Paying for games sounds like a quick and easy way to kill the service dead. It didn't work for Onlive or Sony and I doubt it'll work for Google.
You're not getting simultaneous releases of 3rd party games for a $10 monthly sub. Think more like $50.
Paying for games sounds like a quick and easy way to kill the service dead. It didn't work for Onlive or Sony and I doubt it'll work for Google.
Premium, red, same diff. They still have Cobra Kai on the video side, and again still ad free YouTube and music which would be enough for me personally on top of the older game streamingDidn't they kill off Youtube Red? They turned it into Youtube Premium which in itself is kind of dead, they've already killed off a lot of their entire original content initiative they've tried to do the past few years too.
Maybe it's aiming at people who don't have other platforms or don't want to spend hundreds on new hardware?
That's the thing though, people are attacking this from their current perspective of local play. This is a streaming service. This isn't for the hardcore because the hardcore don't want any latency issues or having to deal with buffering. This is for the casuals. BUT both the hardcore and the casual ate welcomed to play. The hardcore KNOW the cons of streaming (latency) and only THEY see those issues. The casuals? It'll be a great experience at $11.99 just like Netflix is even when it buffers sometimes.imo because people seem to think this is an inferior experience than we're getting on a PS4 Pro. I think the living room experience on Stadia is gonna be better than PS4 Pro with the caveat that fighting game fans are going to notice a frame or 2 of latency.
So does google
Any big 3rd party games? I know Microsoft has been making nice deals to get games on Gamepass (which is why I'm still interested in that expanding to more platforms than Google Stadia). But I imagine Google will also strike some deals to get games on their service day 1.Not true at all with Gamepass.. while not every third party game is there (you would have to charge far more than $10) in the last month alone a ton of new games not published by MS went right into gamepass on release day. So thats how you bring more value to the subscription model.
I'm not understand the criticism of having two options of buying a game(must be owned and not a timed rental) and a netflix-like subscription service. If you are required to pay for the monthly fee in order to play your owned games then that will be a major issue. I see Xcloud being similar as well with having both options.
Dont see it in the line up?
Google could use this early leak to analyze reactions and maybe further explain things that they might not have planned to.
Because they can play that game on any [especially non-gaming-ready] hardware they already own?Dead on arrival. Why would someone buy a game to stream it when they can just buy it on any other platform?
They should do like free 1 hour trial (or half an hour), and rental prices (like for 24h, 72h, 7 days)
I can't wrap my head around these complaints. People pay subs for PS+/XBL that don't come with free, brand new games. Yes, they're a little cheaper, but it's the same basic idea. Anyone who thought they were going to get an unlimited library of new release games for $20/mo or whatever was out of their minds.
Truthfully, this was always the way the thread would go. Short of Google giving all the games for free and even then..It's pretty obvious that only two things are at play here: it's Google & it's streaming only. If it were anybody else with an option to download, everyone would jump on this. I personally have no issues with what Google is going for. This is clearly not the views of the majority of this forum, but everyone is treating as if it's going to personally threaten the way they play games. Nothing is changing. You can still play games the way you want to play. This is just an alternative.
I can't stand all of the negativity lately.
casuals arent dumbfucks who wont notice lag. a video buffering is irritating, but the game buffering is worseThat's the thing though, people are attacking this from their current perspective of local play. This is a streaming service. This isn't for the hardcore because the hardcore don't want any latency issues or having to deal with buffering. This is for the casuals. BUT both the hardcore and the casual ate welcomed to play. The hardcore KNOW the cons of streaming (latency) and only THEY see those issues. The casuals? It'll be a great experience at $11.99 just like Netflix is even when it buffers sometimes.
Do you know any where else you can get new games for free?They're charging you for new games? Can you download them and play offline at least? If not, this seems like an awful proposition.
From what I understand, you have to "buy" new games, but in reality you're just paying for a license to stream the game ?
Yeah, good luck with that Google.
I think you're slightly underplaying the benefit of not owning hardware, though. It's not just a simple case of not having to buy it, though of course that's a benefit. It's not even the fact that you don't need space, or to pay for its power, or to listen to its fan or pay for repairs or replacements if it breaks, or the fact that - liberated from a plastic shell - you can "use it" anywhere you have a device and an internet connection. The main thing, to me, is that you're no longer constrained to a single chunk of hardware (or incremental upgrade in the case of the Pro and X, which obviously both represent another investment of money).But Stradia is going to be competing with PS5/XBNext so i can either:
A) Buy games and stream them at 1080p/30fps or spend $11.99 a month on top to play them in 4K/60fps
B) Buy a console and games and run them at the maximum performance level possible.
