• 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.

Spark

Member
Dec 6, 2017
2,538
Honestly I'm not one to hate on new technology, but at this stage in time, with our current limitations of technology, a successful Stadia would be extremely bad for gaming. Entire regions would be excluded from playing on the ecosystem, games would be removed from the service never to be seen again, latency would mean certain genres would not be playable as they are now. The world is not ready for a streaming only service, and it would be damaging for gaming if it succeeded. Right now stuff like xCloud and PSnow is more responsible, where people have the option to download and play their games on local hardware.
 

Arkaign

Member
Nov 25, 2017
1,991
I get the uniqueness of the prospect - being able to play games without a console is quite nifty and futuristic - but I imagine I'm not the only one who doesn't mind having dedicated hardware. In fact, I quite like having a PS4 under my TV I can also slip blu-rays into, or a Switch I can reliably play on a train or plane.

The biggest problem I see with Stadia is that we're living in an age where people care about relatively minor issues in performance. So for Stadia to be a preferable way to play, it needs to be working without lag or latency issues 100% of the time, or at least have parity with performance on consoles. Even if it works 90% of the time - hell, even 99% of the time - those times where it doesn't work well will quickly become apparent. For technology like this to really be embraced, it needs to be flawless ... or else people will just stick to the reliable old methods.

It's even more than people simply noticing small issues with performance. Stadia style streaming can have you die, crash your race, or get owned in your sports/fighting game due to a single blip in your internet connection. Roommate firing up Hulu or Netflix 4k, while their phone starts an OS update, your Soviet 1973-quality Comcast modem/router gets saturated, and boom you're Stadia stream barfs on you. Only takes a few seconds or less to ruin an entire gaming session for a lot of titles if it blips at the wrong moment.
 

Cudpug

Member
Nov 9, 2017
3,551
It's even more than people simply noticing small issues with performance. Stadia style streaming can have you die, crash your race, or get owned in your sports/fighting game due to a single blip in your internet connection. Roommate firing up Hulu or Netflix 4k, while their phone starts an OS update, your Soviet 1973-quality Comcast modem/router gets saturated, and boom you're Stadia stream barfs on you. Only takes a few seconds or less to ruin an entire gaming session for a lot of titles if it blips at the wrong moment.

I completely agree - I already get frustrated playing games where split second reactions count and a technical hiccup messes things up for you. I can't imagine playing something competitive on Stadia.

Perhaps single-player games work OK on it, though?
 

Arkaign

Member
Nov 25, 2017
1,991
I think turn based or slower paced games without any constant risk of instadeath or severe penalties for a couple seconds of unresponsiveness would be fine.
 

bane833

Banned
Nov 3, 2017
4,530
The big problem for them is their library of games.

All they have (and all they will have it looks like) is for the most part games that are/will be available on other consoles/PC, which already have huge player bases.

Making high end (attention catching) exclusives will take years. If they are even willing to fund them i.e.
The thought of a new player entering the gaming business with fuck all was always baffling to me.

I agree completely with this. And it seems obvious to us, but I think it reveals their thinking by contrast.

The 'visionary' exec who believes in the blue sea market of millions and millions of people who want to play games, but can't afford a console or are otherwise terrified of local hardware.
Yep, a market like that does not exist.
 

MazeHaze

Member
Nov 1, 2017
8,576
I think turn based or slower paced games without any constant risk of instadeath or severe penalties for a couple seconds of unresponsiveness would be fine.
You would assume that anybody into turn based strategy or games like that has a PC, console, or tablet/phone to play those games on already though. Isn't civ 6 on ipad?
 

Plinkerton

Member
Nov 4, 2017
6,058
People who want a streamlined experience and are willing to make some sacrfices in quality.

No patches, installs of games, system updates. Easy of use to play and not be concerned of hardware failing or being stolen, buying new or researching.

For google this is a very long play they're making.

The problem is that's not at all how they've positioned this to date. They've been pushing the specs and performance over the convenience factor and the focus is clearly on the hardcore, who likely aren't willing to sacrifice quality. And who will all have one eye on the next gen systems next year.

Like I said there's time for them to pivot, but the business model and marketing at launch is aimed at essentially nobody.
 

