Stadia: Don’t cross the streams.

17778798082

Posts

  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    Its not an issue of "faster." NVIDIA has already talked to virtually every large company, many have already said "no" and are unlikely to change their minds until they get paid more. Others who are on the service now will change their minds too and come off of it. Unless you are excited for them to outreach to indie games that already run fine on a toaster laptop like tem tem.

    rahkeesh2000 on
  • taliosfalcontaliosfalcon Registered User regular
    Its not an issue of "faster." NVIDIA has already talked to virtually every large company, many have already said "no" and are unlikely to change their minds until they get paid more. Others who are on the service now will change their minds too and come off of it. Unless you are excited for them to outreach to indie games that already run fine on a toaster laptop like tem tem.

    We'll see, looking through their games list the only major publishers missing seem to be Sega and Capcom; and there's theoretically zero reason for a publisher to say no, it just gives them more possible sales w/ people buying for geforce now vs no downside, so i'm cautiously optimistic

  • KyanilisKyanilis Registered User regular
    Its not an issue of "faster." NVIDIA has already talked to virtually every large company, many have already said "no" and are unlikely to change their minds until they get paid more. Others who are on the service now will change their minds too and come off of it. Unless you are excited for them to outreach to indie games that already run fine on a toaster laptop like tem tem.

    We'll see, looking through their games list the only major publishers missing seem to be Sega and Capcom; and there's theoretically zero reason for a publisher to say no, it just gives them more possible sales w/ people buying for geforce now vs no downside, so i'm cautiously optimistic

    Rockstar, Square, Konami, and EA as well. Note that this is publisher level, so Square missing isn't just Final Fantasy games, it's stuff like the entire Tomb Raider series, Just Cause, etc. Control is another higher profile game not on there but I'm not sure if it's just Remedy or all of the publisher (505 Games).

    They might come around if NVIDIA can show some stats that it actually leads to higher sales, but my initial feeling is that it won't make a huge difference. People who don't already buy games on Steam likely aren't going to be looking for their solution in something like GFN. I honestly hope that they do and no publishers take their game off GFN, I'd love for more options for my Steam library! But the service is unfriendly to the non-PC gamer crowd and it's going to be hard to capture them based on what I've seen so far.

  • taliosfalcontaliosfalcon Registered User regular
    Kyanilis wrote: »
    Its not an issue of "faster." NVIDIA has already talked to virtually every large company, many have already said "no" and are unlikely to change their minds until they get paid more. Others who are on the service now will change their minds too and come off of it. Unless you are excited for them to outreach to indie games that already run fine on a toaster laptop like tem tem.

    We'll see, looking through their games list the only major publishers missing seem to be Sega and Capcom; and there's theoretically zero reason for a publisher to say no, it just gives them more possible sales w/ people buying for geforce now vs no downside, so i'm cautiously optimistic

    Rockstar, Square, Konami, and EA as well. Note that this is publisher level, so Square missing isn't just Final Fantasy games, it's stuff like the entire Tomb Raider series, Just Cause, etc. Control is another higher profile game not on there but I'm not sure if it's just Remedy or all of the publisher (505 Games).

    They might come around if NVIDIA can show some stats that it actually leads to higher sales, but my initial feeling is that it won't make a huge difference. People who don't already buy games on Steam likely aren't going to be looking for their solution in something like GFN. I honestly hope that they do and no publishers take their game off GFN, I'd love for more options for my Steam library! But the service is unfriendly to the non-PC gamer crowd and it's going to be hard to capture them based on what I've seen so far.

    Apex legends is on it, so EA is at least eyeing the waters with a f2p game

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So, I got recommended this tripe masquerading as "analysis", and I'm pretty sure that it broke my brain. I mean, talking about Sony getting left behind with cloud gaming while ignoring that they've been the field the longest is...(twitch).

    The "cloud" is not something magical. It's just servers online.
    The success of a small handful of multi-player games does not mean that single player experiences are no longer desired. (This is a lesson the industry has had to learn the hard way.)
    Stadia has been mostly a failure, in ways that were predicted by people who actually know gaming. Streaming not only isn't where it needs to be technologically, but it also doesn't have social buyin.
    If Phil Spencer is so big on competing with Google and Amazon "in the cloud", why are they making the Series X? (I.E. don't just listen to what he's saying, but look at what he's doing - and recognize when the two don't line up.)

