I have version fios with a gigabit connection never directly connect to it which I am trying to change. I may keep fios going to see if I can extend it directly connect in a different room when it is all set.Not unless I move
Will you buy Google Stadia?
- Thread starter klik
- Start date
From what I've read and understood Stadia is compatible with any controller/keyboard. However in order to connect to use a Chromecast you will need to buy the Stadia Controller (along with having a Chromecast Ultra or better).
Although I'm not 100% on that
I will try a month of it and see how the system handles.
But I don't believe yet in cloudgaming to commit to it.
But I don't believe yet in cloudgaming to commit to it.
You could check your speed here if it would support Stadia.
I can all but gaurentee next gen games will look and perform better for at least a couple years.
If the controller is good, works for non stadia games and I still haven't bought a Chromecast by then it will probably be a "might as well" purchase given the price but otherwise likely not. But if there's an exclusive I am interested in, for the price I might as well if only to play it.
So, you have to buy the games on top of a subscription? I don't think the marketing is clear but I also don't think I'm the market for this. My PC can't handle top of the line games, but I'd rather use my funds to save up for a proper rig than to pay monthly via streaming with inevitable lag and the other issues a questionable connection can cause.
Hold up... So you do have to buy the games outside of the subscription fee? This isn't a Netflix for gaming type deal?
Yeah I tried it but I clocked at 6 which is below the recommended 10.
Tried it on another speed test and I had 100. I think the distance to the servers are too much lol.
Subscription fee isn't required to use Stadia. It is only required for the $9.99/mo Stadia Pro subscription which comes with 4k/60, 5.1 surround, HDR as well as game discounts and free games (only known so far is Destiny 2: The Collection atm).
When Stadia Base releases next year which is their free model, you can buy the game and play at 1080p/60 with stereo sound. You own any game you buy for as long as Stadia is available.
It is not a Netflix service, more of a console-less experience that plays on the idea of a streaming platform.
Last edited:
I went ahead and bit the bullet on the founders pack. I figure I'll test Destiny out on it for the 3 months and see how it goes from there. If it doesn't work out, I can still use the Chromecast (and maybe even the controller).
Think of the subscription like PS+ or Xbox Gold. You get access to free games and discounts plus you can stream up to 4k, HDR, 60fps, 5.1 audio quality and you still have to buy the games just like you would on PS4 or Xbox. If you don't get the sub, you can just buy the games outright and you're just capped at 1080p, 60fps, stereo sound. The free tier isn't coming until next year though.
Owning a solid PC and PS4, I don't see a reason to have it. Maybe for mobile gaming with solid wifi would be fun, but I see that being a pretty rare occurrence.
I will try it, but I am not building any sort of library on that service.
I am interested in seeing games built to take advantage of the power of the cloud. But for everything else, it's the least appealing platform of choice IMO.
I am interested in seeing games built to take advantage of the power of the cloud. But for everything else, it's the least appealing platform of choice IMO.
Sure why not. Just the base version to start. I don't personally care about owning games anymore (I just don't have the time to play as much, let alone replay) and i don't have a PC for games so this makes it easy.
I'll bite, then when the next wave of consoles are out, I'll swap out.
Definitely get why most (especially here) are out on it though.
I'll bite, then when the next wave of consoles are out, I'll swap out.
Definitely get why most (especially here) are out on it though.
TLDR: No
TLDR++: Google is going cheap while I bet MS will dive in head first to win and beat them.
In my humble opinion Google has royally F'd up the launch of Stadia at this point. Bad enough that they will at best have an Xbox One like issue where they have to spend 3 to 5 years trying to recover mindshare. Worst case is they cancel it in 2 - 3 years like most products at Google that do not achieve a significant user base or revenue target.
GOOGLE
So here's the thing. Google could have successfully entered and competed in the gaming market. They could have even launched with a huge amount of positive press around what they were doing for gamers and how they were defining the future.
All it would have taken is a willingness to actually invest real money in launching Stadia. Instead they went cheap and it is clear they are doing the bare minimum to launch.
Take Microsoft with the OG Xbox as an example. Leading up to just the launch announcement at CES, Microsoft built almost a dozen small game studios internally and partnered with many more, including SEGA, to deliver exclusive games for the system. Sure a lot of the studios were not great, but Microsoft made clear that they were invested and willing to give it their all right out the gate.
Over the next 6 years, even into the early Xbox 360 days, Microsoft lost an estimated $4.5 to $7 Billion USD on Xbox. All this just to get a small foothold into the gaming market.
Just ask yourself. What could Google have done with the same level of investment focused at games and gamers? Instead of starting just 1 internal studio, maybe they could have started 5 - 10 each with a budget of $20 - $100 Million just for their first games? How about paying a few indie 3rd Party studios to get timed exclusives to Stadia while also giving them extra budget to build textures and other assets to take advantage of the 11TF of power available?