Arkaign

Member
Nov 25, 2017
1,991
You would assume that anybody into turn based strategy or games like that has a PC, console, or tablet/phone to play those games on already though. Isn't civ 6 on ipad?

No argument there. I was replying as to the kinds of games that would weather the occasional hiccup in streaming responsiveness. :)
 

oni-link

tag reference no one gets
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,014
UK
It's weirdly satisfying seeing my predictions after an hour of thinking about Stadia post reveal come true, despite Google consistently saying the tech worked and it was going to be great

Amazing how people at Google didn't see this. There is no way they could have tested the tech and thought core gamers would be happy paying full price for games they don't own, to run with a ton of lag, looking like someone has rubbed Vaseline all over the screen

They need to make it work way better and lower the price of games or make it a sub service if they want to turn things around

If Sony and MS launch next gen with an optional streaming service at least as good as Stadia with better games then what's the point of Stadia?

Google would have been better off releasing a traditional console and then adding a streaming service to that in a few years time
 

MazeHaze

Member
Nov 1, 2017
8,576
Lmao i still cant believe theyre targeting people who cant afford/refuse to spend $200 on a console, but have no problem paying $60 for Shafow of the Tomb Raider and $100 a month for a fast internet connection. This shit is so funny.
 

JLP101

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,742
How much money is google willing to burn through before this turns a profit? My guess is 5 years. The real test for stadia will be after the new consoles launch, then we will see just how big this market truly is.
 

woolyninja

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,028
Lmao i still cant believe theyre targeting people who cant afford/refuse to spend $200 on a console, but have no problem paying $60 for Shafow of the Tomb Raider and $100 a month for a fast internet connection. This shit is so funny.

Right! It makes no sense. It's amazing that nobody on the staff was like "eh, who are we making this service for?"
 

MazeHaze

Member
Nov 1, 2017
8,576
How much money is google willing to burn through before this turns a profit? My guess is 5 years. The real test for stadia will be after the new consoles launch, then we will see just how big this market truly is.
If they can only manage Destiny 2 at 1080p medium, how are you expecting multiplat next gen titles to fare on the service? Do you expect them to completely upgrade all of their gpu's/servers a year after launch? I really doubt it, this thing can't even compete with an xbox one X.
 

Ada

Member
Nov 28, 2017
3,731
Expect a Stadia ad on every gaming video on YT if that kotaku tweet is to believed.
 

Akronis

Prophet of Regret - Lizard Daddy
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,450
If they can only manage Destiny 2 at 1080p medium, how are you expecting multiplat next gen titles to fare on the service? Do you expect them to completely upgrade all of their gpu's/servers a year after launch? I really doubt it, this thing can't even compete with an xbox one X.

I still don't understand how this happened
 

MazeHaze

Member
Nov 1, 2017
8,576
I still don't understand how this happened
It's either a latency thing, rendering at high frame rate to reduce lag, or theyre running multiple instances of games on each machine. Either way they severely underestimated how much the gaming audience pays attention to performance and resolution and thought they could get away with calling the shit 4k60
 

Axe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,750
United Kingdom
I had a feeling it wasn't going to be too well received (once a company starts making crazy tech claims you know they're on to a huge dud), but I wasn't expecting the reviews to be so brutal. Wow.

They should have spent their time establishing studios, putting out games, and making a name for themselves before jumping in the deep end with this. Ya know, like every other successful platform. I don't think altering their pricing structure will be enough to salvage this.
 

Anomander

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,469
Imagine paying the subscription premium only to find out you're getting a 1440p/30fps feed instead of "4K".
 

JLP101

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,742
Really it's baffling. They spent so much time touting the power of their server clusters, showing demos of effects that weren't possible on current gen... Just... what happened?

Marketing bullshit, that's what happened. If you say something long enough you start to believe it. Google is not the first company to make false promises about video games and they won't be the last.
 

unfashionable

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,072


It was always asinine to charge full price for streaming a game, especially now after XCloud/GP announcement.


hah was wondering how we'd know if the thing actually flopped and thats pretty much proof. Amazingly poor launch phil harrison had to know this would flop at launch

Most likely scenario now is a launch 2.0 with subscription like game pass (but with a lot of indie games filling out the roster) with the combo of the Free version stadia base (and you can use your own controllers), and youtube promotion/features. $0 cost of entry means at that point a lot of people would at least try it.
 

