Streaming will become the most economical way to play the latest games (and succeed because of it)

[Deleted member 2172]

and you think you are going to be paying less for games? You still have to buy the games or jump on to one of their subscription services.

Click to shrink...

But you don't need to drop $400 or $500 on the next gen console. Assuming the gen was to last 8 years, thats still $50/$62 a year saved. You may not be paying less for games but you are certainly paying less to be able to play them and thats a big factor.

Subscription creep will be more expensive.

Click to shrink...

Except 1080p/60 is subscription free. And literally more than enough for a lot of people who have not adopted 4k.

And let's not forget longevity. You're at Google's whim when you play via Stadia. Once their servers go down, your license is worthless.

Click to shrink...

This is the real potential issue with Stadia. If its anything less than a success you know Google will bury it.

Stadia is cheaper than a PS4 for about two years assuming you were paying for internet that can handle it anyway. You would need to be reeeeeally casual to make it cost effective, to the point of going months without playing games and cancelling your subscription

Click to shrink...

Wtf is this post lmao. Do you not pay for internet when you own a PS4? Stadia is cheaper than a PS4, full stop. $0 on a box to play the games, which are the same price and 1080p/60 is free.

I will probably never use Stadia as I will stick with console gaming but holy fuck the efforts people go to convince themselves that Stadia is not cost-effective is unbelievable.

 

[Sampson]

How is that the math, a console generation isn't 3 years.

You just randomly picked 3 for whatever reason. PS4 will be 7 years old by the time PS5 comes out.

Click to shrink...

I'm assuming Stadia back end will be upgraded every 3 years.

As others have pointed out, you're also ignoring the cost of an online sub. That tilts it even more.

 

[Iztok]

I'm assuming Stadia back end will be upgraded every 3 years.

As others have pointed out, you're also ignoring the cost of an online sub. That tilts it even more.

Click to shrink...

That doesn't make it cheaper.

And the online sub isn't a requirement, accentuated by the fact most PS4 owners don't have one.

It's pretty clear that the cheapest, no frills option will remain physical, and by quite a margin.
Not sure how you can continue to argue against that.

 

[King of Custard]

I don't understand how this is different to digital?

Unless you somehow have a enough space for all your games on your hard drives then you're always relying on the license to be able to download it.

 

[Sampson]

That doesn't make it cheaper.

And the online sub isn't a requirement, accentuated by the fact most PS4 owners don't have one.

It's pretty clear that the cheapest, no frills option will remain physical, and by quite a margin.
Not sure how you can continue to argue against that.

Click to shrink...

Uh..?

The cheapest option is Stadia free tier

 

[Death Penalty]

But you don't need to drop $400 or $500 on the next gen console. Assuming the gen was to last 8 years, thats still $50/$62 a year saved. You may not be paying less for games but you are certainly paying less to be able to play them and thats a big factor.

Except 1080p/60 is subscription free. And literally more than enough for a lot of people who have not adopted 4k.

This is the real potential issue with Stadia. If its anything less than a success you know Google will bury it.

Wtf is this post lmao. Do you not pay for internet when you own a PS4? Stadia is cheaper than a PS4, full stop. $0 on a box to play the games, which are the same price and 1080p/60 is free.

I will probably never use Stadia as I will stick with console gaming but holy fuck the efforts people go to convince themselves that Stadia is not cost-effective is unbelievable.

Click to shrink...

If you're not interested in 4K, a used PS4 and physical games both used and new with a resale option will quickly outdo Stadia.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

PS Plus isn't a requirement to play games on PS4. I thinkonly like 1/3 of PS4 owners have Plus?

Sure, once you start piling up added features cost comparisons start to differ at certain levels, but if we're just talking CHEAPEST option to play?

No, still physical console over streaming.

Click to shrink...

You also don't need 4K to play. PS Plus is more restrictive than Stadia Pro because not having Plus is taking important features away from your games, while Stadia Free only limits video resolution. Your post specifically said "average console gamer" which means you need to include Plus, because about half of all PS4 owners have Plus (not all of the 90 million sold PS4s are in use due to Pro upgrades and hardware faults/breakage).

The best selling games every year either require Plus to play (Call of Duty) or require Plus for a very important part of the game (sports games).

 

[Sampson]

If you're not interested in 4K, a used PS4 and physical games both used and new with a resale option will quickly outdo Stadia.

