That's a fantastic way for anyone in charge of ISP's to forcibly get thrown out of the company by those people they answer to. ISP's will NEVER sacrifice money for quality.
Meh, people said that for every streaming service. I like buying my games and having copies, I even still buy music files(only because I DJ though). But see what happens when you offer virtually all relevant music/movies for next to nothing. There's no reason to think video games will be magically exempt from that trend. Just look at how everyone has fully embraced dematerialized games despite huge resitance on GAF and other communities. I can still remember the meltdown with Half Life 2 and Steam, now look where we're at.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
Replacing the old copper infrastructure -if it even existed in the first place- with fiber is very expensive.
Wireless is significantly cheaper, faster to install, and 5G offers up to gigabit speeds with reasonably low latency - which makes it suitable for replacing a home connection.
I agree with you that games being hardware-exclusive is bad, but I think you're greatly under-estimating the challenges that streaming faces. They are not solved problems and even under the best conditions are not comparable to playing locally.
Ever since Steam Link was released on iOS I've been trying it out on my iPad Pro. That's a local 5GHz stream with a 40% higher bit-rate than the maximum Stadia is going to offer, using a higher quality encoder.
While it looks good, it's clearly not the same as something running locally - even at 11".
Though latency is not bad, it's definitely noticeable even though it's running at 120Hz - and Stadia is only going to offer 60Hz streaming.
If you're a casual console gamer that only has one system, buys two or three games a year, and sits far back from the TV, sure, streaming might be a better solution when there's no upfront cost.
I could certainly see it as an alternative to buying secondary systems though. I'd much rather buy the one or two Sony exclusives which interest me on PS Now than having to buy a console. If I could stream Animal Crossing without having to buy a Switch, I'd probably do it.
But it's not going to replace my main system, and I'd prefer the option of running those games locally if they were available on systems that I owned.
I'm not happy with NVIDIA's pricing either, but there's absolutely no need to buy the highest-end GPUs for gaming.
It will be really interesting to see how Stadia's "60 FPS" claims hold up.
I'm sure the stream will be 60 FPS, but the games themselves? I'm not convinced - especially not once next-gen games are released.
The quality of the free-tier 1080p stream is unknown at this point too. Stadia Pro's 1080p streams appear to be ~20 Mbps but I expect "Base" streams to be ≤15 Mbps.
It is absolutely what corporations want. They don't want consumers to have any control over media.
And yes, convenience wins for most people, if the cost is the same or minimally different - in the short term.
People here may not have been paying attention, as the forum is largely console-focused, but PC game prices have increased significantly this generation as companies stop producing retail copies, shut down key activation, and lock down who can sell their games now to gain stricter control over pricing.
Just wait until digital is your only option. Things are going to be bad if you're price-sensitive.
The obvious example would be: what if you could play PS5 games on your PS4 via streaming without having to buy hardware?
Or you only had to download an app on your Smart TV.
Meh, people said that for every streaming service. I like buying my games and having copies, I even still buy music files(only because I DJ though). But see what happens when you offer virtually all relevant music/movies for next to nothing. There's no reason to think video games will be magically exempt from that trend. Just look at how everyone has fully embraced dematerialized games despite huge resitance on GAF and other communities.
Era is probably not a good judge on the matter to be honest, 95%+ gamers are nowhere as invested or hardcore as people here. They will get what they want: often only a couple of games, sometimes even just one, for a small or possibly inexistant investment, + no 70$ price tag attached for games. I don't think they will think long. It's just a matter of having a good system correctly marketed now. Internet is plenty fast in most first world cities, and will keep getting better. 5G is around the corner too. I don't think it's gonna take long, and I don't think traditional consoles/PC will be left with a majority market share in 7-8 year, probably even less.
But it's not bext to nothing you still have to buy games?Meh, people said that for every streaming service. I like buying my games and having copies, I even still buy music files(only because I DJ though). But see what happens when you offer virtually all relevant music/movies for next to nothing. There's no reason to think video games will be magically exempt from that trend. Just look at how everyone has fully embraced dematerialized games despite huge resitance on GAF and other communities. I can still remember the meltdown with Half Life 2 and Steam, now look where we're at.
Era is probably not a good judge on the matter to be honest, 95%+ gamers are nowhere as invested or hardcore as people here. They will get what they want: often only a couple of games, sometimes even just one, for a small or possibly inexistant investment, + no 70$ price tag attached for games. I don't think they will think long. It's just a matter of having a good system correctly marketed now. Internet is plenty fast in most first world cities, and will keep getting better. 5G is around the corner too. I don't think it's gonna take long, and I don't think traditional consoles/PC will be left with a majority market share in 7-8 year, probably even less.
Sorry i'm not referencing the Google offer directly. I'm assuming someone will be able to push on the market a true subscription based system at some point. If it runs on any laptop this would be even more huge. I think such a solution will be important for widespread success, but even without, streaming can already be very attractive for price conscious, non hardcore gamer. It's always about bangs for your bucks in the end IMHO.
It's a matter of the isp but not only that technology is not only there, game streaming is totally different than music and movies.Oh really, like how it's going to take a lot longer for movie/music/TV... oh wait, you mean streaming is already the dominant form of consumption in all other mature media and the only reason gaming is still behind is because of a) technological barriers that are rapidly being torn down and b) stubborn console makers that refuse to embrace a console-less future and let their diehard crowds defend them relentlessly online? The technology is here, and it's only a matter of years, not decades, before streaming a game feels as natural as playing a game on a console. Look ahead, not backward.