Deleted member 1003

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,638
This changes things... For me at least. 60fps RDR2 is something, even with a blurrier image.

But why is this happening?? What a major f up by Google if Chromecast is somehow capping the performance so the launch gets butchered by negativity for the wrong reason.
Watch DF video about input latency oh RDR2 on PC, 60 fps doesn't matter much. RDR2 is not a twitchy game and never will be.
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,201
PIT
hah was wondering how we'd know if the thing actually flopped and thats pretty much proof. Amazingly poor launch phil harrison had to know this would flop at launch

Most likely scenario now is a launch 2.0 with subscription like game pass (but with a lot of indie games filling out the roster) with the combo of the Free version stadia base (and you can use your own controllers), and youtube promotion/features. $0 cost of entry means at that point a lot of people would at least try it.

That's what I've been saying they need to do.
 

Mantrox

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,907
I was kind of looking forward to trying it down the road, but I wasn't expecting a launch this bad.

Their project abandonment record is certainly not helping in the coverage. The value that the cloud was supposed to bring, on top of the streaming solution, just seems like unimportant fluff when not even the core features are working great.
 

panda-zebra

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,736
How much money is google willing to burn through before this turns a profit? My guess is 5 years. The real test for stadia will be after the new consoles launch, then we will see just how big this market truly is.
They're actively hoovering up some of the best talent in the industry, they're not going away soon.

They believe there's a massive untapped potential market out there for "proper" games without the need for dedicated hardware. Personally I think that's Yusuf Mehdi-like thinking (his "over 1 billion units" nonsense).

They've got a lot of work to do on almost every level, every facet of their business (not least of which is pricing/subscription model), if they're going to come anywhere close to achieving what they think is possible.
 

ken_matthews

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
838
Really it's baffling. They spent so much time touting the power of their server clusters, showing demos of effects that weren't possible on current gen... Just... what happened?

Because people aren't actually reading the reviews.

From Arstechnica:
When running on a wired Ethernet connection, Stadia just about performed as advertised. That means smooth frame rates that generally held at 60fps and controls that felt largely indistinguishable from those on local hardware (even with the Stadia controller connected directly to the router via Wi-Fi). While there was likely some additional input lag over local play, in Ethernet tests it wasn't enough to be noticeable to the naked eye, even for twitchy shooters and fighting games. Playing with friends online was similarly smooth, with no significant lag over a wired connection (though we weren't able to test out online voice communications during the pre-release review period).

The stability of wired Stadia play was in stark contrast to the Wi-Fi Stadia experience, which was inconsistent to the point of aggravation. This became apparent in our very first tests, playing Mortal Kombat 11 on a Chromecast Ultra stationed on a TV one floor above the router.

The first few single-player matches played beautifully, with crisp, smooth graphics and controls that made quick special moves easy to pull off. Then the Chromecast suddenly warned me that my connection had become "unreliable" and that "gameplay may stop" if it didn't improve. The sudden message was all the more vexing because I was alone in the house, with no other devices actively running on the network.

At that point, I faced a noticeable drop in resolution and frequent frame-rate stutters that made the game nearly unplayable. As promised, gameplay was forced to stop a couple of times as Stadia kicked me back to the main menu (while I was able to reconnect relatively quickly and without losing my spot in the game, but it was still a major annoyance).

I am going to keep pointing this out. It seems like most of the issues are from playing via a wireless connection through the Chromecast, but nobody wants to talk about the rather good wired/wireless experience through the browser (image quality issues aside). Instead everybody just wants to proclaim Stadia as an immediate failure. This thread is making me lose hope in humanity.
 

Pokemaniac

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,944
There's literally nothing weird, this was exactly what was expected by everyone who works in cloud or who has a solid understanding.
That comment was specifically about the games running at bizarrely low settings considering the advertised specs. I know there are mechanisms by which performance can degrade in services like this, but it's not clear to me how it would be obvious they would become a significant factor.
 

unfashionable

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,072
They're actively hoovering up some of the best talent in the industry, they're not going away soon.

They believe there's a massive untapped potential market out there for "proper" games without the need for dedicated hardware. Personally I think that's Yusuf Mehdi-like thinking (his "over 1 billion units" nonsense).