Click to shrink...

Stadia free tier.

The debate is a $400 PS5 vs a Stadia Pro sub

 

[Iztok]

Uh..?

The cheapest option is Stadia free tier

Click to shrink...

... which is what I conceded to earlier in a reply to you.

You're not arguing in good faith, I'm not really interested in what you have to say anymore.

 

[Taker34]

Uh..?

The cheapest option is Stadia free tier

Click to shrink...

And you still may need to pay more for proper internet speed/caps and the Stadia games will probably be much more expensive than used physical or even current digital prices.

 

[Sampson]

... which is what I conceded to earlier in a reply to you.

You're not arguing in good faith, I'm not really interested in what you have to say anymore.

Click to shrink...

Go back and re-read your posts.

You said physical would remain the cheapest and by a large margin. That's obviously not true.

I'm also not interested in what you have to say if you're just going to post things you know are false.

 

[Sampson]

And you still may need to pay more for proper internet speed/caps and the Stadia games will probably be much more expensive than used physical or even current digital prices.

Click to shrink...

You have no evidence to suggest that Stadia games will be much more expensive.

Indeed, its largely irrelevant. The business model is changing. The biggest game in the world, Fortnite, is free.

 

[Death Penalty]

Stadia free tier.

The debate is a $400 PS5 vs a Stadia Pro sub

Click to shrink...

No, it'll outdo free tier as well. You only need to make $100 dollars on physical game sales to pay for your PS4, an option not available with Stadia. This isn't just feasible, but likely over a console lifetime. Alternatively you could just eat that cost and enjoy the numerous things a PS4 enjoys that Stadia won't, but that's another topic. I'm sticking to frugality.

Add 4K and Stadia's subscription cost in and it gets even easier for a home console to come out cheaper, for sure.

 

[Keldroc]

You have no evidence to suggest that Stadia games will be much more expensive.

Indeed, its largely irrelevant. The business model is changing. The biggest game in the world, Fortnite, is free.

Click to shrink...

It's pretty obvious that Assassin's Creed Whatever The Next Title Is on Stadia is going to cost $60 at launch, same as buying it on any other platform. Except with Stadia you get nothing user-side for that money and your purchase becomes worthless whenever Google decides to shut Stadia down.

 

[Taker34]

You have no evidence to suggest that Stadia games will be much more expensive.

Indeed, its largely irrelevant. The business model is changing. The biggest game in the world, Fortnite, is free.

Click to shrink...

I have no reason to believe games will be cheaper than current digital prices. If Stadia launches I'll be surprised to see AC Odyssey for 40 bucks or less. We can make educated guesses based on all other digital marketplaces.

 

[HavakPkmn]

The OP is correct.

However, as someone who agrees, I think the actual point where this becomes the mainstream way to play games is longer off than most analysts are predicting. I'm thinking a 50/50 split between people who buy games physically/digitally for a specific platform and those who stream them is still 10~ years away.

I agree with companies testing the waters and beginning to implement it already though. In a few years time it will be a lot more ironed out.

 

[Sampson]

It's pretty obvious that Assassin's Creed Whatever The Next Title Is on Stadia is going to cost $60 at launch, same as buying it on any other platform. Except with Stadia you get nothing user-side for that money and your purchase becomes worthless whenever Google decides to shut Stadia down.

Click to shrink...

Same price, not more expensive.

 

[kiguel182]

According to your math it's cheaper but not by much. A 600 console would last those 5 years and a bit more. Altought those also have a sub associated so if you are playing multiplayer games it's more expensive.

I don't understand talking about "you need to pay for internet". I mean, I pay for the same internet I would if I used Stadia.

 

[Droyd]

Lmao you are so wrong the fact is not everyone wants a million subscriptions also some areas have frequent internet drops we will see tho

Click to shrink...

Terrible first post... what does multiple subscriptions have to do with Stadia? How is this a counter argument?

OP also explained that plenty in the US and other parts of the world have unlimited internet.

 

[gofreak]

David Loeb's group did an analysis of this as part of his pitch to split up Sony - in their conclusion, what savings there might be, they're nowhere near the disruptive difference we saw when streaming arrived in other media.

