-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[Rumor/leak?] Lapresse.ca details the Google Stadia price, release date, launch details, line-up
- Thread starter Deleted member 2791
- Start date
Nah you keep it forever.
But paying full price to STREAM a game is LOL
Yeah, I'm just talking about 2020. Before then, we're talking about the need to pay for the Pro sub and the Chromecast.
It's this bit. I think the per-game purchase is measured differently on PC/console vs streaming only. The latter is too limited and potentially inconsistent an experience.
That's the challenge a streaming-only platform has. We'll see what the per-game pricing is like however, maybe that can re-cast the value perception a bit.
None of this is too surprising though - I think maybe there was a vague idea that Google would go crazy, and invest in massive subsidies to get all their content behind an all-you-can-eat sub, but I guess that was always an unlikely outcome.
OP
OP
What other word should I use ? I don't know how to translate "formule" in english in the economic sense of the word. Plan ? Account ?
If this is actually true, holy shit what a dumb dumb decision.
But Netflix offers a ton of free new series and does simultaneous launches for their films. So maybe the analogy would be the early days of Netflix but without any exclusive content yet I'm skeptical.
Not listed in the summary, and i can't read french, so feel free to point me to the part where it states this.
How about you make the sub more expensive then and just let me play all game within the sub's offered lineup? Rotate them in-and-out like Gamepass is doing.
If that little part of having to buy the games was not there, i wouldn't have an issue at all, you know.
It would be a good option on PS Now or XCloud because people already have their libraries, that also can be played locally.
But pay $60 on a new platform to only stream is weird.
So $11.99 to access games that they cycle through the catalog (just like Netflix) and if you want to play NEW games as they release you'd have to buy them outright (like you do currently with PS+/GwG/Origin)
I am ok with this. This is basically just an alternative to what we have now without having to buy dedicated hardware for it. At $11.99 to access 31 games at launch this isn't bad at all.
Although this is a rumor/leak, I'm still excited to see what they'll have to share.
I am ok with this. This is basically just an alternative to what we have now without having to buy dedicated hardware for it. At $11.99 to access 31 games at launch this isn't bad at all.
Although this is a rumor/leak, I'm still excited to see what they'll have to share.
OK. So i buy ass creed for whatever price. I can stream it forever without a sub?
Thats a little better.
I'll think of this as being hypothetical until official confirmation, but yeah, this sounds bad for Google. If true, I think they've misjudged in several areas.
I think this has been a common misunderstanding from the start. There were lots of people thinking games were going to cost a flat fee despite the potential for someone to stream for hundreds or thousands of hours on Google's machines.
With GamePass each game you download has no future cost to Microsoft. You're going to be playing it on your own native machine. Google don't have that luxury.
I think this has been a common misunderstanding from the start. There were lots of people thinking games were going to cost a flat fee despite the potential for someone to stream for hundreds or thousands of hours on Google's machines.
Yeah that doesn't make sense - either the story is incorrect on that detail or Google have made a bad decision. One of the key selling points for this service should be the ability for people to jump in quickly and easily, with no hardware purchase needed. It sounds like they're planning to get to that point, but it ideally should be like that at launch.
That cost also includes some monthly games though (plus continuing access to your accumulated library of monthly games), as well as occasional discounts. If this pricing is correct, it's understandable for people to feel that Google aren't matching that value.
I expected this service to be just a digital store so you would buy your games and stream them.
The addition of the old library is nice but the fact I would have to subscribe to play in 4k/60fps for games I have already bought is far too much of a deal breaker.
The addition of the old library is nice but the fact I would have to subscribe to play in 4k/60fps for games I have already bought is far too much of a deal breaker.
This thing is going to be dead before Xbox 2 and PS5 launch next year. What a pointless service. I feel bad for all the talent they acquired.
That's probably the best pricing model a streaming service could have. If you don't care about 4K/60fps then you only have to concern yourself with the cost of the game, as the 1080p service is free.
If you're a more dedicated gamer then your subscription is the cost of 2 full-price games a year, with access to the 'PlayStation Plus'-like games, and you still have access to your games if your subscription lapses, just at a lower fidelity.
I think this will be successful for Google.
If you're a more dedicated gamer then your subscription is the cost of 2 full-price games a year, with access to the 'PlayStation Plus'-like games, and you still have access to your games if your subscription lapses, just at a lower fidelity.
I think this will be successful for Google.
It's very tough to convince people to stream to begin with and then to offer what I think is a small amount of games will make it that much tougher. I do howvere expect Google to show off a few of their own games.
I've agreed with Mat about Stadia from the beginning. But why assume this tweet is about that?
You do have to buy hardware, and it will work worse, and you won't own a copy of whatever you buy.
