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.

145791094

Posts

  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    yeah, it sounds like those people should be mad at isp that refuse to set up shop in their neighborhood. Maybe internet should become a public service? Sounds like this is a government issue and not a google issue. Why is google all of a sudden responsible that everyone should have fair and equL access to the internet? Do people get this mad when Tesla was first announced and not everyone have access to their supercharger network?

    also, it’s a chicken and the egg situation. Why would isp change their business if nothing changes? If people need more data and isp starts to refuse them that data, something will happen. Whether another business comes in or the government takes over, something will happen.

    As far as I can tell, horizontal scaling is the future of tech and I’m looking forward to it. If y’all want to be left behind, worry that ‘I won’t own my vidya ganrs’, then go ahead. I will proceed to be on the fast lane of change.

    Casually Hardcore on
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Cruor wrote: »
    The levels of "I get what I want so fuck everyone else" in this thread have reached critical mass.
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Should Google be concerned that this won't be of use to Inuit tribes or something?

    First of all, yikes. Second of all, it's not just Inuit tribes, it's people in rural New York who live only 30 minutes away from a metropolitan area and still can only get satellite internet as their sole "high speed" option.

    It's not fuck everyone else man. Like what do you want me to do? What percentage of the human population should a product/service/business need to reach before it's worth having and not apparently spitting in the face of everyone who can't have it? People who live in Manassas can't use the DC Metro. Should we just cancel the whole Metro? Some people can't get good cell service where they live so no more cell phones?

    I'm legitimately trying to figure out at what point it's acceptable to you for Stadia to exist and why this isn't contradictory with every other product/service/whatever that is off limits to a geographical area. Which people are okay to exclude for what reason and why?

    And again, you should be getting mad at your ISP, I don't understand why it's Google's fault.

    ChaosHat on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    yeah, it sounds like those people should be mad at isp that refuse to set up shop in their neighborhood. Maybe internet should become a public service? Sounds like this is a government issue and not a google issue. Why is google all of a sudden responsible that everyone should have fair and equL access to the internet? Do people get this mad when Tesla was first announced and not everyone have access to their supercharger network?

    also, it’s a chicken and the egg situation. Why would isp change their business if nothing changes? If people need more data and isp starts to refuse them that data, something will happen. Whether another business comes in or the government takes over, something will happen.

    As far as I can tell, horizontal scaling is the future of tech and I’m looking forward to it. If y’all want to be left behind, worry that ‘I won’t own my vidya ganrs’, then go ahead. I will proceed to be on the fast lane of change.

    You may have a point, if ISPs didn't spend tons of money actively fighting against the internet becoming a public service. Municipalities have tried to set it up in the past, and the surrounding ISPs lobbied state governments to outlaw any expansion of such efforts.

  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    yeah, it sounds like those people should be mad at isp that refuse to set up shop in their neighborhood. Maybe internet should become a public service? Sounds like this is a government issue and not a google issue. Why is google all of a sudden responsible that everyone should have fair and equL access to the internet? Do people get this mad when Tesla was first announced and not everyone have access to their supercharger network?

    also, it’s a chicken and the egg situation. Why would isp change their business if nothing changes? If people need more data and isp starts to refuse them that data, something will happen. Whether another business comes in or the government takes over, something will happen.

    As far as I can tell, horizontal scaling is the future of tech and I’m looking forward to it. If y’all want to be left behind, worry that ‘I won’t own my vidya ganrs’, then go ahead. I will proceed to be on the fast lane of change.

    You may have a point, if ISPs didn't spend tons of money actively fighting against the internet becoming a public service. Municipalities have tried to set it up in the past, and the surrounding ISPs lobbied state governments to outlaw any expansion of such efforts.

    Then it sounds like it’s time for people to elect people who will go up against those companies.

    ChaosHat
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    Oh, well there's your problem. Nobody is saying it shouldn't exist, and certainly nobody is blaming Google for anything. We're saying it's a bad idea.

    They're gearing up to dump all their eggs (100% streaming video games) into one basket (current worldwide internet infrastructure). Which isn't in itself a bad idea. But they seem to think the basket is made of titanium mesh, when in reality it's made of straw.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    Nightslyr
  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    I really don't understand why people seem to think Stadia is taking their gaming hardware away. Consoles and PCs aren't going away, for all the reasons that have been described. They even committed to cross-platform play. Anyone who claims that game streaming alone is "the future" is being hyperbolic or very short-sighted.