I think whether and to what degree it is cheaper probably depends a lot on consumption patterns. Looking at buyer behavior on PS4, over a 5 year cycle, hardware is by far not the dominant contributor to a user's investment. 5-year users spend far more on software as hardware (4x the launch cost of a PS4). In that light, would this kind of user shirk at the cost of hardware especially given the advantages of it compared to a streaming, let alone the free Stadia tier and its extra limitations? I'm not sure.

On the other hand if you're the type of user more interested in only f2p, and the limitations of streaming or its free tier don't make it a false economy for you, then perhaps hardware starts to look burdensome by comparison. But - will f2p games be playable without subscription on Stadia? Doesn't look like it. So the comparison then would depend on how much you play and how consistently you would want or need to remain subscribed to a premium sub.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

What about the cost of the games?

Also, the OP's analysis doubly fails because 99.9999% of real life consumers don't sit down and work out the 5 and 10 yr cost of a product/service when deciding to buy in. Mid-gen refreshes are also optional.

Also, you're assuming Google Stadia will last 10yrs. I'm not even convinced Google will stick around for the first 5yrs.

 

[Sampson]

I have no reason to believe games will be cheaper than current digital prices. If Stadia launches I'll be surprised to see AC Odyssey for 40 bucks or less. We can make educated guesses based on all other digital marketplaces.

Click to shrink...

Ok but you said much more expensive. That's not true.

Physical games can be cheaper than digital, but that's not always true and even when it is, people prefer digital for all sorts of reasons.

If you do an apples to apples comparison, Stadia games will probably cost the same as any other digital game.

 

[Kyougar]

Don't believe that 1080p will remain free of charge

Who will pay the server costs for continued gaming? getting 30% out of the 60 initial bucks will be Okay for google when the game releases. But what happens after 2 months, 1 year, 5 years? When the customer still plays the game he bought 5 years ago? (as the OP claims his Argument from a casual players point)
There are several games that can be played for a very long time. Who will pay for it? The new games people are buying? Will this be a pyramid scheme until it implodes because people don't buy many new games and play their old games for a long time?

 

[Arkaign]

Fragmentation will destroy this as a 'good' scenario.

Think it's bad having to choose between 4 major platforms? (PC, PS, XB, Ninty)

Take a look at video streaming. Once upon a time you had a cable subscription and a VCR. Then the VCR turned into a DVR. But basically you had local, plus add in whatever package you wanted for either basic stuff or some premium channels.

Then Netflix came about. Mass amounts of stuff, cheap sub. And because video streaming can buffer and doesn't depend on latency, it was golden.

But now fragmentation has struck HARD. Want to keep up with all the hot shows? There's great stuff on :

Netflix
Amazon Prime
CBS (!! Lol)
Hulu
HBO Go
And now Disney is effing things up further with all things marvel, Pixar, star wars, etc, with exclusives out the butt
And Apple is starting a major exclusive service

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Stadia won't keep up very long with the industry. You want EA games? Origin streaming service. Activision games? Their streaming service. Ubisoft games? Their streaming service. Nintendo games? Lol, probably not offered at all. And on, and on, and on.

Also, I work in the enterprise network industry. 5G is the biggest scam to come down the pipe in memory. The frequencies freed up for it are garbage for distance and stability, meaning you have to have a crapton of base stations WIRED, like dozens per city block, to not have a shit experience. And the cell companies will drastically oversell the bandwidth by density, because they're capitalists, and Ajit Pai and the FCC, as well as our corporatist government are fully bought and paid for by the most powerful corporations already. Caps, spotty coverage, massive fluctuations in latency and bandwidth, and shocking performance penalties when it's raining, or someone drives a panel truck past your house, these things will be commonplace. I've also seen several of the maps for NOC to node matrices in a couple of metropolitan areas, and they're already cutting way back on optimal wired nodes, choosing instead the easy route of using mostly 5G repeating stations to blanket areas, which has severe negatives with latency.

Ironically, having the phone zombie horde move to New iPhone and Android models for 5G may free up the LTE frequencies a good bit lol.

Game streaming is going to take a while to get correct. It will start out an interesting niche that only works in ideal conditions, and offers an okay selection, then it will turn to garbage as the distribution model fragments to hell, then eventually down the line consolidation will improve things somewhat. As some major actor in the video streaming wars will figure out, probably Disney or Apple, once they buy up enough of the market, fragmentation will finally dissipate, but be replaced by monopolistic tendencies.

