Not saying that you are incorrect, but it would be more honest to compare it with ps5 as ps4 already reached their eol i some sense. That said, there are some really nice discounts for pro members (even for newer games)
-
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.
Google Stadia Overpromised On What It Could Do, Says Take-Two CEO
- Thread starter Kolx
- Start date
Not saying that you are incorrect, but it would be more honest to compare it with ps5 as ps4 already reached their eol i some sense. That said, there are some really nice discounts for pro members (even for newer games)
I'd agree with you if Stadia wasn't just barely matching those end of life performances instead of far exceeding them as you might expect from the PS5/X?
Long story short, you probably have slightly magical internet, a slightly magical brain and
A lucky minority too!
God I remember the reactions when this shit was announced on this forum. People acting like the second coming christ and google was going to wipe out everything that was already established. Embarassing.
To be fair to them, I don't think anyone imagined google wouldn't deliver on any of the promised features lol
I was just thinking today about how many initiatives Valve has abandoned. Steam Controller, Steam Machines, Steam Link, SteamOS, Half Life Episode 3, etc. Yet we still buy games on Steam without fear of our libraries suddenly disappearing. Personally I wish I could exclusively buy PC games on Steam.
The only ones saying it was going to be the dominant way of gaming was Google themselves and the Stadia subreddit........which is moderated by Google employees.
If Sony and Microsoft become main stream with similar services like PS Now and xCloud, Stadia could survive. However, those services too haven't shown any major promise yet. Game Pass on the other hand is showing fast results.
Na there was more than that. every thread here for a while was inidated by people constantly praising stadia and saying it was the next big thing.
This is an amazing pretzel of logic since the games you buy on Steam aren't reliant on any of those things. It's hardly comparable to people doubting the Stadia service sticking around. This was a thing when Steam started too, but they've proven by now they're not going anywhere. Stadia isn't there yet.
I don't see how it's pretzel logic. The argument has always been that Google will kill Stadia because they wantonly kill projects all the time. Google Reader has no impact on my ability to play games on Stadia, yet I'm told to be wary because Reader was cancelled.
I definitely agree that Google has not built trust in the longevity of the service yet, but there's only one way to do that: by lasting a long time. I think if you look at the hiring Google is doing for Stadia first party, it's obvious they aren't looking to shut down in 2 years.
This is it. It is this simple. I don't know how anyone could think a streaming service where you buy each game would ever work. It has to be a (low) monthly fee, period. And that's going to be tough to pull off in the video game industry, where all the attention is on the newest games.
Even if you did the trial the catalogue of games is pretty weak, the pro sub gets you like 10-12 games but if you weren't in too any of them you had to buy a game you could ONLY stream when connections were being throttled as is. It's just not a good proposition for anyone already gaming on a PC/console and they've done very little to coerce mobile and lapsed gamers to buy in.
As a member of this forum since it's inception and following Stadia since day 1, that literally never happened.
Streaming has a low interest here which is why Onlive, xCloud, GFN or Shadow have very small post counts. Google putting their name behind a streaming only service cause some posters to freak the f*ck out as possibly they viewed it as a thread to the gaming eco system that has been in place for decades.
Now that it is clear it is not the case, at least discussing Stadia outside of the OT is possible
I know that its quite easy to develope for ps5. But i'm sure its even more easier to port pc games to stadia. Even EA is releasing there stuff on it while they dont do it on switch (which will sell much much more) So it depends on how many games next gen will be developed for pc as well. In the end its hard to say. But a lot of those who tested the service for real have a good experience with it.
It's actually not. Porting a game to Linux involves a LOT of work, and often comes with performance compromises. If you've ever wondered why games ported to Stadia seem to have worse resolution and Image quality than the same game running on a PS4 Pro or One X, despite the fact that Stadia is more than twice as powerful as these consoles, it's partly because of the difficulties of optimising for Linux.
The problem is that the value proposition of this service is massively weakened once xCloud and the revamped PS Now launch with next gen hardware. Those will launch with MUCH bigger libraries, guaranteed crossplay with a much bigger community and bigger exclusives compared to Stadia.
I do not see this service thriving at all.
Not for PS5. When I was referring to xCloud, I was referring to playing Xbox Series X games on xCloud. It will be interesting to see if people make their way to streaming services for their next generation Madden or FIFA fixes and pass on buying expensive hardware.