    As for ownership versus digital content, yeah that's just the exact same debate we've been having for years. The subscription model is just Game Pass. Real physical media is indeed going away, but that's a global trend, nothing at all to do with Stadia.

  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    Call me stupid but I applaud attempts at innovation - even when they fail. I'd also be willing to bet that none of those failures are abject failures and that the technology used in those products is in use elsewhere. That's definitely the case for Glass.

    Oh, I applaud attempts at innovation, too. The problem with Google is that they use consumers as beta testers, and often unceremoniously pull the plug on new products/services, leaving those customers in the lurch. That isn't to say other companies don't do the same thing from time to time (remember the Microsoft Band? Or Kinect?), it's just that this has been Google's MO for about a decade now. They've introduced a lot of products/services to great fanfare, only to kill them 2-3 years down the road.

    I think that Google's track record is worth considering. Is it worth buying into this platform if there's a realistic chance Google kills it in a few years?

  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Javen wrote: »
    yeah, it sounds like those people should be mad at isp that refuse to set up shop in their neighborhood. Maybe internet should become a public service? Sounds like this is a government issue and not a google issue. Why is google all of a sudden responsible that everyone should have fair and equL access to the internet? Do people get this mad when Tesla was first announced and not everyone have access to their supercharger network?

    also, it’s a chicken and the egg situation. Why would isp change their business if nothing changes? If people need more data and isp starts to refuse them that data, something will happen. Whether another business comes in or the government takes over, something will happen.

    As far as I can tell, horizontal scaling is the future of tech and I’m looking forward to it. If y’all want to be left behind, worry that ‘I won’t own my vidya ganrs’, then go ahead. I will proceed to be on the fast lane of change.

    You may have a point, if ISPs didn't spend tons of money actively fighting against the internet becoming a public service. Municipalities have tried to set it up in the past, and the surrounding ISPs lobbied state governments to outlaw any expansion of such efforts.

    Then it sounds like it’s time for people to elect people who will go up against those companies.

    Agreed, but that doesn't mean that what Google is doing in the meantime isn't dumb.

    They're opening a shopping mall in the middle of the woods. Sure, it might be the very best shopping mall in the world, but that doesn't mean much if no one can get there in the first place

    And even if 'well ISPs can just let google bypass their data caps' consumers will absolutely have to pay for that privilege. It already happens with certain mobile carriers whitelisting certain apps, and it absolutely costs a premium to do so.

    Javen on
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    Much the same early I can’t play Xbox games cause the capacitor in it exploded in my Xbox?

  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    yeah, it sounds like those people should be mad at isp that refuse to set up shop in their neighborhood. Maybe internet should become a public service? Sounds like this is a government issue and not a google issue. Why is google all of a sudden responsible that everyone should have fair and equL access to the internet? Do people get this mad when Tesla was first announced and not everyone have access to their supercharger network?

    also, it’s a chicken and the egg situation. Why would isp change their business if nothing changes? If people need more data and isp starts to refuse them that data, something will happen. Whether another business comes in or the government takes over, something will happen.

    As far as I can tell, horizontal scaling is the future of tech and I’m looking forward to it. If y’all want to be left behind, worry that ‘I won’t own my vidya ganrs’, then go ahead. I will proceed to be on the fast lane of change.

    I'm not seeing people mad at google or claiming they're responsible for this stuff. But people are pointing out the realities of what we have now don't seem to fit with what they're trying to do.

    There's also plenty of downsides about this. Input latency, no mod support, google being able to track literally every input you use in the game, etc. Sundar's whole thing about the data they get at the beginning of the presentation made me think about how those "pick out the bus" captchas can be used to train AI drones to better hunt their targets. There's lots of reasons to be wary of stuff like this that isn't just concerns over owning your media, which are valid concerns.

    Twitch Streaming basically all week
    SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
    General_Armchairdipuc4lifeNightslyrQanamilGennenalyse RuebenJeep-Eepkimedispatch.o
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Oh, well there's your problem. Nobody is saying it shouldn't exist, and certainly nobody is blaming Google for anything. We're saying it's a bad idea.

    They're gearing up to dump all their eggs (100% streaming video games) into one basket (current worldwide internet infrastructure). Which isn't in itself a bad idea. But they seem to think the basket is made of titanium mesh, when in reality it's made of straw.