They've got a lot of work to do on almost every level, every facet of their business (not least of which is pricing/subscription model), if they're going to come anywhere close to achieving what they think is possible.

I'd say Microsoft have been doing that buying up all these great game studios. Most recently, Obisidian was a great buy -a high quality studio just as they launched a hit

Have to wonder how many of these buys were about denying Google the opportunity as much as wanting more Game Pass content
 

Plinkerton

Member
Nov 4, 2017
6,058
The 'visionary' exec who believes in the blue sea market of millions and millions of people who want to play games, but can't afford a console or are otherwise terrified of local hardware.

Yep, a market like that does not exist.

I've thought about this as well; is there really an untapped market of millions who are just waiting for the right product/service before jumping into gaming?

Like Nintendo and Apple proved a decade ago that there's audience there if you want to "blue sky" video games, but you have to make the games themselves for that audience (i.e. Wii Sports) rather than try to feed them traditionally hardcore games in a new way. What Google seem to be banking on is that there's an untapped market who are just clamouring to play Final Fantasy XV but haven't found the right platform yet. Does that audience actually exist?

And even if it does, that blue sky audience will be extremely fickle (see Wii software sales outside of like 5 games) and there's no guarantee they'll keep their subscription beyond a few months.
 

AtomicShroom

Tools & Automation
Verified
Oct 28, 2017
3,075
Because people aren't actually reading the reviews.

From Arstechnica:


I am going to keep pointing this out. It seems like most of the issues are from playing via a wireless connection through the Chromecast, but nobody wants to talk about the rather good wired/wireless experience through the browser (image quality issues aside). Instead everybody just wants to proclaim Stadia as an immediate failure. This thread is making me lose hope in humanity.

Maybe you missed the point. The point is that none of the games on Stadia have graphic settings/resolutions that exceed Xbox One X and are rendering at 1080p instead of 4K, despite Google claiming super-powerful clusters with 10.7 teraflops of power. None of the games on display show that this kind of power is actually available to developers. The reviews you provided do not contradict those facts.
 

Plinkerton

Member
Nov 4, 2017
6,058
I am going to keep pointing this out. It seems like most of the issues are from playing via a wireless connection through the Chromecast, but nobody wants to talk about the rather good wired/wireless experience through the browser (image quality issues aside). Instead everybody just wants to proclaim Stadia as an immediate failure. This thread is making me lose hope in humanity.

I guess the point is that Google have pushed this whole thing as "play anywhere on any device" so is it wrong for people to expect a similar experience across devices? It's absolutely valid that reviewers should focus on real world test cases, like playing on a TV with a wireless connection, rather than the specific perfect scenarios that Google want you to play at.
 

Onikage

Member
Feb 21, 2018
414
Stadia would be interesting to run impossible MMOs, like Star Citizen. They need something like this to be attactive.
Apex and Fortnite would help them a lot too.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,003
RDR2 runs 60fps on Stadia. If you watch the new GameXplain footage from today and Kotakus footage from yesterday there's a good 20 minutes worth of gameplay in both.

I'm sure a setting or toggle would explain DF's 30 FPS findings from their review in progress.
Okay that looked gorgeous. Wow. But I'll hold my hype in check until I see how things run up here on the polar circle.
 

digitalrelic

Weight Loss Champion 2018: Biggest Change
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,124
Stadia would be interesting to run impossible MMOs, like Star Citizen. They need something like this to be attactive.
Apex and Fortnite would help them a lot too.
Stadia can't even run games like Destiny 2 or RDR 2 at as high of settings as an Xbox One X. What makes you think it could handle Star Citizen?

And twitchy, online shooters would be a horrible match for Stadia in its current state.

This product is fucked.
 

Beastie91

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 29, 2017
742
Bay Area CA
Honestly im not interested in Stadia but if I can get a Chromecast ultra for 10$ thats worth it alone better than payin like 50$ for one
 

ken_matthews

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
838
Maybe you missed the point. The point is that none of the games on Stadia have graphic settings/resolutions that exceed Xbox One X and are rendering at 1080p instead of 4K, despite Google claiming super-powerful clusters with 10.7 teraflops of power. None of the games on display show that this kind of power is actually available to developers. The reviews you provided do not contradict those facts.

