstration apart from house-built demos and no hard data shows that this isn't ready to present to consumers just yet. Showing it to developers first was really smart as it lets the creatives spin their brains a bit, but for the rest of us who have questions about using it will probably have to wait until their Summer presentation for anything concrete.

    KoopahTroopah on
    Nightslyrdipuc4lifefurlion
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    They mentioned partnering with Unreal Engine 4. Put Fortnite on Stadia and show me the results. It's cool that we're all speculating and all that, but the clear lack of demonstration apart from house-built demos and hard data shows that this isn't ready to present to consumers just yet. Showing it to developers first was really smart as it lets the creatives spin their brains a bit, but for the rest of us who have questions about using it will probably have to wait until their Summer presentation for anything concrete.

    Damn the waiting.. I want the meat.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    They mentioned partnering with Unreal Engine 4. Put Fortnite on Stadia and show me the results. It's cool that we're all speculating and all that, but the clear lack of demonstration apart from house-built demos and hard data shows that this isn't ready to present to consumers just yet. Showing it to developers first was really smart as it lets the creatives spin their brains a bit, but for the rest of us who have questions about using it will probably have to wait until their Summer presentation for anything concrete.

    Damn the waiting.. I want the meat.
    Come to GDC! They'll have demos there!*

    * GDC passes are hundreds to thousands of dollars. :(

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
    Nightslyrdipuc4lifeKoopahTroopah
  • lionheart_mlionheart_m Registered User regular
    Living outside the US (LATAM here...Panama) this seems to still be very VERY far away. I mean connections over here aren't bad but I didn't have good experiences with PS Now a couple of years ago.

    3DS: 5069-4122-2826 / WiiU: Lionheart-m / PSN: lionheart_m / Steam: lionheart_jg
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    I don’t understand how these services could be less than 20 dollars a month plus games. Gamepass is just a relatively small first party list plus some rotating games and that’s 10 dollars and costs Microsoft nothing beyond the rights. Now you’re going to be streaming 4K 60 to my house and running it on your machines?

    Idk I expect this to be much more expensive than makes sense for me.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Curious how the price break down works. A new console is say $400-500, and sure people can't afford it all at once, but do you sub to Stadia and then buy games on top of it or is it a gamepass? The 360 had a 10 year lifespan and at launch was $399; granted few if any got 10 years out of their launch console without expanding the drive but best case scenario you're looking at ~$3 and change a month for just the unit. Even if I consider that I bought mine a year late, and then a second elite later, I'm still ~$7 and change a month. Add Xbox Live on top of that, and we're $12 month unless I managed to find a sale which I often did.

    Frankly, Google is kind of a shit company that has floated some shit products that they just bailed on so I'm not really feeling it.

    Nosf on
    Nightslyr
  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    My final post on this (until there's new news) to clarify my position:

    I do think that broadening the gaming audience is a net good. I like having more people - especially those that come from different walks of life - take part of the same hobby I've enjoyed since I was about 2 years old, when my grandmother bought the family a Commodore VIC-20 in the early 80s. The more, the merrier.

    I'm not convinced that Stadia will have traction due to a variety of factors: It's a new platform, so there's no built-in legacy of achievements, friend lists, groups, etc. We know next to nothing about it, outside of the built-in Google Assistant tech. There's no indication of what their online multiplayer service (if they're making one) will entail. There's legit technical hurdles with streaming, including tearing/artifacts and latency. While Google can spend money to make it work, there's no guarantee it will.

    I'm more optimistic about Project Xcloud because of Xbox's history. That isn't to say it's guaranteed to work (at the very least, it's facing the same technical hurdles as Stadia), but that there's less initial risk. Xbox-as-a-Service has been the way the brand has been trending since the middle of the 360's lifecycle. An Xbox as a home hub for everything, including TV. An Xbox that's primarily a digital experience (the initial and poorly presented introduction to the Xbone). Project Xcloud is simply the next step in this trajectory that started about a decade ago, which also fits Microsoft's larger course - Microsoft services on every device. Again, that doesn't automatically mean it will work, but there's already certain things in place - XBL - that have been answered.