    Your assumption is that it's for the worldwide internet infrastructure and not for the people who already have the internet infrastructure capable of doing this. Which it obviously has to be because if the business model assumes heavy usage in developing nations then yes this will not go well for them.

    I wonder if this won't be part of a push for 5G wireless. It would certainly be easier for Google to put up towers than to lay cable.

  • eelektrikeelektrik Southern CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    Right now I live on campus and get free university internet at a blazing 650 mbps down 550 up with no caps. Stadia would work great for me but I know this is a rarity for the majority of the US. Prior to moving here I was paying about 70 a month for 100 mbps down but at least it had no data caps and still faster than many people have access to at any price in their area. The idea of being able to play top of the line graphics on potato hardware is certainly appealing, but ISPs being what they currently are will limit the market. Plus we need Ajit Pai out at the FCC and net neutrality restored or ISPs will go ham on Google if Stadia actually takes off.

    Personally to me the most exciting thing about this system is the limits it removes from developers. The tagline for the presentation of "Anything you dream can be built" pretty much sums it up. Singleplayer games, particularly large open world games, aren't going to be limited by file sizes with games not having to fit on a disc or be downloaded. Being able to make more interactive multiplayer environments and stay synchronized between players by essentially running a single instance of the game world and porting out as many views as necessary opens up some new possibilities. At the very least we will get a battle royale with fully destructible environments and accurate physics, but that seems like low hanging fruit in terms of game design. I would love to see some kind of innovative MMO come out of this. If this goes the way Google wants, Stadia has the potential to get some innovative exclusives that are not currently feasible on competing platforms.

    (She/Her)
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    yeah, it sounds like those people should be mad at isp that refuse to set up shop in their neighborhood. Maybe internet should become a public service? Sounds like this is a government issue and not a google issue. Why is google all of a sudden responsible that everyone should have fair and equL access to the internet? Do people get this mad when Tesla was first announced and not everyone have access to their supercharger network?

    also, it’s a chicken and the egg situation. Why would isp change their business if nothing changes? If people need more data and isp starts to refuse them that data, something will happen. Whether another business comes in or the government takes over, something will happen.

    As far as I can tell, horizontal scaling is the future of tech and I’m looking forward to it. If y’all want to be left behind, worry that ‘I won’t own my vidya ganrs’, then go ahead. I will proceed to be on the fast lane of change.

    I'm not seeing people mad at google or claiming they're responsible for this stuff. But people are pointing out the realities of what we have now don't seem to fit with what they're trying to do.

    There's also plenty of downsides about this. Input latency, no mod support, google being able to track literally every input you use in the game, etc. Sundar's whole thing about the data they get at the beginning of the presentation made me think about how those "pick out the bus" captchas can be used to train AI drones to better hunt their targets. There's lots of reasons to be wary of stuff like this that isn't just concerns over owning your media, which are valid concerns.

    Google is partly responsible, insofar as they were one of the ISPs lobbying against internet as a public service when they were expanding Google Fiber.

  • finnithfinnith ... TorontoRegistered User regular
    I doubt there's a risk that Google eats up the entire gaming business cause the market's massive as well as fragmented. Moreover as many have pointed out, a many people are likely to have insufficient access to the type of hi-speed internet demanded by Stadia. Also don't forget that Google has the EU constantly breathing down their neck and a growing number of domestic voices looking to regulate them. However successful Google's game streaming offering is compared to the others', I doubt it'll have an outsized impact on the market if it subsequently fails and/or is dropped by Google. If anything, additional competition and the new tech Google will introduce (such as the VP9 codec) will hopefully force the others to improve the quality of their service.
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Generally speaking the ideal business strategy is to reach as large a group of consumers as possible. And from an armchair's glance, this thing... won't.

    Now if Google is totally fine with the numbers they get from this, then bully for them. But although you say Google is smart, the news I've been seeing lately is painting them as a group who, when the going gets tough, they fold and run away. With a side order of that Silicon Valley ego that thinks they just found the ingenious new upgrade to the wheel, and ignore all those people going "Uh, hold on a sec here...". No way they haven't done their homework? They're starting to look like the kid who brags they don't have to do their homework, because they're just that smart.

