I took it as they would be adding games monthly that would build to a catalogue that you could have access too if you did pro. Not just a monthly game that rotates in and out
So reading this I was informed about what the service actually Is
-
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.
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
So reading this I was informed about what the service actually Is
This seems like a disingenuous summary of skepticism about the long-term success of a product whose target audience is people who are extremely price sensitive about hardware, but which depends on these same price-sensitive people for some reason lining up to still pay full price for games, and also not running the numbers on long term rentals vs ownership (if there are indeed a lot of price sensitive consumers who are nevertheless looking for a 4k experience)
I just hate when "Not at launch" is the answer to many questions. If you have to use that, maybe you should rethink your time frame
PS Plus and Xbox Live Gold are "more mandatory" than Stadia Pro. Not having Plus or Gold means not having access to all features of your games. Not having Stadia Pro just means 1080p resolution, which most people have been playing with on PS4 and XBO already.
It's the PS+ model. It's not "a monthly game that rotates in and out". If you subscribe in November, you'll have Destiny 2 to play for as long as you're subscribed. In December there will be another game or two. And so on.
It's not netflix, and it's not one monthly game. It's PS+.
I think that's fair enough, but this is the first time anyone at Google is even officially talking about things like friends lists and achievements. "Founders" edition people are going to be guinea pigs to some extent. I don't think Stadia is officially "launched" until the Base tier is available.
which is next year. People can do what they want with their money, but to pay 120 bucks to work the kinks? Could not be me
Pretty sure that's exactly what it is.
I definitely think Pro subscribers will get a significant bump in performance. But given that even a 1080 Ti can't guarantee 4k60, I just wouldn't assume that's expectation for Stadia.
If the game isn't made fr 4k/60fps it ain't going to stream at 4k/60fps.
That's the model for games on Pro, yes.
It would be nice if they didn't have that BS concept of "claiming" a game. It's a useless gotcha when you're already paying for it. It should just be automatically added to your library.
I'm pretty sure all games ported to stadia will support 4K since they have to be ported to it
I pre-ordered the founders edition when it went live - partly for hype and partly because i don't normally do random/impetuous things...
...but this thread has been a timely reminder to cancel my pre-order. The barrier to entry is very low, and ill definitely mess about with it when it's "free", but my internet is ba and i already have too many games to play.
...but this thread has been a timely reminder to cancel my pre-order. The barrier to entry is very low, and ill definitely mess about with it when it's "free", but my internet is ba and i already have too many games to play.
True enough, but you're getting some actual hardware with value out of it. There's not much of a premium associated with early adopting.
True since you have to buy the games. Imk there should be a separate sub for 20$ that would have a selection of 50+ games to play that would include almost new AAA titles also, not just old or indie games.
I definitely hope so. But I don't assume "server stacking" is just some plug-and-play thing that doesn't need special software support. If Stadia is actually intending to guarantee 4k/60 performance in all games, imo there should be a lot less complaining around here. That's fucking incredible actually, and we're not going to get it on next-gen consoles.
Oh man that is so not cool, I hated that with PS+, made it feel like I was held hostage!Pretty sure that's exactly what it is.
That's how they presented the stadia pro sub during stadia connect, it's one of the positives of cloud gaming
4K really isn't important to me though, I'll be happy with the free 1080p service
If you primarily play single player games or any of the mega popular F2P multiplayer games it isn't. Time will tell if the deals and monthly games offer a comparable value.
I never assumed they actually meant it. Similar to how I bought a PS4 Pro to unlock "4k gaming" fully knowing the system can't actually deliver on that across they board.
But you're definitely right that they set the expectation. If they really deliver it, Stadia Pro is a better deal than I thought.
My point is that we don't know which games will come to the platform.
Take the Ubisoft+ subscription that you can add on to your Stadia subscription: many of those games will not support 4k/60fps because they preceded those benchmarks.
Consider some nameless indie game that comes to Stadia. Chances are it won't support 4k/60fps either. In that case it is less about the capabilities of Stadia & more about the build of the game.
As it stands right now we don't have a clear picture of what Stadia will offer to consumers. What we do know doesn't seem to have a clearly defined market. I'd venture to say that we don't have a clear understanding of the service because Google doesn't have a clear vision.
Edit: formatting & grammar
Yea if they were lying then I'll be disappointed that they did, I'm planning to just use the free 1080p service though
Even single player games can offer some really interesting online features that will be unavailable to you if you do not have Plus or Gold. Most notably Dark Souls and Watch Dogs. You will get the full experience on Stadia without a Pro sub, but your game will be gimped on PS4 and Xbox One without Plus/Gold.
Watch Dogs series will actually be on Stadia and will be better there than PS4/XBO without the mandatory subscription.
Good luck first adopters. Will be interesting to see how this thing turns out. I don't think it will be another ouya but I don't think it will set the world on fire either
It wouldn't be lying; where have they specified that the game itself would be running at 4k/60?
They are talking about the streaming quality.
Yeah that's the point with XBL too. Just to keep you there in it's eco system.
I do think GamePass has a real chance to be 'Netflix for games', while the market is open.
I'm really interested to see what Sony do with PSnow next gen. I expect big changes.
I'm really interested to see what Sony do with PSnow next gen. I expect big changes.
To be fair, if it were "Netflix for games", then by definition, it wouldn't have the latest and greatest stuff on it. It would have a landslide of stuff you don't care about, and a few things you do. And almost none of it would be permanent.
And that's exactly what it would take to make a "Netflix for games" financially feasible: cheap content.
