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.

1235794

Posts

  • CruorCruor Registered User regular
    So...instantly joining streamers in their game seems TAILOR MADE for abuse. Stream sniping, harassment (which will certainly disproportionately target women/marginalized groups), etc. Yes, let's give shitty people even more ways to target people for hate brigading.

    I'd hope they would add in potections against that sort of thing, but even then if you're a streamer who doesn't allow joining in you'll be unfairly labelled as "anti-community" or some such bullshit.

    Hahnsoo1Croakerdipuc4lifeGennenalyse Ruebenkime
  • MegaMan001MegaMan001 CRNA Rochester, MNRegistered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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.

    It's pretty amazing to think Google future business is based on having a high-speed dependable internet when they have demonstrated that even that is beyond them.

    I am in the business of saving lives.
    Croakerdipuc4lifeGennenalyse Rueben
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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.
    I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying my post, and to be fair I didn't shift the thoughts around properly.

    I'm not saying Steam or Sega Channel are directly the same thing. I'm saying that the concept of content coming to your hardware (in the case of Stadia, your TV) is the same. How that content is stored and accessed is absolutely different and that's where the next part of my post comes in.

    Digital distribution had people worried but we've lived with it for a while now. It was PC at first, now consoles do it, and it's just... how things are.

    So going to Stadia from there, NOW the question is what problem is Google trying to solve for people, here? Is it the storage of digitally distributed games? Is it the space a video game console takes up?

    I'm not defending Stadia at all. Everything about this is dumb, and it goes back to my initial post which you capped your post with - internet infrastructure is shit-ass at best in the United States and costs too much for what it is. But it also goes into the idea that when you put a new kind of product or service out, it generally addresses a problem society / consumers have (either with existing products or caused by existing products). And streaming a video game to be played isn't solving anything.

    It's like when Apple put out that stupid fucking watch. What the hell was anyone supposed to do with that beyond status symboling it up?

    Hahnsoo1
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    A lot of people seem excited about the idea of this but I think there's several drawbacks. Stuff that requires low latency doesn't work. If it takes off and consoles transition to this, do games start getting designed with slower inputs in mind? Do we lose out on fighting games or dark souls dodging type things because the latency can't handle it? I like the idea of having this as an option, but I can't see it replacing consoles or dedicated hardware in your home completely.

    Twitch Streaming basically all week
    SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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.

    It's pretty amazing to think Google future business is based on having a high-speed dependable internet when they have demonstrated that even that is beyond them.
    I'm pretty sure that for fuck-off levels of money that Google has, this is just a side project for them. Gaming in general, except for Nintendo, is a side project for both Microsoft and Sony, as a corporation. Sony is mostly known as a financial services giant in Japan, with some consumer electronics and games on the side. Same with Microsoft and cloud services/Windows/Office. Amazon is also tossing their hat into this ring, too, and we know that gaming isn't THEIR primary business. :)

    If Google started rolling out a bunch of high-speed uninterruptible Internet all over just to support their Stadia side hustle, I'm not going to complain. :)

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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.
    I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying my post, and to be fair I didn't shift the thoughts around properly.

    I'm not saying Steam or Sega Channel are directly the same thing. I'm saying that the concept of content coming to your hardware (in the case of Stadia, your TV) is the same. How that content is stored and accessed is absolutely different and that's where the next part of my post comes in.

    Digital distribution had people worried but we've lived with it for a while now. It was PC at first, now consoles do it, and it's just... how things are.

    So going to Stadia from there, NOW the question is what problem is Google trying to solve for people, here? Is it the storage of digitally distributed games? Is it the space a video game console takes up?

    I'm not defending Stadia at all. Everything about this is dumb, and it goes back to my initial post which you capped your post with - internet infrastructure is shit-ass at best in the United States and costs too much for what it is. But it also goes into the idea that when you put a new kind of product or service out, it generally addresses a problem society / consumers have (either with existing products or caused by existing products). And streaming a video game to be played isn't solving anything.

    It's like when Apple put out that stupid fucking watch. What the hell was anyone supposed to do with that beyond status symboling it up?

    You not seeing the use isn't the same as ot not having one. It's effectively an Xbox One you pay for monthly. Not having that big cash outlay up front is huge.

    The downsides mean it probably won't be worth it for a lot of people, but it's got a niche. Especially of it's Netflix style where you don't even pay for games.

  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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.
    I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying my post, and to be fair I didn't shift the thoughts around properly.