    So I dunno, I think the big worry is that this won't be the smash success that Google wants, and then they'll just up and quit and leave the people who did buy into this economy in the lurch.

    Like, they apparently think in the future they'll have 8k and 120 fps streaming? I'd love to know what future that is, 'cuz it sure ain't the foreseeable one.

    Can you substantiate that because I've not seen any instance of that beyond Google+.

    I'd also argue that what you're painting as "ideal business strategy" doesn't always hold true - especially when you're trying to disrupt an existing market.

    I'm reading up on their utter failure at rolling out Google Fiber in Louisville. Involving their idea to bury wire just 2 inches under the road and cover it with sub par epoxy. I know nothing about the greater dealings of roads and asphalt, and even I'm thinking "Isn't 2 inches way too damn short for roads that obviously degrade with use, and also making damn sure you don't nick the wire when doing repairs?". And sure enough it's failing spectacularly. So Google has just walked away from the whole thing.

    Remember Google Glass and Google Wave and Google Reader and the Nexus Q and Project Ara and Orkut and Allo and...? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

    While the reputation of Google is well-earned regarding shutting down unsuccessful products (especially wrt social media and chat services), some of the ones you've cited continue to exist. They still make an enterprise version of the Google Glass and the pretty successful Chromecast succeeded the Nexus Q (which was apparently never released and given out free to those who pre-ordered it according to wiki). Better example is the Nexus Player/Google TV mess and Google+

    Bnet: CavilatRest#1874
    Steam: CavilatRest
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    I'd actually like to see numbers for what percentage of the US this is actually not feasible for. Yes there is a vast, vast majority of area this doesn't work for but people are not evenly distributed. They tend to cluster in metropolitan areas.

  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Oh, well there's your problem. Nobody is saying it shouldn't exist, and certainly nobody is blaming Google for anything. We're saying it's a bad idea.

    They're gearing up to dump all their eggs (100% streaming video games) into one basket (current worldwide internet infrastructure). Which isn't in itself a bad idea. But they seem to think the basket is made of titanium mesh, when in reality it's made of straw.

    Your assumption is that it's for the worldwide internet infrastructure and not for the people who already have the internet infrastructure capable of doing this. Which it obviously has to be because if the business model assumes heavy usage in developing nations then yes this will not go well for them.

    I wonder if this won't be part of a push for 5G wireless. It would certainly be easier for Google to put up towers than to lay cable.

    And as I keep saying, I hope they're OK with with this. Because that number of people? It's smaller than you think it is.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    General_ArmchairKing RiptorPreacherNightslyrJragghenQanamilGennenalyse RuebenJeep-Eep
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    Stadia recommends a 25mbps download. Or it did for the Odyssey test at least. The cheapest comcast tier gives you 15mbps and is almost certainly one of the tiers they sell the most of.

    Twitch Streaming basically all week
    SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Oh, well there's your problem. Nobody is saying it shouldn't exist, and certainly nobody is blaming Google for anything. We're saying it's a bad idea.

    They're gearing up to dump all their eggs (100% streaming video games) into one basket (current worldwide internet infrastructure). Which isn't in itself a bad idea. But they seem to think the basket is made of titanium mesh, when in reality it's made of straw.

    Your assumption is that it's for the worldwide internet infrastructure and not for the people who already have the internet infrastructure capable of doing this. Which it obviously has to be because if the business model assumes heavy usage in developing nations then yes this will not go well for them.

    I wonder if this won't be part of a push for 5G wireless. It would certainly be easier for Google to put up towers than to lay cable.

    And as I keep saying, I hope they're OK with with this. Because that number of people? It's smaller than you think it is.

    But what I think it is doesn't matter. I'm assuming Google KNOWS what it is. And then decided to do this anyways.

  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    You mean to tell me that a company that performs 90 some percent of all internet searches doesn’t have a single clue on how many people this market might contain?

    Really? A company that collects more data on its user then you can imagine?

    Really?

    ChaosHatSatanIsMyMotorThe Dude With HerpesThe Deliverator
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Honestly, I think for some people, myself included, it's more that maybe we shouldn't gleefully allow a company that already has far too much sway (in my opinion) to grab control of a sizable chunk of yet another industry. This would also apply to a company like Amazon.
    Why is this the thing where we should draw the line? It isn't. I've felt this way for several things now, and undoubtedly will as they do this again and again in different areas. Eventually we need to decide that enough is enough. Again, we probably should have done so well before this particular thing, but eventually we have to actually say so.
    We have to stop giving these gigantic companies more and more influence over our society just because they occasionally give us a shiny new toy in return.