  • Ear3nd1lEar3nd1l Eärendil the Mariner, father of Elrond Registered User regular
    I'm going to echo the connection speed concerns. I'm stuck with CenturyLink and their 25Mbps-in-theory service because Comcast has no intention of ever coming to my neighborhood.

  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Nightslyr wrote: »

    I'm not convinced that Stadia will have traction due to a variety of factors: It's a new platform, so there's no built-in legacy of achievements, friend lists, groups, etc. We know next to nothing about it, outside of the built-in Google Assistant tech. There's no indication of what their online multiplayer service (if they're making one) will entail. There's legit technical hurdles with streaming, including tearing/artifacts and latency. While Google can spend money to make it work, there's no guarantee it will.

    I'm more optimistic about Project Xcloud because of Xbox's history. That isn't to say it's guaranteed to work (at the very least, it's facing the same technical hurdles as Stadia), but that there's less initial risk. Xbox-as-a-Service has been the way the brand has been trending since the middle of the 360's lifecycle. An Xbox as a home hub for everything, including TV. An Xbox that's primarily a digital experience (the initial and poorly presented introduction to the Xbone). Project Xcloud is simply the next step in this trajectory that started about a decade ago, which also fits Microsoft's larger course - Microsoft services on every device. Again, that doesn't automatically mean it will work, but there's already certain things in place - XBL - that have been answered.

    Microsoft is offering Xbox live on other platforms, in theory it could be done with achievements and such but Google already has their own (at least, I see some notice as such on my phone when I play a shitty phone game). I still want to see Microsoft's original digital offering where I can loan games digitally over to my pals and such. Lots of naysayers, but MS was pretty adamant that shit was in the can before people lost their minds and Sony made their cute if stupid and unrealistic video about their game sharing.

    Nosf on
    Nightslyr
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    This doesn't stand a fucking chance unless the continental US has its internet infrastructure reinforced, gains an increase in thru-put, and becomes more affordable.

    I really doubt Google is going to invest money into lobbying for any of that.

    NightslyrCruorGeneral_ArmchairQanamilPolaritiejoshofalltradesGennenalyse RuebenJeep-EepAegis
  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »

    I'm not convinced that Stadia will have traction due to a variety of factors: It's a new platform, so there's no built-in legacy of achievements, friend lists, groups, etc. We know next to nothing about it, outside of the built-in Google Assistant tech. There's no indication of what their online multiplayer service (if they're making one) will entail. There's legit technical hurdles with streaming, including tearing/artifacts and latency. While Google can spend money to make it work, there's no guarantee it will.

    I'm more optimistic about Project Xcloud because of Xbox's history. That isn't to say it's guaranteed to work (at the very least, it's facing the same technical hurdles as Stadia), but that there's less initial risk. Xbox-as-a-Service has been the way the brand has been trending since the middle of the 360's lifecycle. An Xbox as a home hub for everything, including TV. An Xbox that's primarily a digital experience (the initial and poorly presented introduction to the Xbone). Project Xcloud is simply the next step in this trajectory that started about a decade ago, which also fits Microsoft's larger course - Microsoft services on every device. Again, that doesn't automatically mean it will work, but there's already certain things in place - XBL - that have been answered.

    Microsoft is offering Xbox live on other platforms, in theory it could be done with achievements and such but Google already has their own (at least, I see some notice as such on my phone when I play a shitty phone game). I still want to see Microsoft's original digital offering where I can loan games digitally over to my pals and such. Lots of naysayers, but MS was pretty adamant that shit was in the can before people lost their minds and Sony made their cute if stupid and unrealistic video about their game sharing.

    Yeah, they torpedoed themselves with that initial presentation. IIRC, not only did they have a pretty progressive digital game sharing system in place, they also had a digital return system in place. I hope that those systems resurface with Xcloud.

  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    This doesn't stand a fucking chance unless the continental US has its internet infrastructure reinforced, gains an increase in thru-put, and becomes more affordable.

    I really doubt Google is going to invest money into lobbying for any of that.

    Well, speaking of killing products - Google was rolling out fiber across the country until they stopped and shitcanned their expansion in 2016, now they just service what currently exists as far as I know.