The issue with that would be pricing tho if you do a true to life Netflix style the pricing will be high no way a service like that can make it on 10 or 20 a monthSorry i'm not referencing the Google offer directly. I'm assuming someone will be able to push on the market a true subscription based system at some point. If it runs on any laptop this would be even more huge. I think such a solution will be important for widespread success, but even without, streaming can already be very attractive for price conscious, non hardcore gamer. It's always about bangs for your bucks in the end IMHO.
Some of these comparisons are forgetting that consoles age. After seven years the console you bought on launch day is a fossil. Whereas Google, in order to deliver the performance they promise, will have to continually upgrade their servers. Seven years after the PS5 launch, Stadia won't be running games like a console from seven years ago.
The biggest issue I have with Stadia is Google's track record with killing off their products which leads me to believe that Stadia won't last long so why would I invest in that ecosystem?
It's definitely the future and we are getting closer every year
I can totally picture Cyclonus saying that lol
"Streaming movies? That's a totally different beast than streaming just sound."It's a matter of the isp but not only that technology is not only there, game streaming is totally different than music and movies.
it's not that simple. You have to ask yourself what incentives streaming platform owners have to push the performance. And just because the hardware sits in a data center doesn't make it free. Unlike most web servers that can be made useful globally this gaming hardware will sit almost unused for large chunks of the day.Some of these comparisons are forgetting that consoles age. After seven years the console you bought on launch day is a fossil. Whereas Google, in order to deliver the performance they promise, will have to continually upgrade their servers. Seven years after the PS5 launch, Stadia won't be running games like a console from seven years ago.
Why are some people so gung ho on streaming?? I mean who wants to stream a video game that has delicate things like fps and latency...and lets not forget visual fidelity as well. I tried that shit on PS Now and it looked and played bad
Replacing the old copper infrastructure -if it even existed in the first place- with fiber is very expensive.
Wireless is significantly cheaper, faster to install, and 5G offers up to gigabit speeds with reasonably low latency - which makes it suitable for replacing a home connection.
I agree with you that games being hardware-exclusive is bad, but I think you're greatly under-estimating the challenges that streaming faces. They are not solved problems and even under the best conditions are not comparable to playing locally.
Ever since Steam Link was released on iOS I've been trying it out on my iPad Pro. That's a local 5GHz stream with a 40% higher bit-rate than the maximum Stadia is going to offer, using a higher quality encoder.
While it looks good, it's clearly not the same as something running locally - even at 11".
Though latency is not bad, it's definitely noticeable even though it's running at 120Hz - and Stadia is only going to offer 60Hz streaming.
If you're a casual console gamer that only has one system, buys two or three games a year, and sits far back from the TV, sure, streaming might be a better solution when there's no upfront cost.
I could certainly see it as an alternative to buying secondary systems though. I'd much rather buy the one or two Sony exclusives which interest me on PS Now than having to buy a console. If I could stream Animal Crossing without having to buy a Switch, I'd probably do it.
But it's not going to replace my main system, and I'd prefer the option of running those games locally if they were available on systems that I owned.
I'm not happy with NVIDIA's pricing either, but there's absolutely no need to buy the highest-end GPUs for gaming.
It will be really interesting to see how Stadia's "60 FPS" claims hold up.
I'm sure the stream will be 60 FPS, but the games themselves? I'm not convinced - especially not once next-gen games are released.
The quality of the free-tier 1080p stream is unknown at this point too. Stadia Pro's 1080p streams appear to be ~20 Mbps but I expect "Base" streams to be ≤15 Mbps.
It is absolutely what corporations want. They don't want consumers to have any control over media.
And yes, convenience wins for most people, if the cost is the same or minimally different - in the short term.
People here may not have been paying attention, as the forum is largely console-focused, but PC game prices have increased significantly this generation as companies stop producing retail copies, shut down key activation, and lock down who can sell their games now to gain stricter control over pricing.
Just wait until digital is your only option. Things are going to be bad if you're price-sensitive.
The obvious example would be: what if you could play PS5 games on your PS4 via streaming without having to buy hardware?
Or you only had to download an app on your Smart TV.
1000x this. This cannot be stated enough. And for anyone who thinks Google is going to bat for them to work towards changing laws and regulation to fix it... that's some dangerous optimism.People who keep pushing this streaming shit should watch the Patriot Act episode on ISPs
You are mistaken. You still need to buy the games at full price. Same price as digital or physical games. The only cash u save is in the console purchase but u get the worst gaming experience for that. And the money you can save by selling/ buying / borrowing used physical games make a much bigger saving than the initial 500$ of a new console.The 1080p option costs nothing and let's you play the latest games at a capped resolution of 1080p (which base consoles can barely do), that is extremely economical if all you care about is playing games
It's true that it still has to happen, It's also true that greed from multiple companies could make it hard to happen. I don't hope for streaming tbh, but it seems like it's coming for sure, and if it manages to deliver better value for a good enough experience on most popular games, I still believe it will eventually become the most popular option. There's good arguments in this topic! It seems true to me that marketing and pricing will be the hardest part.The issue with that would be pricing tho if you do a true to life Netflix style the pricing will be high no way a service like that can make it on 10 or 20 a month
Talk about value...You are mistaken. You still need to buy the games at full price. Same price as digital or physical games. The only cash u save is in the console purchase but u get the worst gaming experience for that. And the money you can save by selling/ buying / borrowing used physical games make a much bigger saving than the initial 500$ of a new console.