    In short, "experts" who have no clue what they're talking about are just...grah.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    IncenjucarThegreatcowElldren
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Yeah, Spencer's assertion that Microsoft is no longer competing with Sony and Nintendo is some baffling bullshit. Yes, cloud gaming might become a competitor, but at the end of the day they're platforms for games -- just like the ones Sony and Nintendo (and hell, smartphones) offer.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Yeah, Spencer's assertion that Microsoft is no longer competing with Sony and Nintendo is some baffling bullshit. Yes, cloud gaming might become a competitor, but at the end of the day they're platforms for games -- just like the ones Sony and Nintendo (and hell, smartphones) offer.

    It's trying to bullshit around the fact that the last generation, Microsoft pretty clearly lost. The sad part is that (as that excreble article shows) there are marks who buy the routine.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Setting aside the bizarre Microsoft worship, one point that we've agreed on correctly in that article is:

    Microsoft is less concerned with console hardware sales than it is in SaaS and IaaS lines of business. Which is part of why the Xbox didn't do better, MS could have made some sacrifices to make it more compelling, like limiting Windows cross platform launches to sell units, but they're not really focused on winning the console war. Gaming is a small portion of what they do.

    And it won't stop Google from ditching Stadia if they decide to, but I figure Stadia is the same. Google is only in Stadia as part of some larger data services/data harvesting idea.

    What is this I don't even.
    General_Armchair
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Yeah, Spencer's assertion that Microsoft is no longer competing with Sony and Nintendo is some baffling bullshit. Yes, cloud gaming might become a competitor, but at the end of the day they're platforms for games -- just like the ones Sony and Nintendo (and hell, smartphones) offer.

    It's trying to bullshit around the fact that the last generation, Microsoft pretty clearly lost. The sad part is that (as that excreble article shows) there are marks who buy the routine.

    I can totally understand trying to give themselves an edge since they're coming from behind, but do they really have to recycle the whole "THE CLOUD" thing again? It got pretty embarrassing last time.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    One of Stadia's stumbling blocks is that they fully are their own platform that devs have to take a risk on porting to. The various PC streamers like Geforce Now run Windows games, PS Now runs Playstation games, Xcloud runs XB1S, so its trivial to move those over. xCloud beta has more games on it than all of Stadia and that is no coincidence. Microsoft actually needs Series X right now to act as a safe pillar of their platform that software studios can bet on, precisely so they can leverage that into a large xCloud library down the road. They may well be down a hybrid path like the switch where either one play style or the other doesn't justify much software by themselves, but a single platform that covers both easily does.

    Sony has been in streaming forever but they've been afraid of obsoleting their own hardware. There are barely any recent games on the service and they are not interesting in sticking their big exclusives there day 1 like MS is with gamepass. Their limited cloud investment also can't offer that stuff as at low latency without renting something from Microsoft or Amazon. Maybe something changes with PS5 but it sounds like the they prefer to sell hardware, so they will have limited footprint there if cloud streaming actually takes off at some point.

  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Yeah, Spencer's assertion that Microsoft is no longer competing with Sony and Nintendo is some baffling bullshit. Yes, cloud gaming might become a competitor, but at the end of the day they're platforms for games -- just like the ones Sony and Nintendo (and hell, smartphones) offer.

    It's trying to bullshit around the fact that the last generation, Microsoft pretty clearly lost. The sad part is that (as that excreble article shows) there are marks who buy the routine.

    He's just saying that MS sees cloud-gaming as being a big focus for them and because Sony/Nintendo aren't really playing their in a meaningful way they aren't their core competitors right now. There's nothing shitty about what he's saying and he's not denigrating the other consoles.

    Darkewolfe
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited February 10
    So, I got recommended this tripe masquerading as "analysis", and I'm pretty sure that it broke my brain. I mean, talking about Sony getting left behind with cloud gaming while ignoring that they've been the field the longest is...(twitch).

    It's a lot easier to ignore their "history" in the field when Sony is actively ignoring it themselves, as they've been very adamant doing...until very recently (as in, "2020"). Maybe. Or they might go back to ignoring it.

    Either way, they ignored it for months, which is a pretty normal thing to do when you basically decide you're going to cut it on: Playstation 3, the Vita, Playstation TV, Sony Blu-Ray players, Samsung televisions, and Sony Bravia televisions (good thing Sony doesn't sell televisions anymore, right? I mean, Christ, that's a real "WTF?" moment), which they did back in 2017. It's especially notable considering the time (and money) Sony spent hyping up how they were going to bring this game-changing service to their televisions, blu-ray players, and the Vita effectively nonstop since acquiring Gaikai.