    "In October 2016, all expansion plans were put on hold and some jobs were cut. Google Fiber will continue to provide service in the cities where it is already installed." That said, I do see some mention of them doing a few cities in 2017.

    "In April 2017, Google announced that Google Fiber would start construction in Louisville, Kentucky. Google Fiber got the service to sections of Louisville in five months after it first announced that it would be coming to the city—faster than it had ever deployed before—by using shallow trenching. In February 2019 Google announced it would shut down service on April 15. Prior to departing, Google Fiber service was criticized for disruptive infrastructure installations and poor workmanship."

  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    I still don't understand how you could say, "No latency" when the video processing would be done off-site and streamed.

    Any latency to whatever is processing the video would be really obvious. 200ms of input delay means entire genres become unplayable.

    I get that prediction can make things look smooth, but it's only appearance.

    ObiFettNightslyrGeneral_ArmchairQanamilCroakerMcFodderGennenalyse RuebenJeep-Eepkime
  • MegaMan001MegaMan001 CRNA Rochester, MNRegistered User regular
    1. Really don't like the idea of purchasing a game I stream. Insert any number of "Well, what happens to my library when the service shuts down?"

    2. I'm just going to ball park that 80% of the geographical United States doesn't have the internet service to do this.

    3. This is the company that abandoned Google Fiber in Louisville, KY after their nano-trenching idea went to shit and did not repair the damage to the streets.

    If I had to guess between "absolutely fucking not" "snowball in hell"

    I am in the business of saving lives.
    NightslyrGeneral_ArmchairJeep-Eepkime
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    Curious how the price break down works. A new console is say $400-500, and sure people can't afford it all at once, but do you sub to Stadia and then buy games on top of it or is it a gamepass? The 360 had a 10 year lifespan and at launch was $399; granted few if any got 10 years out of their launch console without expanding the drive but best case scenario you're looking at ~$3 and change a month for just the unit. Even if I consider that I bought mine a year late, and then a second elite later, I'm still ~$7 and change a month. Add Xbox Live on top of that, and we're $12 month unless I managed to find a sale which I often did.

    Frankly, Google is kind of a shit company that has floated some shit products that they just bailed on so I'm not really feeling it.

    Yeah, I was looking at the Shadow box, and comparing that to the cost of keeping a front edge PC up to date is pretty good, but consoles are so much cheaper.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson

    Steam: Korvalain
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    This doesn't stand a fucking chance unless the continental US has its internet infrastructure reinforced, gains an increase in thru-put, and becomes more affordable.

    I really doubt Google is going to invest money into lobbying for any of that.

    They used to, but that would be a state/count level budget issue.

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Nosf wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This doesn't stand a fucking chance unless the continental US has its internet infrastructure reinforced, gains an increase in thru-put, and becomes more affordable.

    I really doubt Google is going to invest money into lobbying for any of that.

    Well, speaking of killing products - Google was rolling out fiber across the country until they stopped and shitcanned their expansion in 2016, now they just service what currently exists as far as I know.

    "In October 2016, all expansion plans were put on hold and some jobs were cut. Google Fiber will continue to provide service in the cities where it is already installed." That said, I do see some mention of them doing a few cities in 2017.

    "In April 2017, Google announced that Google Fiber would start construction in Louisville, Kentucky. Google Fiber got the service to sections of Louisville in five months after it first announced that it would be coming to the city—faster than it had ever deployed before—by using shallow trenching. In February 2019 Google announced it would shut down service on April 15. Prior to departing, Google Fiber service was criticized for disruptive infrastructure installations and poor workmanship."
    Mama Mia they're worse at this than I thought.

    Henroid on
  • AbsalonAbsalon Lands of Always WinterRegistered User regular
    Unless Google includes a "Guaranteed server uptime until 202X for all purchases made 2019-2020 or your money back" guarantee I am skeptical. Apart from that I don't mind a streaming-only business model.

    Jeep-Eep
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    Curious how the price break down works. A new console is say $400-500, and sure people can't afford it all at once, but do you sub to Stadia and then buy games on top of it or is it a gamepass? The 360 had a 10 year lifespan and at launch was $399; granted few if any got 10 years out of their launch console without expanding the drive but best case scenario you're looking at ~$3 and change a month for just the unit. Even if I consider that I bought mine a year late, and then a second elite later, I'm still ~$7 and change a month. Add Xbox Live on top of that, and we're $12 month unless I managed to find a sale which I often did.

