Even if I'm this mythical person that doesn't own a console/PC, yet for some reason wants to drop $60 on the latest games - I'd still rather have a $200 Xbox and Game Pass. It's a far better value in the long run.
-
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.
Stadia Reddit AMA: ''Stadia Pro isn't “Netflix for Games” ...a closer comparison would be like Xbox Live Gold or Playstation Plus''
- Thread starter SuikerBrood
- Start date
Exactly, and trying to siphon people who are existing console/PC owners as they go along.
I really do wonder about that market size; the research would be interesting.
Game streaming services exist, and work, right now and no one cares. Magically Stadia is going to change that according to Google. I have my doubts.
The crazy part of it is that Destiny 2 goes F2P in September while Stadia launches in November.
I get that the Stadia version will include DLC but still, it isn't totally honest to trumpet this game as a great deal for Stadia subscribers.
Dying to demo it! If it sucks, then it sucks. I'll lose US$10 for a month's trial - I'll take those chances.
The appeal is clear in my opinion - jury's still out on whether this delivers on the potential.
Problem with this analogy is nobody is paying the full cost for any of these experiences. A movie ticket is cheaper than buying a Blu-Ray, A PPV is cheaper than buying tickets to the event. I think it would make more sense if the games on Stadia were cheaper, because then you don't own the game but you're not paying full ownership price to play it anyway
It's totally possible they'll carve out an audience of people who want to game but haven't gotten to the step of owning hardware to game on, but I think that's an uphill battle to carve out that kind of market.
The cost of entry for games is historically low right now, so appealing to people who [want games as they currently exist] and also [care about high-end experiences] and also [have higher-end internet] and also [are happy to both buy games at full price and pay a recurring membership] who aren't already invested/engaged elsewhere is an interesting Venn diagram to imagine.
The cost of entry for games is historically low right now, so appealing to people who [want games as they currently exist] and also [care about high-end experiences] and also [have higher-end internet] and also [are happy to both buy games at full price and pay a recurring membership] who aren't already invested/engaged elsewhere is an interesting Venn diagram to imagine.
Stadia is not comparable to a 200 Xbox. It's comparable to a 500 PS5. It also allows for immediate access to games with no downloads, no installs, no updates, and no system firmware updates. You can invite friends into a multiplayer party with a URL. You can play next-gen games on any low power laptop or tablet that runs Chrome. The hardware in Google's data centers can be "stacked" for performance beyond a console, and will be continuously upgraded over time.
Game pass is not a 'Netflix for games'. Game pass has around 100 titles, and only a fraction of them, are likely to be played frequently in 2019.
I think gamepass is cool, but it locks you into a very small ecosystem unless you want to purchase more content and subscriptions. To put it in perspective, none of the top 10 most played games on XBOX, are featured in Gamepass.
Like they could at least make an effort to include a paid game at launch on top of Destiny 2.
This feels half assed and probably means that you'll need the subscription to play F2P games.
You don't "own" games on any digital distribution platform. Google is making the same licensing commitment as every other full priced digital download: play it whenever you want, forever. Additionally, you can play those purchases on lots of different types of form factors which aren't available to console or PC games. And there's no waiting to play.
Also, as a differentiator from consoles, there's no subscription fee to play multiplayer games.
60$ for a game is a bummer, but I will wait for most stuff to get a sale and then purchase it, like I mostly do. I rarely play games directly after release, most of the time they are too expensive and need to be patched anyways.
As I only have a 1080p Tv I do not need to pay for the subscription, so thats a plus in my book.
I will definetly try stadia (or other streaming services) after it releases. Hope that streaming will get bigger in the future, I do not want to upgrade my graphic card every few years to play games in high quality.
As I only have a 1080p Tv I do not need to pay for the subscription, so thats a plus in my book.
I will definetly try stadia (or other streaming services) after it releases. Hope that streaming will get bigger in the future, I do not want to upgrade my graphic card every few years to play games in high quality.
I opened the dictionary to seek the meaning of "disingenuous" and this post was under the the entry 🤔
What metric are you using? Most played ever? Most played currently?
Most played games - Microsoft Store
Most played games – Shop these 49 items and explore Microsoft Store for great apps, games, laptops, PCs, and other devices.
www.microsoft.com
I see two.
I sure as hell have more ownership on other platforms than I do on Stadia. Even if digital downloads aren't full ownership it's still more than what Stadia provides
To be fair, the DLC includes Forsaken ($40) and Shadowkeep ($35) plus the Anuual Pass ($15-ish). Even if Forsaken drops in price some by then, that's still a full game's value.
Phil Harrison: "Okay, look...we've been clear from Day 1 that -- hold on, excuse me..."
Takes off brown patent leather shoes and puts on red sneakers, lacing them tightly
Phil: "Ah, that's better. So what we're doing here is revolutionizing the gaming experience!"
Takes off brown patent leather shoes and puts on red sneakers, lacing them tightly
Phil: "Ah, that's better. So what we're doing here is revolutionizing the gaming experience!"
That's true. I keep forgetting about PSNow.
If the input lag was gone and frame rate improved, I'd really be into the idea of streaming. No more worrying about hardware upgrades.
Yeah, I think this is where I'm at. I'm not as cynical on this as most people, but it's not exactly likely.
Minecraft, FH4 and Rocket Leagu are up there and on Gamepass. (Also a bunch of them are F2P anyway)
Last edited:
It kills it for me. What's the point?The Stadia reddit is currently doing an AMA with Stadia's Director of Product.