    The only indication that Sony didn't completely forget that they operated the service were periodic (and gradual) game additions. Sony has been in game streaming "a long time" the way Microsoft has been in VR "a long time". Which is not praise.

    And actually, that might be the smart thing to do, if you belong to the Stadia-skeptic crowd. Even at its height, PS Now never overcame its latency issues, or its actual streaming quality (limited to 720p on PC with the best possible connections, and probably much worse). Then Sony decided to cut more than half the supported hardware, including the most problematic platforms they probably realized they were never going to get "good enough." I'm not convinced Xbox Game Streaming is actually viable, and I'm in the Android Phone (only) beta. If in 2024 it's where PS Now is today, I'll call it dead. And then we have Stadia...which, to its credit, at least is capable of more than 720p on PCs.

    There's reasons one might ignore PS Now. Sony has been, for years on a time. It's very easy to ignore. And the improvements (including something actually resembling a decent library...after five years of effort) aren't enough by themselves. If you're skeptical in the practical application of game streaming as an alternative, that obvious neglect might be the better decision.
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    My enthusiasm for Stadia et al. has massively diminished upon learning that I can just install a Steam Link app on my phone/iPad and play any of my games (while at home, anyway).


    The instant playiness of Stadia is very nice, but so is, you know. Having a player count that breaks double digits.

    You also have your original library, which you don't have on Stadia (until you actually acquire something resembling a library). Presently, Xbox Game Streaming supports the same service from a home console, which is notable because 1) I think it's be pretty doomed without it, even though I can't rule it being a bust otherwise and 2) is less impressive considering Microsoft's done Xbox to PC streaming since the Xbox One launched, so not having it available in this incarnation would be pretty stupid.

    It's a double-edged sword though: you can much better sell the service's inherent value, but you're not going to sell the software (or library subscription) to it if you do.


    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    rahkeesh2000KyanilisZilla360
  • KyanilisKyanilis Registered User regular
    edited February 11
    That was quicker than I expected. Activision games are being removed from Geforce Now: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/forums/gfn-announcements/22/341852/activision-blizzard-games-on-geforce-now/

    This is the exact risk that I mentioned a page or two ago with using Geforce Now as your primary way to play games. It's unfortunate, but ouch.

    Kyanilis on
    Synthesis
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    Kyanilis wrote: »
    That was quicker than I expected. Activision games are being removed from Geforce Now: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/forums/gfn-announcements/22/341852/activision-blizzard-games-on-geforce-now/

    This is the exact risk that I mentioned a page or two ago with using Geforce Now as your primary way to play games. It's unfortunate, but ouch.

    It's also the exact risk you run with Stadia, because you're buying a license rather than ownership.

    Again, this is not a point in Stadias favour - it's a point to Stadias biggest problem.

    DemonStaceyGennenalyse Rueben
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx El Hopaness Rom Tic Registered User regular
    Streamed gaming continues the fail train.

    Make. Time.
    General_ArmchairDemonStaceyGennenalyse Rueben
  • KyanilisKyanilis Registered User regular
    -Loki- wrote: »
    Kyanilis wrote: »
    That was quicker than I expected. Activision games are being removed from Geforce Now: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/forums/gfn-announcements/22/341852/activision-blizzard-games-on-geforce-now/

    This is the exact risk that I mentioned a page or two ago with using Geforce Now as your primary way to play games. It's unfortunate, but ouch.

    It's also the exact risk you run with Stadia, because you're buying a license rather than ownership.

    Again, this is not a point in Stadias favour - it's a point to Stadias biggest problem.

    You're completely misrepresenting the differences here. There is, of course, the risk of Stadia as a service shutting down, but you're buying licenses to use the game with the service. The expectation is you will be able to access those games for at least as long as the service is active (which is the same expectation you get with something like Steam). While there's a possibility some games may not be purchasable in the future, if you own them you should still have access to them. This is how it works with any other digital storefront, which is what Stadia is trying to be.

    With GFN the licenses you own are for other platforms. There is zero expectation that a game will be available on GFN and there's no recourse if games get removed.

