-
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.
[VG247] Google Stadia is the future of gaming, whether you like it or not
- Thread starter Deleted member 18944
- Start date
This entire "There's no console, No downloads, how convenient" Speil by Google is just a smokescreen so they can take the entire hobby away from gamers and control it to their benefit.
If Stadia became the sole option then say goodbye to user mods, Say goodbye to console modding and homebrew. Say goodbye to things that make gaming one of the greatest hobbies on earth.
But hey at least you won't have to wait for a download :rolleyes:
If Stadia became the sole option then say goodbye to user mods, Say goodbye to console modding and homebrew. Say goodbye to things that make gaming one of the greatest hobbies on earth.
But hey at least you won't have to wait for a download :rolleyes:
Sony and MS make most of their money off the games. The hardware is expensive. Expensive to design and research, expensive to market, expensive to make, expensive to ship and stock, and expensive to buy.
Each generation that streaming improves, with no upfront costs for consumers (built into TVs), the risk for console makers is going to be higher and higher. Eventually, it won't be worth it if they get the streaming good enough and the internet service improves for enough people - which will happen.
So many people will be able to play games without a large upfront cost every couple of years.
For those that do want the best quality, there is PC. Which they don't have to design, market, risk etc.
Around 2035 for the shift towards game streaming services to really start sounds right to me.
Sony might struggle without some good planning now, maybe Xbox too. They might need to go all out with game studios in the years leading up to this.
Nintendo may have to give in eventually too. There's only so many ways to re-arrange a handheld, and mobiles aren't going to stop getting better. Especially if companies get the controllers for phones down right - and battery life improvements.
Then starts the VR craze in like 2050 with local gaming again. Maybe a new steambox.
Each generation that streaming improves, with no upfront costs for consumers (built into TVs), the risk for console makers is going to be higher and higher. Eventually, it won't be worth it if they get the streaming good enough and the internet service improves for enough people - which will happen.
So many people will be able to play games without a large upfront cost every couple of years.
For those that do want the best quality, there is PC. Which they don't have to design, market, risk etc.
Around 2035 for the shift towards game streaming services to really start sounds right to me.
Sony might struggle without some good planning now, maybe Xbox too. They might need to go all out with game studios in the years leading up to this.
Nintendo may have to give in eventually too. There's only so many ways to re-arrange a handheld, and mobiles aren't going to stop getting better. Especially if companies get the controllers for phones down right - and battery life improvements.
Then starts the VR craze in like 2050 with local gaming again. Maybe a new steambox.
Last edited:
Ready Player One is the future of gaming. Nothing else. Until then put me in cryostasis or hibernation!
See yall in 2077 folks.
Quite the opinion piece of Kirk.
See yall in 2077 folks.
Quite the opinion piece of Kirk.
This will always be one of the best and worst examples of false equivalence that exists.
Currently we're looking at the highest point of Netflix and Spotify. More smaller creators and more independent creators are able to make more money off of it, sure. But at the same time the option to buy the features are still there, and it's a spectator driven media. Not only is that not how gaming is, but just like with EVERY other industry under capitalism, the internet, and every other scenario that has ever existed, eventually the platform will change hands and/or be about making money.
We're already seeing this change with Disney and others pulling their toys out of the box so that no one can play with them unless they come to their house instead. We're already seeing it with the competition in movies and tv shows, and we've already seen substantial splintering of audiences in similar regards with cable before (new sub services will just be Cable 3.0) and it will continue to never benefit the consumer, because it's about the businesses funneling as much money as they can into their wallets, not providing the best service.
To use an example, I've been fighting with Disney+ because my gf decided to get the year deal. The interface is crap, it doesn't resume where you play, it will sometimes just start fast forwarding through the video because it lags behind, or it will simply freeze, keep playing audio, and then rewind 30 seconds to attempt to get it back in sync. This is supposed to be Netflix's competition. But they're not actually competing. They're just taking their ips to make you go through their pathway to the content. Much like Stadia sort of attempted here.
If Competition worked how it was supposed to, we'd get multiple businesses trying to provide the best service to their consumers, but instead what we have is people banking on IPs or names to get you to buy into their service with the "promise" of fixing it later. So using Netflix and the like are not good comparisons, and honestly Spotify and internet and Youtube hasn't helped the music industry as much as people try to think.