    I'm not saying Steam or Sega Channel are directly the same thing. I'm saying that the concept of content coming to your hardware (in the case of Stadia, your TV) is the same. How that content is stored and accessed is absolutely different and that's where the next part of my post comes in.

    Digital distribution had people worried but we've lived with it for a while now. It was PC at first, now consoles do it, and it's just... how things are.

    So going to Stadia from there, NOW the question is what problem is Google trying to solve for people, here? Is it the storage of digitally distributed games? Is it the space a video game console takes up?

    I'm not defending Stadia at all. Everything about this is dumb, and it goes back to my initial post which you capped your post with - internet infrastructure is shit-ass at best in the United States and costs too much for what it is. But it also goes into the idea that when you put a new kind of product or service out, it generally addresses a problem society / consumers have (either with existing products or caused by existing products). And streaming a video game to be played isn't solving anything.

    It's like when Apple put out that stupid fucking watch. What the hell was anyone supposed to do with that beyond status symboling it up?

    In an environment with better internet, I'd probably pick one of these streaming services in a heart beat. It would be the last console.

    "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
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    It's like when Apple put out that stupid fucking watch. What the hell was anyone supposed to do with that beyond status symboling it up?
    The problem is not being able to shit on the toilet and ALSO play Assassin's Creed at the same time. This is a Very Important Problem to fix. :) I kid... instant access to gaming (if a bit laggy and requiring an internet connection) with top-spec graphics on hardware you don't have to buy is their product sell. It's a neat idea, with some neat ideas surrounding their implementation! But it also runs into some industry-specific and infrastructure problems. It's like trying to rent out an affordable high-end sports car in an area that only has bumpy dirt roads (YES I WENT THERE IT'S A CAR ANALOGY DEAL WITH IT :D ).

    The main problem to solve, I think, is corporate. Google said "Hey, this is part of the tech business that we don't have a stake in, so maybe we should figure out a way to wedge ourselves in there." I don't think they are out to solve a consumer issue at all, but you definitely have fans of the idea (in this thread, even!). They may not be wrong!

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    From a consumption status symbol point of view, I could see them leveraging their YouTube streamers heavily to sell the product as "Hey, if you want to hang with ME, then go Stadia or go home." and making their product the place to be in order to participate in the social media streaming universe. People see this as an aspirational thing (I keep running into young 20-somethings who are trying to become "influencers"). Like, we could be brought kicking and screaming over to their product simply because of market forces and "that's where the money is", although that's been the argument for mobile gaming for quite some time, and console/PC gaming is still doing well, so... *shrugs*

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    You not seeing the use isn't the same as ot not having one. It's effectively an Xbox One you pay for monthly. Not having that big cash outlay up front is huge.

    The downsides mean it probably won't be worth it for a lot of people, but it's got a niche. Especially of it's Netflix style where you don't even pay for games.
    Yeah but we're talking about something that chews up, from what I've heard, 20gb an hour. Peoples' bandwidth limits are going to eat shit. As soon as they figure that out the jig is up on this whole thing.

    So it might solve the problem of up-front console cost, but there's other answers to that. But probably the most damning thing going on here is that this product actually creates / highlights / exasperates an existing problem consumers in America have.

  • General_ArmchairGeneral_Armchair Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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.

    It's pretty amazing to think Google future business is based on having a high-speed dependable internet when they have demonstrated that even that is beyond them.
    I'm pretty sure that for fuck-off levels of money that Google has, this is just a side project for them. Gaming in general, except for Nintendo, is a side project for both Microsoft and Sony, as a corporation. Sony is mostly known as a financial services giant in Japan, with some consumer electronics and games on the side. Same with Microsoft and cloud services/Windows/Office. Amazon is also tossing their hat into this ring, too, and we know that gaming isn't THEIR primary business. :)

    If Google started rolling out a bunch of high-speed uninterruptible Internet all over just to support their Stadia side hustle, I'm not going to complain. :)

    You're failing to see that the problems being raised are not the sort that can be solved by throwing money at it.

    3DS Friend Code:
    Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
    Gennenalyse Rueben
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    From a consumption status symbol point of view, I could see them leveraging their YouTube streamers heavily to sell the product as "Hey, if you want to hang with ME, then go Stadia or go home." and making their product the place to be in order to participate in the social media streaming universe. People see this as an aspirational thing (I keep running into young 20-somethings who are trying to become "influencers"). Like, we could be brought kicking and screaming over to their product simply because of market forces and "that's where the money is", although that's been the argument for mobile gaming for quite some time, and console/PC gaming is still doing well, so... *shrugs*

    I mean, hasn't mobile gaming created a large space for itself, and although there were concerns it would cannibalize the PC/console market, it did it instead through increasing the available market? This could do a very similar thing, where all sorts of people who aren't going to know what latency is see this as this super easy way to get into "real gaming" which sounds like a cooler version of what they do on their phones.