There's no reason to think that xCloud won't run into the same issues with publisher permission as GeForce Now has. MS will still need to obtain opt-in permission for games to be streamable, so if publishers decide that they can get a better streaming deal elsewhere or savor the notion of charging consumers a second time for the new modality then they'll be just as likely to rescend from xcloud as they were from GFN. Arguably MS might have better bargaining chips on that front, but with Nvidia now partnering with Valve for opt-in that playing field becomes a bit more level.
I think MS having streaming alongside local play will help bolster the service. It's hard to spend on games to stream. Having the ability to download and play your games seems more secure.
You're stretching the facts here. Steam Link isn't dead. It's an app. There used to be a dedicated device for it, but it became redundant now that you can run the software on so many other devices, so people stopped buying it, and eventually there was no point in manufacturing more. That original device is now discontinued, but Steam Link is not.
Steam Controller may or may not be dead. There is some evidence that Valve might be working on a second controller. And even if not, the Steam Input software which directly came from that project is alive and well, and has become a very important part of PC gaming.
As for SteamOS, I'll leave that explanation to someone who knows the topic better than I do.
That leaves Steam Machines (which did fail) and Episode 3 (which is a game and not platform-related, so of course it doesn't make me think my library is in danger).
I agree that XCloud could run into those issues, but since Microsoft can simply update the distribution agreement of Xbox Store and include XCloud in the agreement, they should be fine, or maybe during the release of Xbox One, the agreement they had already mentions Cloud gaming, that would mean XCloud users can buy All Xbox One games. Regarding Game Pass, the agreement they have, a high chance they included distribution beyond consoles.
Valve can do the same thing now that GFN will use the Steam Cloud Play infrastructure for their opt int. In either case though, it's not a given that either Valve or Microsoft will want to make that a mandatory requirement to otherwise publish on their respective platforms. They COULD, but they would risk alienating their publishing partners and so would likely not take that step; they'll likely highly encourage it, but it is unlikely to ever be a mandatory thing. You mention Game Pass, and I do think that any deals they cut for that will probably include de facto streaming, but there's a whole other set of economic considerations between MS and the publishers for GamePass games.
Why would this alienate publishers? Publishers will be fine with it as there's more users buying their games. Microsoft does have much more leverage than Valve though.
I mean, they weren't fine with it when GFN did it as opt-out, and there has been an even further hit to the available library now that GFN has switched over opt-in
Ignoring XCloud will include ignoring the Xbox user base. There are EA games on XCloud for example.
Just like ignoring GFN will include ignoring the Steam user base. If the argument is that the only thing that the publishers care about is selling games to users on existing platforms then their actions taken with respect to GFN run counter to that.
Weird.. I have and love stadia sure the game library is smaller but it's getting better day in and day out. Destiny is league better in terms of loading for me.
The biggest issue and most critical issue is for stadia to enforce if they can crossplay the multiplayer games feel empty. Division 2 hasthis and it's pure joy.
I believe in this technology and have been buying titles I want in a slower pace but damn if it's not better than my current gen consoles and getting better daily!! Haters going to hate
I'm in my 40's and lifted time for gaming no patching, updating,storage restrictions, etc I sit down and play for a few hours!!
The biggest issue and most critical issue is for stadia to enforce if they can crossplay the multiplayer games feel empty. Division 2 hasthis and it's pure joy.
I believe in this technology and have been buying titles I want in a slower pace but damn if it's not better than my current gen consoles and getting better daily!! Haters going to hate
I'm in my 40's and lifted time for gaming no patching, updating,storage restrictions, etc I sit down and play for a few hours!!
I haven't hated Stadia so far in my two month trial tbh, but my two biggest complaints that will keep me from fully adopting it until they're addressed: 1) the back library of games are super expensive compared to the network of online retailers that offer Steam games/keys. I'm not dropping $60 to play Rage 2 at this point. They either need to adjust prices or have way more aggressive sales. And 2) multiplayer games MUST have crossplay. Stuff like PUBG are unplayable on Stadia. It's nuts that they think any multiplayer games are going to be sustainable on their platform without it. Division 2 has it, but that's all I've seen so far.
Lesser gripe, but I think figuring out a way to offer a local download of purchased games would do a lot of goodwill for the service; for me personally it's not a huge deal until the first two things are addressed though.
Lesser gripe, but I think figuring out a way to offer a local download of purchased games would do a lot of goodwill for the service; for me personally it's not a huge deal until the first two things are addressed though.