    Frankly, Google is kind of a shit company that has floated some shit products that they just bailed on so I'm not really feeling it.
    So this is something that people kinda don't understand when it comes to poor people budgeting shit out. Working up to a few hundred bucks for a single purchase can be a challenge. But a low cost payment monthly is affordable. And yeah, over x time, you pay more than the total original cost, but the flow of money doesn't really work that way for people. And it fucking blows, for the record.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    OnLive wasn't that long ago... *looks at Wikipedia page*

    HOLY SHIT, it was a decade ago? How do we still have the same basic problems with streaming??

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    OnLive wasn't that long ago... *looks at Wikipedia page*

    HOLY SHIT, it was a decade ago? How do we still have the same basic problems with streaming??
    OH MAN I was trying to remember the name of that shit for the past hour, thank you!

    Also a decade, fucking RIP me getting old.

    Jeep-EepArbitraryDescriptor
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    what google did in louisville is almost comically stupid

    https://gizmodo.com/when-google-fiber-abandons-your-city-as-a-failed-experi-1833244198

    HenroidNaphtali
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    I should add that Google put forth a number of streaming-unique features that haven't been done or at least advertised extensively in the past. Seamless switching between devices mid-game. Joining people instantly on youtube or their states via links. Split-screen without power compromise. Simultaneous live streaming and recording at any resolution without any need for capture or uploading. Streaming-exclusive game design like 1000+ player battles and shared physics. We haven't heard a whiff of any of this stuff from Microsoft or Sony. They have a number of other advantages, most of all being a hybrid environment of the same games either local or streamed, but their streaming services themselves appear weaker than Stadia at the moment.

    rahkeesh2000 on
  • General_ArmchairGeneral_Armchair Registered User regular
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    I still don't understand how you could say, "No latency" when the video processing would be done off-site and streamed.

    Any latency to whatever is processing the video would be really obvious. 200ms of input delay means entire genres become unplayable.

    I get that prediction can make things look smooth, but it's only appearance.

    Yeah, there is a tremendous difference between playing a game while connected to a server with 200ms of latency and playing a game where your inputs have even half as much.

    When playing locally, your inputs accepted and everything is rendered locally with a very small delay. The drawback of playing multi-player with a 200ms delay is that your information of the game state is out of date. But things will still generally look right to you baring some edge cases like hit detection issues and rubber banding when someone makes a sudden change in how they're moving. Outside of those cases everything will still look and feel right and the quality will be comparable to single player. Granted those cases are highly important in competitive games, but what I'm getting at is that playing on a server with a high ping just inhibits your ability to interact with/defeat opponents. It doesn't impact your ability to traverse the playing field. Sometimes the latency can work to your advantage if you can rush into a room and shoot someone before they can see you enter the room.


    But when you stream a game, then suddenly your every input is delayed. Traversing the playing field becomes a chore. On top of all of that, the latency from the traditional connection is still there. You've just made everything so much worse.


    This would never work for games like fast paced shooters, fighting games, or anything where the player needs precise control within narrow time windows such as parrying attacks or quickly popping out of cover to shoot. Sweet Jesus can you imagine trying to track an opponent and keep your shots on target if your mouse movements were delayed by even a tenth of a second? I'm nauseaous already.


    It should work acceptably for 4x games like Civilization, or something like Mario Party. Maybe some hack and slashers where you can get by with mindlessly spamming attack as fast as possible. But the majority of games that people think about as the flagship titles of consoles will be outright unplayable in a streamed environment.

    3DS Friend Code:
    Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
    dispatch.o
  • General_ArmchairGeneral_Armchair Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    OnLive wasn't that long ago... *looks at Wikipedia page*

    HOLY SHIT, it was a decade ago? How do we still have the same basic problems with streaming??

    Because the basic problem is the speed of light. Invent FTL communication and we're golden.