    TubularLuggage on
    General_ArmchairZombie Gandhi
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    You mean to tell me that a company that performs 90 some percent of all internet searches doesn’t have a single clue on how many people this market might contain?

    Really? A company that collects more data on its user then you can imagine?

    Really?

    Yes.
    Because they constantly do shit like this with seemingly no foresight .

    I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
    PreacherAridholJragghenQanamilGennenalyse Ruebenfurliondispatch.o
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    I mean out of all the major tech companies I feel like Google is the easiest one to ignore if you're inclined to do so and I'm not sure how the creation of Stadia would stop you. I mean you'll probably never get away from their ads or some things like that but it's probably not on the scale of like, getting rid of Amazon.

  • TOGSolidTOGSolid Drunk sailor Seattle, WashingtonRegistered User regular
    Tbh I hope this fails and fails hard. I'm a sailor and spend half the year on a boat so if this was a roaring success and the industry switched over to streaming I'd need to find a new hobby quick.

    Thankfully America's internet is so terrible I don't see this catching on in a big way right now.

    wWuzwvJ.png
    AxenA Half Eaten OreoGennenalyse Ruebenfurlion
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    TOGSolid wrote: »
    Tbh I hope this fails and fails hard. I'm a sailor and spend half the year on a boat so if this was a roaring success and the industry switched over to streaming I'd need to find a new hobby quick.

    Thankfully America's internet is so terrible I don't see this catching on in a big way right now.

    People have bought into the Steam/console ecosystems pretty heavily. That’s just not going anywhere because a niche service opens up. Even if it grows, there’s too much sunk cost to just abandon your library of owned games.

    ChaosHat
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    To be clear I think this service is super niche but forward-thinking, and it could be a big deal if Google was willing to sink time and money into it even while it isn’t profitable, which will be a long time.

    I do not think Google will be willing to sink money into it for long before walking away.

    NaphtaliMcFodder
  • Jubal77Jubal77 Registered User regular
    Its not a facet of being in the boondocks its a facet of just plain bandwidth being relatively shitty anywhere outside of metropolitan areas still. I live, literally, within football fields to a fiber backbone but since its a small town we are limited on the budget allowed and so I cant even buy 100mbs or higher without paying the county to run fiber to my house. And even then they cap that.

  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Oh, well there's your problem. Nobody is saying it shouldn't exist, and certainly nobody is blaming Google for anything. We're saying it's a bad idea.

    They're gearing up to dump all their eggs (100% streaming video games) into one basket (current worldwide internet infrastructure). Which isn't in itself a bad idea. But they seem to think the basket is made of titanium mesh, when in reality it's made of straw.

    In no way is Google dumping all of their eggs in one basket with this. I'm not sure where you got that impression from.

    edit: To clarify this isn't just about playing games but about new ways of making games.

    SatanIsMyMotor on
  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    Nah, Google and the rest of Tech Valley are so far up their ass that I doubt their market data takes into account the humanity of said data. I know it sounds crazy but the San Fran kool-aid culture is real, I didn't believe it until I lived there.

    This also isn't "innovative". It's derivative at best. Companies have already tried this, Microsoft and Sony both bought that tech and now use it on their various platforms. Nvidia even has it with their failed Shield device. This is about as new as 3D movies.

    PreacherJubal77NightslyrGeneral_ArmchairJavenAridholJragghenTubularLuggageKetBraGennenalyse Rueben
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    What company produced a horizontal scaling plateforn for gaming?

  • dipuc4lifedipuc4life ... In my own HeadRegistered User regular
    I don't think anybody is not saying that this endeavor is not innovative or that it is Google's responsibility to have your ISP not be sh!t. People are saying that due to internet infrastructure issues they are really limiting their audience. They are saying that as it stands they are being left out of the next big (potentially) thing. It's like Google is saying well if you don't have good internet service and/or live in an area that has at least 15Mbps (for 720p@30 with artifacts) then this is NOT for you. The audience is extremely limited considering that this thing runs on the internet. You know that thing that is NOT tied to any geographical area. A thing that regardless of location people have access to but now you are saying that if I want to use this service I have to have GOOD internet. That is not their fault but they are presenting it as everyone can join us ... NO ... everyone cannot join you, unfortunately.