 

[Sampson]

David Loeb's group did an analysis of this as part of his pitch to split up Sony - in their conclusion, what savings there might be, they're nowhere near the disruptive difference we saw when streaming arrived in other media.

I think whether and to what degree it is cheaper probably depends a lot on consumption patterns. Looking at buyer behavior on PS4, over a 5 year cycle, hardware is by far not the dominant contributor to a user's investment. 5-year users spend far more on software as hardware (4x the launch cost of a PS4). In that light, would this kind of user shirk at the cost of hardware especially given the advantages of it compared to a streaming, let alone the free Stadia tier and its extra limitations? I'm not sure.

On the other hand if you're the type of user more interested in only f2p, and the limitations of streaming don't make it a false economy for you, then perhaps hardware starts to look burdensome by comparison.

Click to shrink...

Loeb is wrong. I did a write up in that topic. But you can make the point in one sentence. If hardware costs aren't a burden, why do so few gamers own more than one console at a time?

Hardware buy in is a huge barrier, which is why most gamers only buy one system and wait until year 2+ of the generation to make the leap.

 

[Death Penalty]

Ok but you said much more expensive. That's not true.

Physical games can be cheaper than digital, but that's not always true and even when it is, people prefer digital for all sorts of reasons.

If you do an apples to apples comparison, Stadia games will probably cost the same as any other digital game.

Click to shrink...

But we're talking about cheapest option, right? If we include other factors, Stadia has even more going against it. Physical is and will always be the most frugal path.

 

[Sampson]

But we're talking about cheapest option, right? If we include other factors, Stadia has even more going against it. Physical is and will always be the most frugal path.

Click to shrink...

No that's not true. Digital F2P like Fortnite and DotA.

 

[Bishop89]

The biggest franchises are multiplayer focused (Fortnite, Cod, fifa etc). I think you underestimate how important latency/performance is in those games.

The most casual of my circle certainly take measures to ensure they get the best possible experience.

Pricing isnt that much of a factor

 

[gofreak]

Loeb is wrong. I did a write up in that topic. But you can make the point in one sentence. If hardware costs aren't a burden, why do so few gamers own more than one console at a time?

Click to shrink...

Because they're satisfied?

 

[Sampson]

Because they're satisfied?

Click to shrink...

Yeah they're so satisfied. That's why they make endless fanboy posts about why the other console and it's exclusives are shit.

 

[greenbird]

Loeb is wrong. I did a write up in that topic. But you can make the point in one sentence. If hardware costs aren't a burden, why do so few gamers own more than one console at a time?

Hardware buy in is a huge barrier, which is why most gamers only buy one system and wait until year 2+ of the generation to make the leap.

Click to shrink...

Because you get the most value going from 0->1 systems, as it grants you access to actually play stuff. Going from 1->2 or more, you start to get into other issues of cost vs available playtime. The value proposition for each extra console is worse for most people compared to that initial purchase.

 

[Death Penalty]

No that's not true. Digital F2P like Fortnite and DotA.

Click to shrink...

Are we cherry picking entire libraries down to free-to-play games to make this argument now? Come on now.

 

[Deleted member 426]

Cheapest option from least to most expensive

Console with predominantly physical purchases
Google Stadia Basic
Console with predominantly digital purchases
Google Stadia Pro

The above assumes you're not paying for something like PS Plus. If you are then arguably that'd make Google Stadia basic the cheapest option, but that depends on a lot of variables including, as DP said, how much you can get back from selling used physical games, which can really add up.

 

[plié]

Not necessarily streaming, but services like gamepass.

I haven't bought a single game in almost 2 years. And it's pretty awesome.

But yes, I'm definitely jumping on the streaming bandwagon as soon as its even 70% foolproof. We have great and cheap internet here in the nordic region of Europe.

 

[Deleted member 2172]

If you're not interested in 4K, a used PS4 and physical games both used and new with a resale option will quickly outdo Stadia.

Click to shrink...

Quickly you say? I don't think so. Your only argument is resale. What if you don't want to resale your games? Nevermind the fact we are literally at the tail end of this gen where the PS4 is going to soon become obsolete as we transition. And why are we brushing aside the fact that Stadia will achieve 1080p/60 when the OG PS4 is commonly stuck at 1080p/30. There is value right there.