    3DS Friend Code:
    Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    I know the comparisons to OnLive are pretty obvious, but it's also possible that it was just a DivX situation: a legitimately good product that was just about a decade ahead of its time

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    I know the comparisons to OnLive are pretty obvious, but it's also possible that it was just a DivX situation: a legitimately good product that was just about a decade ahead of its time
    You can go further back and draw comparison to the Sega Channel. Sometimes though when something is ahead of its time, the answer isn't to try it again later with more money thrown at it. It's to take ideas or whatever else you can from it and apply it to existing tech.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    I know the comparisons to OnLive are pretty obvious, but it's also possible that it was just a DivX situation: a legitimately good product that was just about a decade ahead of its time
    You can go further back and draw comparison to the Sega Channel. Sometimes though when something is ahead of its time, the answer isn't to try it again later with more money thrown at it. It's to take ideas or whatever else you can from it and apply it to existing tech.
    Eh. The Sega Channel model wasn't streaming video. It was downloading the games directly to the 4MB on the cartridge itself, and erasing it afterwards. It was a subscription model for games, but we've seen multiple examples of that over the years (with varying degrees of success).

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
    Gennenalyse Rueben
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    I know the comparisons to OnLive are pretty obvious, but it's also possible that it was just a DivX situation: a legitimately good product that was just about a decade ahead of its time
    You can go further back and draw comparison to the Sega Channel. Sometimes though when something is ahead of its time, the answer isn't to try it again later with more money thrown at it. It's to take ideas or whatever else you can from it and apply it to existing tech.
    Eh. The Sega Channel model wasn't streaming video. It was downloading the games directly to the 4MB on the cartridge itself, and erasing it afterwards. It was a subscription model for games, but we've seen multiple examples of that over the years (with varying degrees of success).
    Oh I'm aware, I had one of those bad boys. I'm just saying, the basic concept of having content come into your home remotely. This isn't the Sega Channel idea directly, but Steam is a closer match - the digital distribution of games.

    I dunno why digital distribution is being declared not good enough via this Google service. I mean, that's the inherent thing that's being said along with this announcement right?

    It's like providing an answer to a question or problem that was never put forward in the first place.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    I know the comparisons to OnLive are pretty obvious, but it's also possible that it was just a DivX situation: a legitimately good product that was just about a decade ahead of its time
    You can go further back and draw comparison to the Sega Channel. Sometimes though when something is ahead of its time, the answer isn't to try it again later with more money thrown at it. It's to take ideas or whatever else you can from it and apply it to existing tech.
    Eh. The Sega Channel model wasn't streaming video. It was downloading the games directly to the 4MB on the cartridge itself, and erasing it afterwards. It was a subscription model for games, but we've seen multiple examples of that over the years (with varying degrees of success).
    Oh I'm aware, I had one of those bad boys. I'm just saying, the basic concept of having content come into your home remotely. This isn't the Sega Channel idea directly, but Steam is a closer match - the digital distribution of games.

    I dunno why digital distribution is being declared not good enough via this Google service. I mean, that's the inherent thing that's being said along with this announcement right?

    It's like providing an answer to a question or problem that was never put forward in the first place.
    Erm, what? I think the issue is mostly that it is a streaming-only thing, as far as we've seen. That means it requires you to be online the entire time you are playing. It means that you don't actually own any of the hardware or software involved. I don't think that there are earnest claims that digital distribution is "not good enough" other than to act as a devil's advocate.

    "What about Steam?" What about it? That's not the same service. Steam sells you games digitally and then you download them. You are responsible for your own hardware. This is a different beast, closer to OnLive and PS Now, with all of the problems that OnLive and PS Now are facing in terms of content delivery (publishers are notoriously reticent at allowing their titles on streaming services, for example, from the business end). That Ubisoft and id seem 100% on board is promising, to be clear. But it remains to be seen if all of the other publishers and developers will follow suit, especially with the prospect that supporting a streaming service could cannibalize/undercut their profitability in other more primary markets.

    Now, if they ALSO said "Hey, you can download the games TOO, in addition to streaming", we'd see a different reaction. But everything we've seen requires a high-speed, uninterrupted internet connection.

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
    Gennenalyse Rueben
Sign In or Register to comment.