    This thing will not be replacing consoles any time soon as much as Ubisoft and the other big publishers want it too. They want to get away from the console makers licensing fees and this may allow them some leeway. Granted we don't know the licensing structure but I am REALLY curious as to how this will pan out on that front. The physical logistics make this something that Google will need to invest in for at least 10 to 20 years to have a decent audience. And by 'decent audience' I mean that it will be available to as many people as have the internet ... good internet. Will Google have the fortitude to stick it out for years without abandoning this ... you never know. I guess if they make money then yeah ... but if the losses keep piling up then bye bye. As it should be.

    Plus to all the people saying that people are wanting Stadia to fail you have to remember. This whole thing threatens what people have come to accept as the norm. Anything that threatens to change something is always met with resistance because people don't like change. Let's say this thing is successful (I seriously have doubts that it will be but whatever) and all the big third party publishers decide that it's the bees knees and make their games exclusive to Stadia because Google gave them better licensing. Let's say that the console makers decide to bow out because there is not enough market share and/or games for them to exist (this is highly unlikely). Where does that leave the people who like gaming the way it is now? I guess by then they'll all be dead so it doesn't matter right. It threatens their hobby as it stands now. Add on top of that that it requires you to have a decent internet connection to run plus you will have little to no ownership of the games and you can see why people will kick against this succeeding.

    NNID: SW-6490-6173-9136
    Playstation: Dipuc4Life
    Warframe_Switch IGN: ONVEBAL
  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Oh, well there's your problem. Nobody is saying it shouldn't exist, and certainly nobody is blaming Google for anything. We're saying it's a bad idea.

    They're gearing up to dump all their eggs (100% streaming video games) into one basket (current worldwide internet infrastructure). Which isn't in itself a bad idea. But they seem to think the basket is made of titanium mesh, when in reality it's made of straw.

    Your assumption is that it's for the worldwide internet infrastructure and not for the people who already have the internet infrastructure capable of doing this. Which it obviously has to be because if the business model assumes heavy usage in developing nations then yes this will not go well for them.

    I wonder if this won't be part of a push for 5G wireless. It would certainly be easier for Google to put up towers than to lay cable.

    And as I keep saying, I hope they're OK with with this. Because that number of people? It's smaller than you think it is.

    Why are you so adamant this is a failure right out of the gate and that there is only a small audience for it? There are other countries outside of the US. And even though Germany is generally lacking behind in internet infrastructure, getting a connection without datacap and north of 100 mbps is not that expensive. At least in the bigger cities, can't really say anything about outside metropolitan areas. And Germany is a bit behind in that area, I would imagine in other parts of Europe its better.

  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    dipuc4life wrote: »
    I don't think anybody is not saying that this endeavor is not innovative or that it is Google's responsibility to have your ISP not be sh!t. People are saying that due to internet infrastructure issues they are really limiting their audience. They are saying that as it stands they are being left out of the next big (potentially) thing. It's like Google is saying well if you don't have good internet service and/or live in an area that has at least 15Mbps (for 720p@30 with artifacts) then this is NOT for you. The audience is extremely limited considering that this thing runs on the internet. You know that thing that is NOT tied to any geographical area. A thing that regardless of location people have access to but now you are saying that if I want to use this service I have to have GOOD internet. That is not their fault but they are presenting it as everyone can join us ... NO ... everyone cannot join you, unfortunately.

    This thing will not be replacing consoles any time soon as much as Ubisoft and the other big publishers want it too. They want to get away from the console makers licensing fees and this may allow them some leeway. Granted we don't know the licensing structure but I am REALLY curious as to how this will pan out on that front. The physical logistics make this something that Google will need to invest in for at least 10 to 20 years to have a decent audience. And by 'decent audience' I mean that it will be available to as many people as have the internet ... good internet. Will Google have the fortitude to stick it out for years without abandoning this ... you never know. I guess if they make money then yeah ... but if the losses keep piling up then bye bye. As it should be.