So yeah, good for them for being honest, that this is just a console you keep paying for, forever, if you want to use the games you buy. But it is a perpetually upgrading console, and does have some interesting features.
Am I interested? FUCK NO.
But I can't call it DOA. If Google wants it to succeed, they can run it at a loss for years, like Microsoft did with Xbox. And I'm no judge of what people will tolerate.
And that's exactly what it would take to make a "Netflix for games" financially feasible: cheap content.
So yeah, good for them for being honest, that this is just a console you keep paying for, forever, if you want to use the games you buy. But it is a perpetually upgrading console, and does have some interesting features.
Am I interested? FUCK NO.
But I can't call it DOA. If Google wants it to succeed, they can run it at a loss for years, like Microsoft did with Xbox. And I'm no judge of what people will tolerate.
They said free service people get 1080p
People that pay the sub get 4K
That's what they said
If you just consider Stadia as a console, and set your expectations to that standard, imo that is a clearly defined market.
There's so much trepidation around latency, poor video quality, and "game ownership", which is not totally unfounded. But if any of those things are bad, there's nothing good about the platform, it's just trash. If we assume those things are fine, then we're talking about a 4th first party, and evaluate it by those standards. There's clearly a market for that. And all the convenience of streaming (instant play, play anywhere, no hardware costs, URL to multiplayer) factor in as features of the platform.
That's the stream quality. Just like the PS4 Pro lets you stream remote play at 1080p. What Google is guaranteeing is you'll have access to a 4k / 60 FPS video stream of your game. Stadia Base will give you access to a 1080p stream... the game may very well still be 4k but you will only stream it at 1080p.
There is no guarantee that every Stadia game is going to be 4K / 60 FPS. And we don't know how this "server stacking" works well enough to say devs can just toggle a switch to make that magically happen.
Man, people are happily paying $60 / year for PSN and XBL, but Google does it and all of a sudden they're DOA. Such hyperbole.
But would they then pick up cancelled games too?
And start making original content? :D
Ok? And someone who needs online on an intermittent basis can easily find cheap monthly subs or trials as needed. My point still stands that it isn't a mandatory charge. It's not like it's required for the most basic online functionality like downloading patches, making friends, or sending messages.
Honestly, you make a really good point and I agree with you . Maybe I am just old or whatever but I hate having to pay a never ending payment for something I never actually own. I would much rather shell out 400 every 6 years and just be done with it. The only way I would consider giving this a try and not just sticking with my PS or Xbox would be if it was a Netflix of games and I paid a cheapish subscription (under 20 a month) and got a mix of older titles I had missed on launch, indies and a few big bangers every now and again
I'm not happily paying for PSN and consider dropping it every year. That also isn't the crux of most arguments against Stadia here.
The larger concerns center on digital rights, data caps & latency, vague promises, & a lack of trust in Google supporting the platform for the long term.
They are making original content. Stadia is a first party. It's being run by Jade Raymond who created the Assassin's Creed franchise, and led Ubisoft's franchise development.
Ok so let's say I get cyberpunk 2077 on stadia and I pay the sub so that I can play it in 4K, but it's actually playing in 1080p instead of 4K
So I paid 10$ to play it in the same resolution as the free service? That wouldn't look good on them
That would push people away from their pro sub and get more people on the free sub
Do we know if any of the games showcased are exclusives? I thought that one horror game was an exclusive but then heard it will come to other platforms.
I think we need to understand it as "streaming up to 4k/60fps" rather than a guaranteed 4k/60fps. There are so many variables at play here that someone very well could be paying for the pro sub but only manage to stream at 1080p.
Xbox GamePass seems a lot better than this. Wouldn't that be something you would be striving to compare to rather than a paid online membership like Xbox Live Gold or PS+? Those just give you games every month because hey, we want you to pay to play games online.
Destiny is a game that costs next to nothing to purchase on a disc, and, it's going to a free to play model by the time this service releases. So yay, I guess?
We're not showing the UI til launch, you get one free game a month (and it's going free to play!), you get access across "screens" (does that mean we're getting "multiplayer" with one sub or not?), and we don't have all the features we announced at the reveal.
I'm not entirely sure why they are launching when they are. "Because they have to start somewhere" I guess.
It's not like they have a big first party game releasing. Obviously they want to be there in the busy season with the big third party releases coming, but yeah. Probably better to make a good impression at launch rather than because that's the agreement you made with third party partners.
Destiny is a game that costs next to nothing to purchase on a disc, and, it's going to a free to play model by the time this service releases. So yay, I guess?
We're not showing the UI til launch, you get one free game a month (and it's going free to play!), you get access across "screens" (does that mean we're getting "multiplayer" with one sub or not?), and we don't have all the features we announced at the reveal.
I'm not entirely sure why they are launching when they are. "Because they have to start somewhere" I guess.
It's not like they have a big first party game releasing. Obviously they want to be there in the busy season with the big third party releases coming, but yeah. Probably better to make a good impression at launch rather than because that's the agreement you made with third party partners.
They should do as much exclusive content as they can, if they want their platform to be viable. And just like Microsoft and Sony, that content should be "free" for their customers. By which I mean, the ones paying monthly (ie. not free). But you know what I mean. :)
I hope they fuck it up, though. I want this to fail, and fast.
It's only been announced for Stadia. Since then Tequilaworks made some ambiguous statements which maybe suggest it's one of those weird E3 exclusive announcement situations. For now, i'd guess it's a timed Stadia exclusive, but that's just a guess.
https://www.pcgamer.com/tequila-works-gylt-might-not-be-a-google-stadia-exclusive-after-all/