Beyond this, Google could have built an amazing competitor to GamePass right out the gate. There are a ton of "dead" but great indie titles out there. Games that stopped selling any copies months or years ago and will likely never sell many in the future. Google could have helped to prop up those developers with a small up front check of around $20,000 to $50,000 to get the games onto their subscription service with additional promise of some revenue share opportunities from ads or the subscription revenue if the games exceed a certain amount of hours played.
This alone could have easily resulted in Google offering hundreds of PC and Console titles, free of charge, to both Stadia Base and Stadia Premium subscribers and users. Sure, this would lose money up front, but it would have been a great way to bootstrap the launch of Stadia.
Instead, we get about 40 games for "launch" without it even being clear if launch is this November or whenever the Stadia Base releases in 2020.
It frankly feels like this is someone's Promo project at Google. Basically, they made a big bet, are trying to ship as fast as possible, get their promo, and then jump onto the next big thing at Google. It is greenlit, but doesn't really have the backing it needs. As a result, I would not be surprised if MS blows them out of the water with the combination of XCloud and GamePass.
Finally, Google is currently sitting on a cash horde of over $90 Billion USD. It would be a drop in the bucket for them to make their gaming platform have a local option, not just streaming. Google could easily take $3 - $5 Billion and design/manufacture a 11TF console for release alongside Stadia Streaming that would allow users to join into their ecosystem even if they are in poor bandwidth areas, those with bandwidth caps, or have other limitations. Sure, make the streaming service your main focus for marketing and advertising, but at least offer your users the option of local play. Hell, they already are building the servers. They could spin up a team to take that, perform the needed modifications, and deploy it as a local console for consumers who would prefer that option.
But, like all of the other things I listed, that would entire a much larger investment. Something which Google seems to be avoiding like the plague, which in turn tells me they really don't care about gaming. They just view gamers as yet another cheap data acquisition opportunity. They want to make gamers the product, not provide a product for gamers.
MICROSOFT
MS on the other hand does not tend to screw around when launching a major new product that they expect to eventually earn them billions in revenue and profits.
As mentioned above, they were willing to lose $4.5+ Billion USD just to get Xbox out the door and taken seriously. Despite years of mismanagement by Don Mattrick, they were willing to invest billions more recently to acquire and build up new studios, launch the Xbox 1X, and create XCloud.
Beyond this, MS was willing to lose over $30 Billion USD launching Bing and just getting it to the point where it was break even. They are still in the red, even though Bing is now profitable YoY, and will likely take years longer to dig out of the initial investment hole.
Windows itself lost money for almost a decade throughout development and through the initial releases of Windows 1 & 2. Same with Word and Excel. It took them years to claim any significant marketshare and become profitable.
Unlike Google, MS in general will keep investing, keep improving, and keep fighting. Sure there are examples like Zune, Groove, Live Spaces, and Microsoft Money, but those are more the exception than the rule.
I do plan to get a cloud streaming addition to my gaming lifestyle. I don't want to only use cloud streaming in part due to mobile bandwidth caps and needs to travel for work or personal life, but if I am going to invest into a platform and buy games for it, I want confidence that the company backing the service isn't just testing the waters.
I trust that Microsoft will support XCloud for a decade to come even if it is floundering. Same with Sony with PSNow. Google on the other hand, I would want a commitment in writing that they will not drop it for at least a decade before I would ever consider buying a game on the service.
TLDR++: Google is going cheap while I bet MS will dive in head first to win and beat them.
In my humble opinion Google has royally F'd up the launch of Stadia at this point. Bad enough that they will at best have an Xbox One like issue where they have to spend 3 to 5 years trying to recover mindshare. Worst case is they cancel it in 2 - 3 years like most products at Google that do not achieve a significant user base or revenue target.
So here's the thing. Google could have successfully entered and competed in the gaming market. They could have even launched with a huge amount of positive press around what they were doing for gamers and how they were defining the future.
All it would have taken is a willingness to actually invest real money in launching Stadia. Instead they went cheap and it is clear they are doing the bare minimum to launch.
Take Microsoft with the OG Xbox as an example. Leading up to just the launch announcement at CES, Microsoft built almost a dozen small game studios internally and partnered with many more, including SEGA, to deliver exclusive games for the system. Sure a lot of the studios were not great, but Microsoft made clear that they were invested and willing to give it their all right out the gate.
Over the next 6 years, even into the early Xbox 360 days, Microsoft lost an estimated $4.5 to $7 Billion USD on Xbox. All this just to get a small foothold into the gaming market.
Just ask yourself. What could Google have done with the same level of investment focused at games and gamers? Instead of starting just 1 internal studio, maybe they could have started 5 - 10 each with a budget of $20 - $100 Million just for their first games? How about paying a few indie 3rd Party studios to get timed exclusives to Stadia while also giving them extra budget to build textures and other assets to take advantage of the 11TF of power available?