    Plus to all the people saying that people are wanting Stadia to fail you have to remember. This whole thing threatens what people have come to accept as the norm. Anything that threatens to change something is always met with resistance because people don't like change. Let's say this thing is successful (I seriously have doubts that it will be but whatever) and all the big third party publishers decide that it's the bees knees and make their games exclusive to Stadia because Google gave them better licensing. Let's say that the console makers decide to bow out because there is not enough market share and/or games for them to exist (this is highly unlikely). Where does that leave the people who like gaming the way it is now? I guess by then they'll all be dead so it doesn't matter right. It threatens their hobby as it stands now. Add on top of that that it requires you to have a decent internet connection to run plus you will have little to no ownership of the games and you can see why people will kick against this succeeding.

    No way is this going to save publishers much money, Google will of course take a cut in place of the console owners. As large of a cut as they can get away with without losing the deal. What publishers actually want is for you use their digital store on PC. That's zero cut, but you don't see them pulling out of consoles because of that.

  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    Well, if nothing else the EU is making a good buck off google and i'm sure they'll be watching this even if the americans aren't.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47639228

  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    The service has to tap into new players. People who wouldn't spend $300-500 to buy into the console race before. If they don't expand outside of the slice of the existing console audience with good internet, to people in general with good internet, then of course its a fail. So I wouldn't look at the existing console population as any kind of barometer.

    Also 1080p/30 or 720p/60 is probably going to be closer to the practical standard. Lets not focus too much on 20 GB for insane 4k/60. Ultimately this is going to be heading for a lower budget audience willing to accept compromises at a lower price, not the higher end. And perhaps one that doesn't put in enough gaming hours to justify a dedicated machine, and therefore also will stay well under their data caps.

    rahkeesh2000 on
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    Yeah, I think a lot of people in here are underestimating the number of people who would like to get into gaming but don't due to the barrier to entry being buying a console, having a PC, etc. For many people the ability to just play a new AAA game that they couldn't play before will be very appealing.

    As an example it was heavily rumored that the Avengers game was going to be in the Stadia announcement. That's the kind of title that has a huge potential to bring a lot of non-gamers into the space.

  • General_ArmchairGeneral_Armchair Registered User regular
    People keep saying that, but the kind of internet plan to make this happen combined with the cost of housing across the street from a data center will quickly eclipse the cost of a console.

    3DS Friend Code:
    Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
    TOGSolidfurlion
  • EnigmedicEnigmedic Registered User regular
    The service has to tap into new players. People who wouldn't spend $300-500 to buy into the console race before. If they don't expand outside of the slice of the existing console audience with good internet, to people in general with good internet, then of course its a fail. So I wouldn't look at the existing console population as any kind of barometer.

    Also 1080p/30 or 720p/60 is probably going to be closer to the practical standard. Lets not focus too much on 20 GB for insane 4k/60. Ultimately this is going to be heading for a lower budget audience willing to accept compromises at a lower price, not the higher end. And perhaps one that doesn't put in enough gaming hours to justify a dedicated machine, and therefore also will stay well under their data caps.

    The problem is the people who wont spend a couple hundred on a console arent going to be the ones spending 150$ a month in order to have the internet speeds or data caps to use it.

    Also about this not reaching people in rural areas... there are people in big cities who have completely shit internet and no choices because of basically corruption. Its easy to say well vote for new people but if that were really the case we wouldnt be in the collective mess that is american politics.

    Also lol at 20gb per hour. Any sane investor would divest from the project after that statement.

    PreacherGennenalyse Ruebenfurlion
  • dipuc4lifedipuc4life ... In my own HeadRegistered User regular
    Wait ... you live in a place where you can afford the internet that this requires but DON'T have the money to buy a console! Sounds Fishy. Let's just admit that this is still limiting the number of people that could make the service fly. The cost to entry just changed from can you afford a console to can you get/afford a decent internet connection. I can save up to buy a console when the price drops but I can't make my ISP give me better rates on internet provision.

    NNID: SW-6490-6173-9136
    Playstation: Dipuc4Life
    Warframe_Switch IGN: ONVEBAL
    NightslyrPreacherGennenalyse Rueben
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    People keep saying that, but the kind of internet plan to make this happen combined with the cost of housing across the street from a data center will quickly eclipse the cost of a console.

    Except, yet again, these people don't have a fucking clue what latency is, or how it affects gameplay. They just don't know, likely don't have the reaction speed to make it matter, and don't care about it. They've been playing games on their phones with sloppy touchscreen controls, and all they want to do is play Mario Party with all of their friends.

    "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
Sign In or Register to comment.