    They're fundamentally different and pretending that this doesn't open them up to separate issues is a weird approach to the problem. When you buy a movie on a streaming service you expect that you will be able to watch that movie in perpetuity which is in contrast to how Netflix has ever functioned. The differences in service approaches are well understood so I'm not sure why this is suddenly a huge mystery when it comes to games.

    rahkeesh2000ShadowhopeSageinaRage
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited February 11
    Stadia is still not following the Netflix model and when people continue to talk about them as similar it is extremely misleading

    Burtletoy on
    rahkeesh2000ElldrenGennenalyse Rueben
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited February 11
    That's, like, the funniest part.

    People want a Netflix for games. Stadia is in perfect position to be a Netflix for games. Lots of people already think stadia is Netflix for games!

    Stadia has shown no interest in being a Netflix for games!

    Utterly bizarre.

    Burtletoy on
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    I think such a service would have to be quite limited in the range of games or be rather steep in pricing.

    General_Armchair
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    I think such a service would have to be quite limited in the range of games or be rather steep in pricing.

    Disagree... get companies to let you have access to a large back catalog of decent games that were AAA in their time, get a huge indy game base on there, find genres that work well for the format (netflix has comedy specials and documentaries... maybe point and click plus strategy are good picks?) - and self fund your own blockbusters that are exclusive to bring people in.

    You only need a few of those a year if the catalog keeps people entertained between them... and make it such that games can come and go based on licensing, performance, etc... but the exclusives always remain and new stuff from other publishers' back catalogs is always on rotation.

    Charge even 15-20 bucks a month for this and I would be in immediately.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • KyanilisKyanilis Registered User regular
    Both the existence of PS Now and Xbox Game Pass prove that "Netflix" style subscription can be accomplished fairly cheaply to the end user. Both of those platforms have the option of also purchasing games normally.

    My guess is that Stadia is trying to take care of the latter first but there will almost certainly have a "Netflix" style sub in the future. I don't think Stadia misstepped by having the standard license purchasing first. The subscription style carries the guarantee that games will rotate out, which as the sole way to play games on a service it becomes a little weird to the end user. Also, so far, third party games haven't launched on the above subscription services at the same time they've launched on platforms, aside from a few exceptions. Missing out on "new" games as a platform would also be a risky move.

    rahkeesh2000
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Arent they already missing out on new games in addition to missing out on old games?

    Literally not a game on the service I want to play that I don't already own

  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited February 12
    Gamepass needs the incentives of selling games that rotate off, plus selling DLC for games regardless of pass status, to attract recent-ish 3rd party titles. So yeah the traditional model complements the subscription and the latter probably can't function without the former right now. That would be a difficult hill for Stadia to climb at the moment with its limited library, but yeah they probably should transition their Pro bonuses to rotating access instead of trying to be games with gold.

    Sony meanwhile is like... mostly PS3 games. Its just isn't a good library for anything recent AFAIK.

    rahkeesh2000 on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Stadia is more a Costco model than a Netflix

    It's a monthly subscription to a store

    Except with...the same prices and less options than a normal store. So whatever a dumb Costco would be. That is the stadia comparison, at least until the free part of the store opens.

    kimeshoeboxjeddyElldrenEtiowsaGennenalyse Rueben
  • KyanilisKyanilis Registered User regular
    edited February 12
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Arent they already missing out on new games in addition to missing out on old games?

    Literally not a game on the service I want to play that I don't already own

    Kind of. It's been a slow couple months for games in general (the notable releases have been a couple exclusives or expansions to existing games, both of which I wouldn't expect on Stadia) and there are certainly some games that I think should have been on Stadia. But, for some examples, Cyberpunk 2077 launches later this year, I'll take a guess and say it probably won't be on Xbox Game Pass immediately but it'll be on Stadia. Darksiders: Genesis launched on PC and Stadia first, it's still not out on other consoles. Doom Eternal we know is launching on Stadia at the same time it releases everywhere else next month.

    Yes, the timing and the lack of exclusives to sell the service have led to an incredibly awkward launch. Also, I'm not sure I really understand why they aren't getting some more older titles on the service. Feels like a steady release of anything would take some of the pressure off of themselves. Unfortunately, as far as proving out new titles, well, that remains to be seen really.