    "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
    rahkeesh2000
  • Mr FuzzbuttMr Fuzzbutt Registered User regular
    I'm way too sensitive to input lag for streamed action games to ever feel good to play, no matter how good the graphics look.

    broken image link
    sgt robGennenalyse Ruebendiscrider
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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.

    It's pretty amazing to think Google future business is based on having a high-speed dependable internet when they have demonstrated that even that is beyond them.
    I'm pretty sure that for fuck-off levels of money that Google has, this is just a side project for them. Gaming in general, except for Nintendo, is a side project for both Microsoft and Sony, as a corporation. Sony is mostly known as a financial services giant in Japan, with some consumer electronics and games on the side. Same with Microsoft and cloud services/Windows/Office. Amazon is also tossing their hat into this ring, too, and we know that gaming isn't THEIR primary business. :)

    If Google started rolling out a bunch of high-speed uninterruptible Internet all over just to support their Stadia side hustle, I'm not going to complain. :)

    You're failing to see that the problems being raised are not the sort that can be solved by throwing money at it.

    What can't be solved by throwing more money at it?

    "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
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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.

    It's pretty amazing to think Google future business is based on having a high-speed dependable internet when they have demonstrated that even that is beyond them.
    I'm pretty sure that for fuck-off levels of money that Google has, this is just a side project for them. Gaming in general, except for Nintendo, is a side project for both Microsoft and Sony, as a corporation. Sony is mostly known as a financial services giant in Japan, with some consumer electronics and games on the side. Same with Microsoft and cloud services/Windows/Office. Amazon is also tossing their hat into this ring, too, and we know that gaming isn't THEIR primary business. :)

    If Google started rolling out a bunch of high-speed uninterruptible Internet all over just to support their Stadia side hustle, I'm not going to complain. :)

    You're failing to see that the problems being raised are not the sort that can be solved by throwing money at it.
    I'm being facetious with that last statement (thus the smileys). I'm very well aware of the problems with streaming video games.

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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.

    It's pretty amazing to think Google future business is based on having a high-speed dependable internet when they have demonstrated that even that is beyond them.

    Fiber's failure was real world logistics. That was far outside their area of expertise and they just assumed they could hop in and do it better than anybody. Digital content streaming on the other hand is their specialty. Nobody is better positioned to do this than they are. So if they can't make it work, no one can.

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Zek wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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.

    It's pretty amazing to think Google future business is based on having a high-speed dependable internet when they have demonstrated that even that is beyond them.

    Fiber's failure was real world logistics. That was far outside their area of expertise and they just assumed they could hop in and do it better than anybody. Digital content streaming on the other hand is their specialty. Nobody is better positioned to do this than they are. So if they can't make it work, no one can.

    I think the fiber thing was less logistics and more legal bullshit from the incumbents.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    Gaming use to center around wired controllers and CRT televisions with close to zero input lag and couch co-op. Now wireless controllers and HDTV image processing connecting to online multiplayer servers provide people with a wide range of slow ass setups. Most big-budget games adapted to be less timing sensitive already, and that process can just continue for the streamiverse if they get the latency "low enough."

    Now part of the Microsoft rumors was that the client box would do something more than just sending inputs, some kind of local and immediate pre-processing or feedback. Google mentioned nothing of that and we have yet to hear MS announce anything official along those lines, but that kind of tech breakthrough is the thing that can finally get game streaming off the ground.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    They could do three-tiers.

    Tier 1: low monthly cost, limited game library (mostly titles that won’t be affected by latency)

    Tier 2: higher monthly cost, expanded game library (for customers with sufficiently good internet)

    Tier 3: premium monthly cost, full game library, ability to download 3 titles locally for a small additional fee (like $10 for a brand new AAA game, $1.99 for an older one) which their service will store save data on the cloud for and in perpetuity. Basically a glorified rental service with streaming of titles you don’t need super low latency for.

  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    Fiber wire has a fuckton more hoops to jump through then a stream console. They already have a streaming device to work with.