Between copyright claims, downright theft of albums via youtube lists and such, and other things the music industry isn't "better off" due to Spotify, it's just the only compromise that the world has of now to please both parties. But I'm still reminded of the episode of South Park watching Musicians be sad that pirating their music means they can't afford their third jet. But if we go into "how much money is too much money" we get all the capitalism vs socialism talks and other tangential topics not suited for this side of the forum.
DRM is a separate but related topic as well. Proving that publishers have no desire to give players control and/or ownership over their products, insisting that everyone stay constantly connected and constantly buying. DRM to my knowledge doesn't have a direct comparison in other industries beyond online services like Spotify. So Gaming has already proven more cutthroat about this type of control.
This as well. Interacting with media and simply viewing it are two different things. And as spoken about before, Disney+ and other companies aren't there to provide "better" services, just "different" services using their IPs. The thing is Stadia is directed at an audience that has been (sort of) elitist about graphics and fidelity by the big pubs for years now, so the attempt to try to cater to that audience who is already hyper critical with less is kinda silly.
I have to question who this is even for.
-Collectors want to collect.
-Lower income consumers who can't afford consoles normally live in communities that already have either gouged or limited internet, or will be charged out the ass for data caps.
-People who are on the go or play at work or in commute kind of have the switch and other options like GeForce that have been constantly trying to improve those mobile options.
-The latency and lag will put off graphics connoisseurs and other people who prefer performance, a large chunk of the gaming population.
-There's a pay wall to get in before a separate paywall to get into the game, combined with another virtual wall in the form of a new ecosystem/community to cultivate. Sure you might see short term that people will try to break in to make their mark, but like with Disney+ and Netflix, eventually they'll have to make money, and the prices won't stay that way for long.
I get the concept of streaming because I love my switch, if it worked that way seamlessly from TV to portable device i'd be down with it, but I hate playing MOBILE games on my phone that are designed for phone, let alone hooking up a controller weirdly to my tv and buying into two more devices (chromecast and controller) on top of service fees (internet, data caps, mobile hotspots). I just don't see how this could feasibly be a future that benefits any consumer moreso than the internet providers and publishers that are already scraping you across the coals.
They're going to sell you a future for sure though.
Last edited:
Yeah and there is latency within a local render also. The speed of light is not a barrier to snappy responsive gameplay. The benefits outweigh the downsides like crazy, and it will also change the way games are made and played in exciting ways.
In a year or two, there could be threads on Era which are instantly playable challenges from Sekiro, or URLs to a party invite, or just a richer posting including much more easily shared screens/videos.
Legit though what are you on about?
Writing like this is some massive fantasy battle where we're at risk of every single aspect of gaming will be under Google. Stadia is a new platform, they obviously want people to play on it.
You guys can shit on game streaming all you want, but I find it to be black magic and I can't believe how well it works.
This sums it up for me, the website where journalists openly jump on the hate bandwagon for clicks unless they are paid PR pieces. Not sure why anyone still visits this site.
Correct, Stadia is a service that Google dreamt up to utilize its cloud data centers. Like most modern companies they want people subscribed to services that they render. In this case Google is taking the concept of gaming as a whole from the entire platform level and turning it into a service that they render.
I am saying that this is bad
This is almost certainly what will happen, just as it's happened for film. Streaming will be the mass-market option, and dedicated hardware (and physical media / downloads) for enthusiasts.
Yes? Like pretty much everyone else they want people to play games on their platform and want people to game predominantly on or through that.
Talking about it as some weird consipracy where Google is trying to steal the 'entire hobby away from gamers' is weird.
In a future with fast ultra-low latency broadband everywhere, no data caps, and with a Gamepass-like subscription model? Of course.
User Warned: drive-by posting
ohhhh the paid articles are rolling innnnn
EDIT: first warning we never forget, sorry for the post that brings nothing to the discussion and was drive-by, i really didn't like the tone of the article "we know this and you don't get it" and honestly felt that my inteligence and preferences as a consumer were disrespected.
EDIT: first warning we never forget, sorry for the post that brings nothing to the discussion and was drive-by, i really didn't like the tone of the article "we know this and you don't get it" and honestly felt that my inteligence and preferences as a consumer were disrespected.
Last edited:
Depends on how far in the further you are talking really. Has processors become smaller and internet gets faster there will be a time when you will be able to download data not just stream a video in real-time and play it straight from your tv or holo cube thingy.
It's not a weird conspiracy it's what is happening. Traditionally companies would sell you the platform hardware and you would buy games either on disk or download.
In that scenario, companies own the ecosystem, but you own the specific hardware you purchased and the games you purchased with it. Especially if those games are on a disk.