    Kyanilis on
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited February 12
    Its on studios to port stuff (since Google isn't giving out money like Epic) and I doubt they feel much ROI for games they would have to sell at $20 or less. That has to inhibit some uptake of older titles. But yeah, nothing a little more bribery on Google's part couldn't solve. They ought to have been willing to take major hits getting this thing up and running and it doesn't feel like they wanted to do that beyond the blade investment. (You know, like not even getting half the promised features implemented before they started taking money.)

    rahkeesh2000 on
    ShadowhopeFiatil
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    Having a debate with someone on Reddit about Stadia. He's come out with some crackers like:
    It's not Google's fault that people live in an area with crap internet
    Fibre is the standard in cities

    And I just......what fucking world does he live in?

    YOU'RE ALL BABIES.
    SO MUCH POTENTIAL TO WASTE.
    Koshian wrote: »
    JOKE'S ON YOU
    MY POTENTIAL IS ALREADY WASTED
    ElldrenSynthesiskimeIncenjucarGennenalyse Rueben
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    -Loki- wrote: »
    Kyanilis wrote: »
    That was quicker than I expected. Activision games are being removed from Geforce Now: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/forums/gfn-announcements/22/341852/activision-blizzard-games-on-geforce-now/

    This is the exact risk that I mentioned a page or two ago with using Geforce Now as your primary way to play games. It's unfortunate, but ouch.

    It's also the exact risk you run with Stadia, because you're buying a license rather than ownership.

    Again, this is not a point in Stadias favour - it's a point to Stadias biggest problem.

    There's a reason why MS just straight up bought a massive franchise like Gears of War. It's a massive brand and they don't want to deal with situations like this.

    YOU'RE ALL BABIES.
    SO MUCH POTENTIAL TO WASTE.
    Koshian wrote: »
    JOKE'S ON YOU
    MY POTENTIAL IS ALREADY WASTED
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    Having a debate with someone on Reddit about Stadia. He's come out with some crackers like:
    It's not Google's fault that people live in an area with crap internet
    Fibre is the standard in cities

    And I just......what fucking world does he live in?

    One enclosed in a small bubble.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Yeah, Spencer's assertion that Microsoft is no longer competing with Sony and Nintendo is some baffling bullshit. Yes, cloud gaming might become a competitor, but at the end of the day they're platforms for games -- just like the ones Sony and Nintendo (and hell, smartphones) offer.

    It's trying to bullshit around the fact that the last generation, Microsoft pretty clearly lost. The sad part is that (as that excreble article shows) there are marks who buy the routine.

    He's just saying that MS sees cloud-gaming as being a big focus for them and because Sony/Nintendo aren't really playing their in a meaningful way they aren't their core competitors right now. There's nothing shitty about what he's saying and he's not denigrating the other consoles.

    No, it's not shitty. Just baffling, because I can't even think of a financial-based way
    Absalon wrote: »
    I think such a service would have to be quite limited in the range of games or be rather steep in pricing.

    Apple Arcade managed to pull it off.

    (Granted the pricing scale is much lower)

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Registered User regular
    Apple Arcade is not doing well at all any longer from my understanding.

    Synthesis
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Apple Arcade is not doing well at all any longer from my understanding.

    How so? I did a Google search and came up with nothing.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular

    For me right now, lack of iOS support is the killer. I got Stadia because I expected that I would be able to play it on my iPhone and iPad. Months later, I haven’t heard a peep. Given that PS4 remote play apps work on iOS, I have to presume that this isn’t a purely Apple thing.

    I really just don’t get why it’s taking this long. Did they rush out things this far ahead of development? Have they actually started yet? I can’t tell based on the general silence on Google’s end.

    I sometimes post pretty pictures to twitter: https://twitter.com/matthewandworld
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me right now, lack of iOS support is the killer. I got Stadia because I expected that I would be able to play it on my iPhone and iPad. Months later, I haven’t heard a peep. Given that PS4 remote play apps work on iOS, I have to presume that this isn’t a purely Apple thing.

    I really just don’t get why it’s taking this long. Did they rush out things this far ahead of development? Have they actually started yet? I can’t tell based on the general silence on Google’s end.

    I mean, Google not developing Stadia to work on a rival's platform because they think "Stadia is such a killer app that it could get people onto android" is not something I'd put past them.