  • EnigmedicEnigmedic Registered User regular
    Yeah this is pretty much dead on arrival in the US. Internet companies suck too much all over the country, and google isnt really expanding fiber at all. With the push for developers wanting 4k 60fps stuff data caps will be obliterated. Not to mention if it did somehow takeoff, there is going to be an fcc showdown about net neutrality and isps being even bigger dicks throttling stuff unless google pays outrageous amounts of money, which will bump the subscription cost higher. It could work in europe or parts of asia, but unless google decides to fight all the isps and just takeover, theres no way in the US.

    Jeep-Eep
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    Enigmedic wrote: »
    Yeah this is pretty much dead on arrival in the US. Internet companies suck too much all over the country, and google isnt really expanding fiber at all. With the push for developers wanting 4k 60fps stuff data caps will be obliterated. Not to mention if it did somehow takeoff, there is going to be an fcc showdown about net neutrality and isps being even bigger dicks throttling stuff unless google pays outrageous amounts of money, which will bump the subscription cost higher. It could work in europe or parts of asia, but unless google decides to fight all the isps and just takeover, theres no way in the US.

    5G

    Problem solved

  • General_ArmchairGeneral_Armchair Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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.

    It's pretty amazing to think Google future business is based on having a high-speed dependable internet when they have demonstrated that even that is beyond them.
    I'm pretty sure that for fuck-off levels of money that Google has, this is just a side project for them. Gaming in general, except for Nintendo, is a side project for both Microsoft and Sony, as a corporation. Sony is mostly known as a financial services giant in Japan, with some consumer electronics and games on the side. Same with Microsoft and cloud services/Windows/Office. Amazon is also tossing their hat into this ring, too, and we know that gaming isn't THEIR primary business. :)

    If Google started rolling out a bunch of high-speed uninterruptible Internet all over just to support their Stadia side hustle, I'm not going to complain. :)

    You're failing to see that the problems being raised are not the sort that can be solved by throwing money at it.

    What can't be solved by throwing more money at it?

    The speed of light.

    3DS Friend Code:
    Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
    OremLKHahnsoo1CroakerHonkPolaritieGennenalyse RuebenMr FuzzbuttJeep-EepFiatil
  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    Now that I think about it, I'm 100% certain they'll have full game purchases as an option, for two reasons:

    - Give people a way to continue playing their game after it rotates off the subscription.
    - Exponentially larger game library from publishers who won't play ball on the subscription.

    The competition never had to worry about this because they've had full game sales from day one. But the library of a subscription based model is always going to be limited, especially when you don't have any first party games.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Zek wrote: »
    Now that I think about it, I'm 100% certain they'll have full game purchases as an option, for two reasons:

    - Give people a way to continue playing their game after it rotates off the subscription.
    - Exponentially larger game library from publishers who won't play ball on the subscription.

    The competition never had to worry about this because they've had full game sales from day one. But the library of a subscription based model is always going to be limited, especially when you don't have any first party games.
    Both OnLive and PS Now started this way, too, and they both floundered until they had a decent subscription model. But yeah, we'll have to see if publishers are more amenable to letting Google add their games onto a subscription. If not, it will be a harder sell for publishers to even join the platform in the first place (unless you're Ubisoft, I guess).

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • EnigmedicEnigmedic Registered User regular
    Enigmedic wrote: »
    Yeah this is pretty much dead on arrival in the US. Internet companies suck too much all over the country, and google isnt really expanding fiber at all. With the push for developers wanting 4k 60fps stuff data caps will be obliterated. Not to mention if it did somehow takeoff, there is going to be an fcc showdown about net neutrality and isps being even bigger dicks throttling stuff unless google pays outrageous amounts of money, which will bump the subscription cost higher. It could work in europe or parts of asia, but unless google decides to fight all the isps and just takeover, theres no way in the US.

    5G

    Problem solved

    Yeah because when i worry about data caps i turn to phone carriers instead of isps, and when i want faster speeds i turn to wifi over cables. Also they are going to have the same problem as google fiber, there isnt going to be widespread deployment for a long time because phone companies sure as hell arent going to pay for it.

    PreacherJeep-Eep
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    So yeah, the big reality check here is how not-great even in-home streaming works.

    I use Nvidia GameStream to stream from my PC in the bedroom, over wired gigabit ethernet to a low-input-lag TV in the living room running an Nvidia Shield TV with a wired mouse and keyboard. This is basically the best-case scenario, as Nvidia Gamestream has nearly the lowest possible latency of any similar service such as Steam In-Home Streaming. Even then, the input lag is definitely noticeable to me, to the point where games like shooters and 2D platformers are more difficult to play. And that's over a 50 foot run of cable with everything in the chain purpose-chosen to have the lowest input lag I could achieve!