Now the big difference is the upfront cost which is of course much higher than Stradia but if you play more than once a month and stick around for a console generation then it costs more for Stradia and is reliant on an internet connection at all times.
The only people i see taking advantage of this are people who very rarely play or just buy the occasional game which in that case i cant imagine it being that profitable for Google. I mean your average Fifa player might only buy that one game and play for a year. If they arent subscribed to the 4K option then Google are probably losing money there I would assume.
Just doesnt seem like a good option for anyone.
You are buying a different product at that point, extra work has been done to get it to that higher quality. With Stradia its essentially subbing for an unlock key to play at better quality.
Assuming cost is relatively the same, why would anyone choose to do this method over the tradtional way they have been doing it? The appeal at first was hopefully streaming games were cheaper.I can't wrap my head around these complaints. People pay subs for PS+/XBL that don't come with free, brand new games. Yes, they're a little cheaper, but it's the same basic idea. Anyone who thought they were going to get an unlimited library of new release games for $20/mo or whatever was out of their minds.
No the sub is optional but the free version is limited to 1080p resolutionSo you have to be subscribed ($12 a month) to play games in 4K, and buy the games at full price on top of that? The subscription is mandatory regardless? Considering it mentions a free subscription with 1080p limit and no games, I'm assuming this is the case.
Trash service if true.
Dead on arrival. Why would someone buy a game to stream it when they can just buy it on any other platform?
Okkk.casuals arent dumbfucks who wont notice lag. a video buffering is irritating, but the game buffering is worse
I don't get why it wouldn't?
Yeah you can take the same $60 buy a game on Xbox and play it locally or stream it through XCloud. Why anyone would willingly purchase games on Stadia when Microsoft and Sony offer a better value proposition is beyond me
I think you're slightly underplaying the benefit of not owning hardware, though. It's not just a simple case of not having to buy it, though of course that's a benefit. It's not even the fact that you don't need space, or to pay for its power, or to listen to its fan or pay for repairs or replacements if it breaks, or the fact that - liberated from a plastic shell - you can "use it" anywhere you have a device and an internet connection. The main thing, to me, is that you're no longer constrained to a single chunk of hardware (or incremental upgrade in the case of the Pro and X, which obviously both represent another investment of money).
When the PS5 comes along, if you buy it, that's it - that processor's never getting faster, its never getting more RAM etc. The appeal of all cloud computing platforms, whether it's gaming using Stadia or any of the other million uses for cloud computing, it's that you can take something running on a certain configuration and then slap it on a different configuration as needs require. The story of consoles is that when they come out they're usually pretty good (especially as far as value for money goes) when compared to a PC, but then as the generation wears on, the PC tech outpaces consoles significantly - such that if you buy a mid-range PC today, you're going to absolutely cream the performance of a PS4. If you had the money, you could continually upgrade your PC such that you were always on the cusp of what's possible - and Stadia offers this, but without the need to constantly upgrade your hardware. In fact, you don't have any. A new PS4 game released today needs to work on hardware from 6 years ago. A new game released on Stadia won't need to work on hardware from 6 years ago. *This*, to me, is the key benefit of not owning the hardware.
Also how many casuals think "I dont want to spend money on a console but am perfectly happy spending £50 on a new game coming out because i can play it on my TV"casuals arent dumbfucks who wont notice lag. a video buffering is irritating, but the game buffering is worse
Maybe Google schemed with this outlet to release this rumor/leak to check the general consensus before truly finalizing stuffs =P
Because Netflix doesn't have them? At least Stadia gives you the option. It's an option that's seemingly pointless when you can just buy it physically or on other more reliable services, but it is an option.
What's eww? It's the same model as netflix, Netflix only has older movies and if you want to see the newest release you have to buy it
I think the big challenge for me will be if I buy a game on Xcloud then presumably I will be able to use that same game on an Xbox console if I choose to later, on stadia my only option is streamYou you need hardware, a subscription AND buy the games?
How is this different from now?
In a year if I don't have to buy anything and a subscription is free maybe.