You can read the whole AMA here (currently ongoing): https://www.reddit.com/r/Stadia/comments/ceuy4w/hi_im_andrey_doronichev_and_im_the_director_of/
But this stood out for me:
Doesn't this.. kinda kill the product for many people? You'll have to pay $60 to play games which you can't play natively or on other platforms. And there is no subscription service so you have a smaller barrier to entry.
The idea that people aren't already paying for internet based on its own merit seems normal to you, eh?
I recognize that. It would be more attractive if they market it as "The Full Destiny 2 Experience...for FREE!...not counting a monthly subscription."
Any digital distribution platform can go offline and lock you out of your library forever. There's an element of trust in every digital purchase.
The fact you are ignoring that most people aren't paying good enough internet to use Stadia as Google is advertising it is pretty disengenuous of your part, yes, glad we agree.
I have the majority of my games on PC.
To me, game streaming services, if they can be successful, it would mean PC gamers will be able to save money in the long run by not needing to constantly upgrade hardware if they want the latest and greatest graphics in games because the games are being run on a data center PC that would have much stronger hardware than a home PC that is then streamed to a home PC.
To me, game streaming services, if they can be successful, it would mean PC gamers will be able to save money in the long run by not needing to constantly upgrade hardware if they want the latest and greatest graphics in games because the games are being run on a data center PC that would have much stronger hardware than a home PC that is then streamed to a home PC.
it is not.
as far as we know, a ps5 (or next xbox) do not require a permanent internet connexion, it does not require a 35mbps internet,it does not require a subscription, it does not require a sub 15ms ping to google servers, it does not require you to live in a place without data caps, it does not require to forfeit any ownership on games you paid 60$ for, it does not require to forget about reselling your games, it does not require to forget about your games in 2 years because google may drop the project. and both ps and xbox have a streaming solution if so you want.
It has not even the beginning of a tenth of the value.
If you're casually playing games it is cheaper. The discount is in the fact that you're not paying $300+ for hardware.
It's like they are targeting the hardcore gamer segment but doing everything to turn them off. The service and the messaging is really at odds with each other. I find the promotion of this thing a lot more interesting than the service tiself
Having to buy a game to play it streamed doesn't seem good at all. Do people buy movies on iTunes or Google?
Unfortunately it seems Google has eroded a lot of their trust & goodwill.
while i personally think stadia is doomed, and a lot of their business model is lol-worthy, i do think being able to slap a "play immediately" button on a youtube trailer is p. good hashtag brand integration
There's significantly more trust involved if you don't have the means to play any component of your purchase library without the service platform. Which was why they said it.
The average internet US connection per Speedtest.net is 33.8Mb/s. Very close to the Stadia 4k requirement, and triple the minimum 10Mb requirement:
https://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/
How long will your Steam library be playable if Valve shuts their servers down?
Even if, say, Steam went down tommorow. I'd still be able to at least use a crack to enable most of those games.
Ok here's an example, the Wii Shop is gone, all of the games on the Wii shop are gone and cannot be purchased or downloaded by anybody. Except I did download the games I bought off that service and I can still play them perfectly fine even with my Wii disconnected from the internet. I don't know of any service currently that functions any different. I'm pretty confident that as long as they're installed on my system I will forever have access to any PSN or XB game I own.
What I do know for 100% certainty is once Stadia's servers are gone all of your Stadia games are gone too, forever. No way around that. With digital theres a chance I could eventually lose my library. With Stadia there's a certainty.
for ever, they have a way to unlock the server side checks if they ever go under, and gaben wrote that himself back in the days on the steams forums.
installed games will be playable forever if such a thing ever happen.
The fun part is when you realize that this is actually mobile and landlines may very well be vastly slower than that.
As far as contracts go, this means nothing but it's a helluva better than pretty much the rest of the industry this side of Gog.
Stadia is not comparable in the sense that it avoids the entry cost, it avoids repair costs, it avoids costs of upgrading storage, it avoids costs of upgrading hardware, it avoids a subscription cost to access online.
It will have merit to an audience of people.
I'll admit I was in on Stadia after the initial reveal and even pre-ordered. The guy they had on Giant Bomb at Nite turned me off completely. Ignored the tough questions about data caps and realities of the internet and just kept saying things like "trust the internet!" This AMA isn't doing much to change my mind.
I think Microsoft has the better strategy for streaming as of now. Push the local streaming tech free to anyone who owns the box, and sell a sub later on. If Google doesn't catch up on basic feature stuff and data caps stay the way they are for the foreseeable future, they could have an incredibly tough year ahead of them. Hope they're ready for the long haul, or it'll die on the branch before it catches on.
I think Microsoft has the better strategy for streaming as of now. Push the local streaming tech free to anyone who owns the box, and sell a sub later on. If Google doesn't catch up on basic feature stuff and data caps stay the way they are for the foreseeable future, they could have an incredibly tough year ahead of them. Hope they're ready for the long haul, or it'll die on the branch before it catches on.
Based on their posts/responses throughout this discussion, I'd recommend others consider not responding to thebishop here. It's immediately clear they're not on-the-level with these exchanges. For example, I pointed out there was more trust involved for a streaming-only platform compared to a local platform, and they couldn't accept even that. I see enough hints of that sort of nonsensical response in other situations.
I'd guess they're just excited about the idea of something like this, but if I can't tell the difference between someone deliberately trolling and that kind of excitement, it stops mattering.
I'd guess they're just excited about the idea of something like this, but if I can't tell the difference between someone deliberately trolling and that kind of excitement, it stops mattering.
For PC, this.
I have the majority of my games on PC.
To me, game streaming services, if they can be successful, it would mean PC gamers will be able to save money in the long run by not needing to constantly upgrade hardware if they want the latest and greatest graphics in games because the games are being run on a data center PC that would have much stronger hardware than a home PC that is then streamed to a home PC.