    YOU'RE ALL BABIES.
    SO MUCH POTENTIAL TO WASTE.
    Koshian wrote: »
    JOKE'S ON YOU
    MY POTENTIAL IS ALREADY WASTED
    jungleroomx
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited February 14
    Gamepass needs the incentives of selling games that rotate off, plus selling DLC for games regardless of pass status, to attract recent-ish 3rd party titles. So yeah the traditional model complements the subscription and the latter probably can't function without the former right now. That would be a difficult hill for Stadia to climb at the moment with its limited library, but yeah they probably should transition their Pro bonuses to rotating access instead of trying to be games with gold.

    Sony meanwhile is like... mostly PS3 games. Its just isn't a good library for anything recent AFAIK.

    That's because it's the only way you're going to play PS3 games not on a PS3. Take a glance into the state of PS3 PC emulation (don't, it's kind of a nightmare, even for the oldest PS3 titles) for attempts at brute-force solutions that are far, far beyond anything possible on PS4/PSFro.

    And this is Sony. Their current reputation in the area of "backwards compatibility" is not good for a reason ("It only does everything*!" *Actually does less than previous hardware while removing backwards compatibility after years of advertising and promotion). I'd argue it's one of the things that makes the prospective PS5 so exciting: Sony might finally be moving away from a "Re-sell you the game you already own at every opportunity" approach and harkening back to the PS2-era policy due to external pressure and having learned from their self-inflicted "the Cell will change everything" mistake at the start of this generation. I think it adds enormous value to the prospective console, but that's only my opinion.

    The PS2/PS4 offerings are technically stronger. Though Sony hasn't actually made the PS4 offerings not redundant next to their already-existing online marketplace, which they might not want to in the first place, understandably (hence, "We no longer talk about PS Now"). Xbox Game Pass is confronted by a similar dilemma, which is why I suspect we'll see swifter and swifter rotations out of the library, meaning shorter terms for more valuable third-party titles, to the dismay of many.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Apple Arcade is not doing well at all any longer from my understanding.

    How so? I did a Google search and came up with nothing.

    Just something a mobile developer at work had told me so consider it 100% anecdotal.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me right now, lack of iOS support is the killer. I got Stadia because I expected that I would be able to play it on my iPhone and iPad. Months later, I haven’t heard a peep. Given that PS4 remote play apps work on iOS, I have to presume that this isn’t a purely Apple thing.

    I really just don’t get why it’s taking this long. Did they rush out things this far ahead of development? Have they actually started yet? I can’t tell based on the general silence on Google’s end.

    I mean, Google not developing Stadia to work on a rival's platform because they think "Stadia is such a killer app that it could get people onto android" is not something I'd put past them.

    Looking at their website, they currently only support Chrome OS tablets and pixel phones, so it seems like it's just a pretty limited launch rather than purposely excluding apple.

    ShadowhopeSynthesisKyanilis
  • SCREECH OF THE FARGSCREECH OF THE FARG #1 PARROTHEAD margaritavilleRegistered User regular
    edited February 14
    anyone check out the monster energy motorbike game yet

    Also

    SCREECH OF THE FARG on
    SYhhzZG.jpg?2?8605
  • KyanilisKyanilis Registered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    For me right now, lack of iOS support is the killer. I got Stadia because I expected that I would be able to play it on my iPhone and iPad. Months later, I haven’t heard a peep. Given that PS4 remote play apps work on iOS, I have to presume that this isn’t a purely Apple thing.

    I really just don’t get why it’s taking this long. Did they rush out things this far ahead of development? Have they actually started yet? I can’t tell based on the general silence on Google’s end.

    I mean, Google not developing Stadia to work on a rival's platform because they think "Stadia is such a killer app that it could get people onto android" is not something I'd put past them.

    I doubt it, it makes more sense to encourage people onto the Stadia platform if the streaming works on iOS. Right now the phone rollout is pretty limited, they're testing support for other Android phones and will be enabling those "soon" but they've been quiet about iOS so far.

    I believe other streaming apps have also had some issues getting theirs apps through Apple. Obviously it can be done, but knowing Apple I suspect there's added hoops to jump through. Not to mention you can't run Chromium, etc, on iOS devices so whatever they do here will need to be separate from what they do elsewhere. I'm guessing iOS support is lower on the priority list compared to every other feature they're still missing so if I were to place a bet it would be on that being a bit out still, regardless.

    Synthesis
  • CristovalCristoval Registered User regular
    At the moment Project X Cloud works so well for me that imma be mad if there is any lack of support for streaming games in the future.

Sign In or Register to comment.