    I guarantee that no matter what magic they pull off with their mountains of cash they're not going to be able to offer as good of an experience as I just described, which for me, already is only borderline adequate. As a supplementary service for playing certain types of games it may be all right. As a replacement for owning a console or gaming PC, no way.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
    General_ArmchairGennenalyse RuebenJeep-Eepdiscrider
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Yes, but how bad is that input lag vs what you are expecting, vs what your grandma would be expecting. CODBLOPS professionals are never going to use this, SF players buy their own custom controllers that they carry around like security blankets. But my latency playing Rocket League is already obscene. If I can manage a halfway decent game with that, I'm sure that I can manage to play whatever I might be interested in playing on a well designed streaming service.

    "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
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    Well yeah, I’m still going to have my PC.

    Console is for non serious gaming.

  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Zek wrote: »
    Now that I think about it, I'm 100% certain they'll have full game purchases as an option, for two reasons:

    - Give people a way to continue playing their game after it rotates off the subscription.
    - Exponentially larger game library from publishers who won't play ball on the subscription.

    The competition never had to worry about this because they've had full game sales from day one. But the library of a subscription based model is always going to be limited, especially when you don't have any first party games.
    Both OnLive and PS Now started this way, too, and they both floundered until they had a decent subscription model. But yeah, we'll have to see if publishers are more amenable to letting Google add their games onto a subscription. If not, it will be a harder sell for publishers to even join the platform in the first place (unless you're Ubisoft, I guess).

    For sure they need a subscription model, but it won't work with just that, it needs both. What would really get me to fully buy in is for them to run a PC game store on the side. Just the regular PC versions of the games for sale, but if you buy one you can also play it streaming with cloud saves. Then I would be buying everything on there just on the offchance I wanted to stream it.

  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I could see this working for types of games and not for others. At some point light speed is light speed and your signal is going to bounce many steps through many devices. I don’t believe the claim of no noticeable input lag. It’s a full one more system between physical input and game input, and that step pretty much has to be slower than all the other steps typically involved.

    PSN: Honkalot
  • General_ArmchairGeneral_Armchair Registered User regular
    It would be great for playing Civilization on a toaster. Or it would be until I realize that I'm stuck playing vanilla civilization and not an install modded to be more fun.

    3DS Friend Code:
    Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
    Jeep-Eep
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Naming Jade Raymond as president of the whole thing seemed totally out of left field; she was producer / exec producer on some games most notably AC and then nothing else that seemed really memorable - and then 4 years of spinning wheels and going nowhere at EA. Now she runs Google's gaming effort? Whaaaaat? I kind of expected someone more from the c-suite business side of things, not a mid level gaming exec.

    It also occurs to me that you won't be modding any games that way and it doesn't prevent aimbots.

    Nosf on
    Jeep-Eep
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    It also occurs to me that you won't be modding any games that way and it doesn't prevent aimbots.

    Aimbots have to be *far* more sophisticated, using pattern recognition to visually identify players rather than simply reading memory addresses or intercepting DX calls. And then it will take a little time to move the virtual console stick around rather than a single mouse input. It will probably still be a real issue for big games but its likely too much effort for smaller releases.

  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    Holy shit, how do they think that's ever going to fly with all the American ISPs throwing caps on plans?

    Jeep-Eep
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    I mean if Google wants to have a showdown with ISPs in a Godzilla vs. Mothra kind of fight I’m down for that!

    Jeep-EepThe Deliveratorkime
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Blegh BlughRegistered User regular
    the name sucks, though

    Steam: Stormwatcher | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Switch: 5961-4777-3491
    camo_sig2.png
    Hahnsoo1Astaereth
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    I mean if Google wants to have a showdown with ISPs in a Godzilla vs. Mothra kind of fight I’m down for that!

    They already did, and lost actually. 20GB an hour has to be a typo or some misexplanation; 1080p HD content is ~2.3GB an hour via Netflix IIRC. Why would this ever be that high?

    Nosf on
    Jeep-Eep
  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    Naming Jade Raymond as president of the whole thing seemed totally out of left field; she was producer / exec producer on some games most notably AC and then nothing else that seemed really memorable - and then 4 years of spinning wheels and going nowhere at EA. Now she runs Google's gaming effort? Whaaaaat? I kind of expected someone more from the c-suite business side of things, not a mid level gaming exec.

    It also occurs to me that you won't be modding any games that way and it doesn't prevent aimbots.

    Looking at her Wikipedia, she's been in charge of a couple full studios.

Sign In or Register to comment.