With Stadia Google owns everything and you own nothing. You think that's not by design? You think that isn't the goal?
Saying the former but meaning the latter considering the benefits would be on comparable streaming services.
OP
OP
Do you have any proof that Kirk was paid to write a PR piece, or are you just assuming that he was paid because you disagree with his opinion?
It's not my future. Whether you like it, or not.
Sorry, but high end gaming will always exist, and that means local hardware. I don't know why that irritates some people so much. They can just go stream and be quiet, shhh.
Sorry, but high end gaming will always exist, and that means local hardware. I don't know why that irritates some people so much. They can just go stream and be quiet, shhh.
In most of the households that were already fine downloading 100GB games, streaming at 35Mb is not a challenge. Data caps are a problem but I just doubt they're going to remain a problem, and fwiw I'm unlimited. The present is already pretty damn good. I played Destiny 2 at my in-laws house on their suburban Comcast 35Mb connection, over wifi and had no problems.
Gamepass subscription will come in many forms. But I still say a system without a la carte day one AAA purchases is not a serious gaming platform. There is no future where $15/mo buys you access to stream every game including brand new ones forever.
Some people don't care about that though, relative to the benefits offered. So unless they're forcibly denying your ability to choose the alternatives it's not stealing "the entire hobby from gamers". Gamers are free to choose to play on Stadia. Acting like you have oversight over the one true virtuous future of gaming and anything else is stealing the hobby away from everyone else is silly.
I think later on it will be easier to do and better, but I don't know why some people are so hell bent on replacing things. The two things can co-exist and likely will do just that. It's better off working with consoles instead of trying to replace and compete against them. That said it isn't going to even be all that viable anytime soon due to latency, coverage, and data caps.
OP
OP
I don't think 10-15 years honestly. I think within this next generation it will be fleshed out. Google, MS, and Sony are already testing and launching these platforms. It's not going to take a decade for them to figure out how to optimize it for the majority of people who use it.
While I agree with people saying that streaming -right now- has a lot of problems, those who claim they will stop buying video games altogether if streaming becomes the standard are absolutely full of shit.
You aren't going to give up your drug of choice because it comes in a new pill. It will take one amazing, streaming exclusive trailer for the majority of nay-sayers to hop aboard.
You aren't going to give up your drug of choice because it comes in a new pill. It will take one amazing, streaming exclusive trailer for the majority of nay-sayers to hop aboard.
it's for google and their like. it's the kind of product that they are uniquely positioned to execute well and so it would be good for them if this was a product that people wanted or needed. and that's why it will fail, it's a solution looking for a problem.
Thing is Microsoft and Sony are still going to sell Playstations and Xboxes and I think that will become a key selling point of their services honestly. They can market their ecosystems as "Play your way" and highlight the fact that they can do streaming as well as physical and local downloads.
For instance, I'm more comfortable subscribing to xCloud knowing that any games I buy I'll be able to download to an Xbox or a PC. The loss of ownership doesn't occur with MS solution and I think that will help drive its success.
Streaming may become the dominant option in the future (who really knows?) But hardware isn't going to go away. Stadia is going nowhere and will serve as a cautionary tale for the streaming business
I fully expected there to be some sort of transparency disclaimer at the bottom like: "Google paid us/provided us with benefits to post this message". That's the only thing that would make this article seem like a very normal, very rational thing to post.
The thing is, Stadia is by far the best streaming tech that exists. Xcloud is currently limited to 720p. I fully expect that one day itll have Scarlett hardware and 4k streaming but there's no timeline. Stadia has 4k working now. It works well enough that most people are going to prefer the instant access and portability to the loss of ownership. And by the way, ownership is always in decline anyway. The same tech monopoly dutifully protecting your rights with Xbox/XCloud tried to go online only just a few years ago.
In a pretty short amount of time, buying a disc to go with your stream is gonna feel like buying a CD to go with your Spotify faves.
Technologists aren't who decide the future, consumers do.
Beyond that, technologists aren't always great at predicting if something works as a business even IF consumers like it. We could see it catch on at unrealistically low prices, and then recede if pricing has to go way up.
Beyond that, technologists aren't always great at predicting if something works as a business even IF consumers like it. We could see it catch on at unrealistically low prices, and then recede if pricing has to go way up.
As we have discussed before, Technology isn't the issue with Stadia. And I am not suffering under any illusions that MS cares about my consumer rights, don't worry. It's just the reality that they are still a platform company that leads to them having a better value proposition.