I agree with you there. And that is the main reason why I am not interested in it at the moment. But that is an entirely different criticism, that I agree is valid, but for the most part, that is not the conversation that is happening here or in many of the reviews. Everybody here is just talking about how they failed to deliver a playable streaming service, when it actually seems like the opposite is true. It just doesn't work well wirelessly through a Chromecast right now.
 

Onikage

Member
Feb 21, 2018
414
Stadia can't even run games like Destiny 2 or RDR 2 at as high of settings as an Xbox One X. What makes you think it could handle Star Citizen?

And twitchy, online shooters would be a horrible match for Stadia in its current state.

This product is fucked.

Yea, I am shocked that right now they can't run those games as they should. I don't know why.

But there are a LOT of "Twitch Players" that don't have money to buy a good computer but would love to play those popular games games for 9 bucks.
It would be stadia's best market. Not us from resetera.
 

SeeingeyeDug

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,004
I'm not sure what gamers would want to change their online ecosystem for this. This is like the struggles Epic games is having breaking people out of Steam ecosystem. What PS4, Xbox, or Steam gamer is going to want to jump ship? What is the crossplay future of this platform? When next gen comes out and upgrades the graphics and performance of our old library (which I predict from at least Xbox), how will they compete?
 

ken_matthews

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
838
I guess the point is that Google have pushed this whole thing as "play anywhere on any device" so is it wrong for people to expect a similar experience across devices? It's absolutely valid that reviewers should focus on real world test cases, like playing on a TV with a wireless connection, rather than the specific perfect scenarios that Google want you to play at.

Yeah, that seems fair. But this thread (and the various others) reads like everybody wants this thing to fail for whatever reason, so most people are ignoring the fact that most of it actually works rather well, and instead are latching on to the one part of it that under preforms.

I honestly don't like the idea of a subscription gaming service due to the fact that you will never own anything (which is also why I've ditched my Adobe and Autodesk subscriptions), and the only way I would buy into it is if it could provide a better than high end PC experience (i.e. always max settings, 4k @ 60fps). That doesn't seem to be the case. I don't care about mobile gaming and I already got a really high-end PC, but that just means that Stadia is not for me. That doesn't mean I have to construe the poor Chromecast performance as a total Stadia failure. So why can't people actually acknowledge that it mostly works really well, while also acknowledging the Chromecast issues?
 
Last edited:

TAoVG

Verified
Oct 27, 2017
95
USA
Yeah, that seems fair. But this thread (and the various others) reads like everybody wants this thing to fail for whatever reason, so most people are ignoring the fact that most of it actually works rather well, and instead are latching on to the one part of it that under preforms.

I honestly don't like the idea of a subscription gaming service due to the fact that you will never own anything (which is also why I've ditched my Adobe and Autodesk subscriptions), and the only way I would buy into it is if it could provide a better than high end PC experience (i.e. always max settings, 4k @ 60fps). That doesn't seem to be the case. I don't care about mobile gaming and I already got a really high-end PC, but that just means that Stadia is not for me. That doesn't mean I have to construe the poor Chromecast performance as a total Stadia failure. So why can't people actually acknowledge that it mostly works really well, while also acknowledging the Chromecast issues?

It works mostly well, for an indeterminate amount of time and location.

The real problem is that they WAY over promised at GDC. They could have avoided so much of this if they had changed a bit of the market focus, game types, and set proper expectations. Instead, they discussed future state things like 8K, less than zero latency, better than local console, etc.

One thing to note is that they HAD to launch this year. With new consoles coming out, in addition to 22+ other cloud gaming/streaming services in market, in 2020, this was their window. They will have to take lessons learned and make sure that, one year from now, it can stand up to the onslaught of new consoles because that is what they will be compared to by the general public.
 

Mantorok

Member
Mar 8, 2018
1,494
Just catching up here but let me get this right, is it that the one thing that separates them from their competitors, their USP, doesn't work well?
 

Violet

Alt account
Banned
Feb 7, 2019
3,263
dc
One thing to note is that they HAD to launch this year. With new consoles coming out, in addition to 22+ other cloud gaming/streaming services in market, in 2020, this was their window. They will have to take lessons learned and make sure that, one year from now, it can stand up to the onslaught of new consoles because that is what they will be compared to by the general public.

This is really the thing. It's CLEARLY not ready but they had to be first to market, and they probably blew their shot.