Michael Pachter is the Armond White or Skip Bayless of business analysts. You listen, chortle, and then walk away confidently knowing that whatever they say, the complete opposite is true. My fave prediction is when he insisted the first Borderlands would be a flop, that it was being 'sent out to die.'
I'm absolutely floored by Stadia. It's like they made a list of the worst things you could do and then went and followed through on each and every one of them
- use Linux so every game needs porting
- botch the launch in the most spectacular of ways
- lie about specs, then give people like only half of that
- launch way before your own studios are even ready
- lie about graphics and performance
- "fuck we actually do need games"
next gen will be interesting. what will you do, mr google?
- use Linux so every game needs porting
- botch the launch in the most spectacular of ways
- lie about specs, then give people like only half of that
- launch way before your own studios are even ready
- lie about graphics and performance
- "fuck we actually do need games"
next gen will be interesting. what will you do, mr google?
Seriously, before the Stadia reveals of both the service and the pricing model, I speculated the worst thing they could do was ___ and then they did the worst thing I imagined them doing
A far more competent company will make streaming a success, Google missed the boat
Over-promising/under-delivering/outright bullshitting about what's going to be delivered? Sounds like the games industry alright...Google have truly made it!
While the formulation "abandoned" is not true for most of them, "not support them to the fullest potential" probably is.
Steam link had pottential for more (a platform where they have 100% controll of ui/performance), but here you could argue that the potential that was missed was not worth the money (probably, since nobody would like to buy it it its an enthusiast thing)
Steam controller: yeah, no. Here they missed a lot. Maybe the point was always: lets have a controller for pc, done.
But they could have developed games that use the controller to its fullest and would not work as great with others.
Steam os: Krejleee made a great post, still, what they wanted and what they did where 2 things, and they could have pushed the concept way further. Again, feasability (money) is probably a reason, why they decided against it. Probably till they would come to a place where it would do more than it tit (with its potential, a new platform), the chance would be there that streaming would be to prelevant. And wine got better... and stuff.
Essentiallythey saw other developments, and said: probably not worth investing more in it.
I think the thing is, they had a point where they where not shure about the future of pc as a gaming platform, started a view things, and saw other developments, and now they focus on VR.
And im not shure why i wrote this... im not really arguing against your points, and now i dont feel like i've said something relevant. but i will post it anyway =P
Anyone who follows gaming and technology realized early on that they were over promising in their statements before launch. The phrase "Snake oil salesman" was thrown around pretty often.
They are very slowly growing their streaming platform, we will see if it will work out, their current efforts don't inspire any confidence for short term at least.
As the Take Two CEO said there doesn't appear to be a big market for streaming right now anyway.
They are very slowly growing their streaming platform, we will see if it will work out, their current efforts don't inspire any confidence for short term at least.
As the Take Two CEO said there doesn't appear to be a big market for streaming right now anyway.
PUBG can be launched with a hyperlink, so technically it's possible but Google is moving at a glacier pace.
Stadia service is no longer available. Thanks for playing.
Stadia service is no longer available. Thanks for playing.
stadia.com
If you have Stadia that link will launch the game. Otherwise I assume it will ask you to sign up
That's the biggest question, Google had literally the best platforms on the planet to advertise Stadia and they don't use them.
I think they want to slowly grow the service but if so what incentive is there for devs to port their games?
Last edited:
My bad, didnt know that it was running on debian linux. That is even stranger that ea does more than it does for switch.
I can't believe you still can't use the service on an iPhone. The compatibility list is atrocious for a product that's Supposed be played anywhere by anything.
Even when you are connected to the most optimal setup, you are still contending with sub-par image quality and input latency at an alarming operation cost depending on your internet plan.
There is a more successful version of Stadia, but not in this current timeline.
Even when you are connected to the most optimal setup, you are still contending with sub-par image quality and input latency at an alarming operation cost depending on your internet plan.
There is a more successful version of Stadia, but not in this current timeline.
That's a non-argument. Whatever difficulties or problems developers might have in delivering their software for consumer desktop Linux operating system is completely irrelevant. Stadia is a walled garden, closed system, both hardware and software wise. Developers have to target a single specific configuration. It is up to Google to provide support with developer tools and documentation. Linux is just a kernel. Nobody is having difficulties developing games for PS4 because its OS is built upon BSD kernel.