Is your next argument to wait for a used PS5? You'll be able to play these next gen games on Stadia day 1 for no more than $60, anywhere you want.

 

[Dan8589]

Unlimited internet means nothing with the insane bandwidth that gets used by 4k game streaming. ISPS won't be happy and will start to limit people.

 

[Arkaign]

I think people will also get hooked on variable refresh ultra-low-latency gaming and beyond 60fps fluidity in Gen9. Both PS5 and Scarlett should be fully capable of unlocked framerate options when connected to the generations of TVs that will be sold over the next few years. Once you experience it, it's nearly impossible to go back. When connected via HDMI 1.4 or 2.0, it will revert to the usual locked 30 or 60, but do expect unlocked framerate to be a thing for 9th gen. Microsoft poked their head in the door with X and Freesync support, but that was merely the tip of the iceberg.

Streaming 60fps even across the house on my 10Gbe network is steaming hot garbage compared to local Gysnc.

 

[Taker34]

Ok but you said much more expensive. That's not true.

Physical games can be cheaper than digital, but that's not always true and even when it is, people prefer digital for all sorts of reasons.

If you do an apples to apples comparison, Stadia games will probably cost the same as any other digital game.

Click to shrink...

I mean how do you think Google wants to finance the servers and whole infrastructure? If they don't get money out of you with a free sub then you'll pay for it one way or another. It's unsustainable in my opinion. Aside from that I can currently get pretty much all AAA releases for 40€ after a week physical and most in the 15-30€ within a few months. To me that is a huge difference after a few games... and again I doubt Google will even be able to match digital prices in consoles or steam due to their infrastructure which has to be supported and can't be cheap to maintain.

 

[Sampson]

Are we cherry picking entire libraries down to free-to-play games to make this argument now? Come on now.

Click to shrink...

You wanted the most frugal option. The most frugal option is digital free to play.

While there may only be a few dozen of them on consoles, they're utterly massive in popularity and they get 1000X more playtime then most $60 paid games. So I'm not picking some small niche.

 

[gofreak]

Yeah they're so satisfied. That's why they make endless fanboy posts about why the other console and it's exclusives are shit.

Click to shrink...

That's tribal psychology, getting to the heart of aspects of human psychology around status and heirarchy, rather than whether one console is really meeting their needs. Even people who 'own everything' make these associations.

The barrier to one console is not that high for many, it seems. But of course a second or a third starts to look wasteful to 'most'.

There's an upfront barrier to hardware, and the psychological friction associated as the single most expensive purchase involved in all this - no doubt, I'm not arguing that. But in a total cost of ownership analysis, and looking at details disclosed on software spend per console user, hardware isn't really the dominant factor. For a user engaged in premium content - and it seems most console players today are - Stadia is not dramatically upturning the lifetime cost equation over a cycle of 5+ years.

 

[Arkaign]

The biggest franchises are multiplayer focused (Fortnite, Cod, fifa etc). I think you underestimate how important latency/performance is in those games.

The most casual of my circle certainly take measures to ensure they get the best possible experience.

Pricing isnt that much of a factor

Click to shrink...

Yep. And it'll be meme-worthy how much roadkill Streaming players will suffer in online MP gaming. They'll be hopelessly compromised vs the competition.

 

[Serious Sam]

Ahhh, monthly fees and requirement to have the top of the line fiber connections. Young people with no stable income or regular place to live will eat this service up. /s

 

[Radeo]

I mean even without talking about data caps, internet speeds are still not up to par for a lot of places.

If we're just talking stadia, I believe they don't have crossplay planned for now either? Who the hell is going to migrate when none of their friends are there?

Digital game prices generally don't go as low as physical games either, and there's always the risk of stuff getting delisted

And you've still got the input delay, that's going to kill a lot of games

Nice try Google employee!

 

[Deleted member 426]

You wanted the most frugal option. The most frugal option is digital free to play.

While there may only be a few dozen of them on consoles, they're utterly massive in popularity and they get 1000X more playtime then most $60 paid games. So I'm not picking some small niche.

Click to shrink...

I mean the thread title says 'play the latest games' and whilst some of these F2P are the latest games, I feel like you're swerving what this topic is actually about.

 

[Deleted member 2172]

Nice try Google employee!

Click to shrink...

The post doesn't even read like an ad, y'all are lame af.