The big difference here is that we don't need a Netflix subscription to be able to go to the movies.
I'm not questioning the translaton. I havent read French in forever and didnt bother. I just wasnt sure if it's free if I'm subscribing, unless it's like an opt-in thing like YouTube subs, or a limited time offer.
It's posted after the leak and Stadia is having a conference today.
LMAO.
B..but imagine playing and buying Fifa for 10 bucks a month and on your phone's touchscreen!
Welcome to the future yall lol
B..but imagine playing and buying Fifa for 10 bucks a month and on your phone's touchscreen!
Welcome to the future yall lol
I don't like the model but it's not crazy. Pay a sub to stream with some older games included and pay for new titles. The barrier to entry is actually lower than a traditional console but the complete feeling non ownership doesn't lend itself to premium pricing.
MS has a huge advantage here. Even if MS adds a new tier of sub for Xcloud, you can be comfortable in owning a game on that platform that will run locally on PC and Xbox.
I'm just not sure if the the target audience is big enough for game streaming in the near future. It's going to be an uphill battle for sure. I can see some core gamers sub if only to have mobile option to play the games they have but I don't see some massive movement to play AAA games on any device.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
MS has a huge advantage here. Even if MS adds a new tier of sub for Xcloud, you can be comfortable in owning a game on that platform that will run locally on PC and Xbox.
I'm just not sure if the the target audience is big enough for game streaming in the near future. It's going to be an uphill battle for sure. I can see some core gamers sub if only to have mobile option to play the games they have but I don't see some massive movement to play AAA games on any device.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
For Google, we can be happy if EU includes all the "big/main" countries from there.
I'm pretty sure they'll list what countries during the stream. That leak is from Canada, that's why they single that one out.
OP
OP
You need to subscribe to a "plan" if you want to use Stadia at all. There's free accounts, which are limited, and the Pro sub which includes "free" games with it.
I'll need to compare output of Gamepass vs Stadia. For now I remain more interested in Microsoft's offering but it's up to google to convince me otherwise.
Well yeah, i never expected completely new games to be included in the sub. Still launching with just 31 games is not enough. But the biggest negative for me is that it isn't going to be available on all devices that support the chrome browser. That's the biggest selling point for me and i personally wouldn't launch the service in such an incomplete state.
It's an artificial throttle on demand this year while they scale the infrastructure. Same reason Sony didn't expand PSNow to every device from the get-go.
I don't think its gonna be tough to convince people. I think virtually everyone here will be streaming in some capacity within a year. The thing that will be tough is convincing long time gamers to make Stadia their main platform.
Business model is fucked from the get go then. The subscription was always gonna be focused around old games.
Playing new games at full price at the mercy of a stream is not ready for prime time yet.
Playing new games at full price at the mercy of a stream is not ready for prime time yet.
Sure. This is what the article says: "Ces achats resteront accessibles même si le joueur abandonne son abonnement Stadia Pro" which roughly translates to "Games purchased will still be accessible if the player drops his Stadia Pro subscription".
As I understand it, they're not charging you again for "every single" game you play though, right? Does the subscription not include "older games"? Do games like Ass Creed: Odyssey and Destiny 2 not fall under that umbrella, or are you assuming it's going to cost someone at least $72 USD to play Odyssey on Stadia this November?
I've got a bit of an annual ritual of getting bored and buying up and playing a few of last year's third party blockbusters that I skipped at $20 or something over the course of a month or so. If Stadia maintains a decent roster of these types of titles, there's absolutely no way I'm going to spend that $60+ on the Xbox store when I can fire up Stadia for $12.
Also, it's going to expand other devices in the near-term. I'm not 100% on controller support, but didn't chrome recently update to support multiple console controllers? I see an article out there that Stadia is even planning to support Microsoft's adaptive controller.
Eh, I dunno. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something fundamental here, but I don't think it's going to be all that difficult for Google to sell this.
I assume the free sub includes the old games (imagine a free PSNow with less games and no PS exclusives) and max 1080p, but not new titles bundled. Paid $11.99/month sub upgrades it to 4K/60fps and no new games bundled. The $169 includes a Chromecast, a pad and a "new" game (Destiny 2) bundled. On top of these games you would be able to buy new ones to be streamed.
I assume that the "new" games like The Division 2, AC, etc. won't be priced as $60 games, but as a lower pricing instead because of the subscription and because you get worse quality due to the streaming compared to a console or PC.
Google Maps, Youtube, Google and Gmail must cost gazillions of dollars. It makes sense to expect that they would do the same with Stadia.
These services don't cost money to the users, because we pay with our data that Google then sells/sends to ads services, goverments, intelligence agencies, etc. Like Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and others do.