 

[Darknight]

To preface this, Stadia and streaming games is not for me. I'm against the digital future too and speak out against digital games over physical games. The same goes for movies too. That said, I do want to raise some observations and points.

1) To all the people complaining about the short comings of latency, ownership, etc., never underestimate the power of convenience. We've seen time and time again that people are willing to give up quality for the sake of convenience. I've argued so many times about what people give up for digital goods, but yet people continue to do so and it continues to grow. The one clear sign is people don't give a shit about quality as their main priority and are easily willing to give up quality for the sake of convenience.

2) People are bad at math and understanding value and deals. If there's one thing about watching people discuss sales, deals and especially the value of GCU vs Amazon Prime is that most people don't grasp long term costs and value. They see the immediate short term and can't calculate the long term. If you've seen my other posts and threads, I'm all about maximizing the deal and I want to bang my head sometimes with how many people have trouble with it. So the lack of up front cost of a console for the instant gratification of just paying for the game can be huge even if the long term costs could favor PC/console systems. Hell, even with physical games being cheaper, people still opt to pay more for the sake of point #1 above too, convenience.

3) People have already proven that they are willing to give up their consumer rights and ownership for digital and convenience. This is just another step in that direction.

4) People lack the concept of the long term ramifications of their short term decisions. We've seen that with how DLC has evolved to season passes, digital copies and so forth. This all has been enabled by all the previous steps and choices that people have already made which is allowing this to happen. This is just another step in the direction that people have already moved things towards by their choices.

5) I don't think Stadia itself will end up being successful, but the concept in itself could most certainly be in the long term. I don't consider it a dead on arrival concept, but something that will evolve and gradually evolve. It's not a guarantee that it will either but it's something that really does have a reasonable chance of being in the future in the long term even if it's not Google that is the one that is leading the way.

6) To people say why do you care if streaming exists, it won't affect your choice in gaming and that is not true at all. People say this about digital games not affecting physical because physical exists, but that has always been a false claim. The impact is there. How things are distributed have changed and you can see a shift in how that has changed over time. Digital most certainly affects physical in a negative way and it's continuing to impact it over time. There's only a finite number of people who are the consumers for games, and unless that grows considerably to accommodate the new method of distribution, then it most certainly takes away from the existing one. With a smaller audience for a particular method, that changes how things are distributed. Just because a form of distribution still exist does not mean it hasn't been impacted by alternate forms of distribution. Saying otherwise is completely wrong and you haven't been paying attention to how things have changed.

These are some random observations from this thread and other threads about the topic. I would love to see streaming not take off. I also see the hurdles it has to overcome. However, I also see that there is a credible chance of succeeding and how it will impact the market if it does. This is not a dead on arrival concept and to write it off as such because of some of the factors I address above is misguided.

 

[Noisepurge]

let me know when Last of Us 2 is available on Stadia. Until then it's all about the games. Price of the box is really not a big issue. It's still about the same "400-600$" for consoles that ought to last you for 5 years or so.

 

[Sampson]

I mean how do you think Google wants to finance the servers and whole infrastructure? If they don't get money out of you with a free sub then you'll pay for it one way or another. It's unsustainable in my opinion. Aside from that I can currently get pretty much all AAA releases for 40€ after a week physical and most in the 15-30€ within a few months. To me that is a huge difference after a few games... and again I doubt Google will even be able to match digital prices in consoles or steam due to their infrastructure which has to be supported and can't be cheap to maintain.

Click to shrink...

How do you think other similar digital marketplaces run like iTunes or Vudu? People buy a digital movie, apple and Walmart take a cut, but they only watch it a few times.

Google will take a cut on the initial sale like other digital marketplaces. Most games stopped getting played after a year or two. Google won't have to spin up many instances to run some game they sold 4 years ago. Publishers will sell subscriptions, which Google will also take a cut of, and F2P lootbox revenue which based on current industry trends, will probably be the bulk of Stadia revenue. Epic and Bungie will essientially pay Google to reach their customers.

Tactically, they have probably accepted the fact that Stadia won't make much money, but it's worth investing in to grow Google Cloud.

 

[newline]

Depends where you are I guess. I feel lucky to live in London. We have cheap unlimited 1gbps broadband here with ultra low latency. It's perfect for streaming.

 

[Radeo]

The post doesn't even read like an ad, y'all are lame af.

Click to shrink...

Another nice attempt Google employee!