Beyond this, Google could have built an amazing competitor to GamePass right out the gate. There are a ton of "dead" but great indie titles out there. Games that stopped selling any copies months or years ago and will likely never sell many in the future. Google could have helped to prop up those developers with a small up front check of around $20,000 to $50,000 to get the games onto their subscription service with additional promise of some revenue share opportunities from ads or the subscription revenue if the games exceed a certain amount of hours played.
This alone could have easily resulted in Google offering hundreds of PC and Console titles, free of charge, to both Stadia Base and Stadia Premium subscribers and users. Sure, this would lose money up front, but it would have been a great way to bootstrap the launch of Stadia.
Instead, we get about 40 games for "launch" without it even being clear if launch is this November or whenever the Stadia Base releases in 2020.
It frankly feels like this is someone's Promo project at Google. Basically, they made a big bet, are trying to ship as fast as possible, get their promo, and then jump onto the next big thing at Google. It is greenlit, but doesn't really have the backing it needs. As a result, I would not be surprised if MS blows them out of the water with the combination of XCloud and GamePass.
Finally, Google is currently sitting on a cash horde of over $90 Billion USD. It would be a drop in the bucket for them to make their gaming platform have a local option, not just streaming. Google could easily take $3 - $5 Billion and design/manufacture a 11TF console for release alongside Stadia Streaming that would allow users to join into their ecosystem even if they are in poor bandwidth areas, those with bandwidth caps, or have other limitations. Sure, make the streaming service your main focus for marketing and advertising, but at least offer your users the option of local play. Hell, they already are building the servers. They could spin up a team to take that, perform the needed modifications, and deploy it as a local console for consumers who would prefer that option.
But, like all of the other things I listed, that would entire a much larger investment. Something which Google seems to be avoiding like the plague, which in turn tells me they really don't care about gaming. They just view gamers as yet another cheap data acquisition opportunity. They want to make gamers the product, not provide a product for gamers.
MICROSOFT
MS on the other hand does not tend to screw around when launching a major new product that they expect to eventually earn them billions in revenue and profits.
As mentioned above, they were willing to lose $4.5+ Billion USD just to get Xbox out the door and taken seriously. Despite years of mismanagement by Don Mattrick, they were willing to invest billions more recently to acquire and build up new studios, launch the Xbox 1X, and create XCloud.
Beyond this, MS was willing to lose over $30 Billion USD launching Bing and just getting it to the point where it was break even. They are still in the red, even though Bing is now profitable YoY, and will likely take years longer to dig out of the initial investment hole.
Windows itself lost money for almost a decade throughout development and through the initial releases of Windows 1 & 2. Same with Word and Excel. It took them years to claim any significant marketshare and become profitable.
Unlike Google, MS in general will keep investing, keep improving, and keep fighting. Sure there are examples like Zune, Groove, Live Spaces, and Microsoft Money, but those are more the exception than the rule.
I do plan to get a cloud streaming addition to my gaming lifestyle. I don't want to only use cloud streaming in part due to mobile bandwidth caps and needs to travel for work or personal life, but if I am going to invest into a platform and buy games for it, I want confidence that the company backing the service isn't just testing the waters.
I trust that Microsoft will support XCloud for a decade to come even if it is floundering. Same with Sony with PSNow. Google on the other hand, I would want a commitment in writing that they will not drop it for at least a decade before I would ever consider buying a game on the service.
Don't have no HDR, don't care about 5.1, reckon 1080p will be fine. And the controller, which while probably cool for some people out there, is not something I think I'd have much use for. So no thanks to the initial Pro tier.
I will eventually try it out. The Base tier will be free and they'll probably have demos of some kind.
I am not enticed by the idea of buying streaming games. Because they will be worse versions of those games. They are inherently always online and kill all mods. So whether I will eventually pay for Stadia will depend on what "free" games are available with the Pro tier. I could see using Stadia for basically one month rentals, like I have done with Game Pass.
I imagined this would be actually like Netflix for games, you pay a subscription fee and can just stream whatever's available on the service. So this is a bit disappointing. Guess it'll be nice to not have to manage storage and wait for downloads if the games accessible with the Pro subscription are ever ones I'm interested in.
The thing with using multiple hardware instances is really cool to think about, but seems we'll have to wait and see what comes of that.
Google's head might be....up in the clouds.
I will eventually try it out. The Base tier will be free and they'll probably have demos of some kind.
I am not enticed by the idea of buying streaming games. Because they will be worse versions of those games. They are inherently always online and kill all mods. So whether I will eventually pay for Stadia will depend on what "free" games are available with the Pro tier. I could see using Stadia for basically one month rentals, like I have done with Game Pass.
I imagined this would be actually like Netflix for games, you pay a subscription fee and can just stream whatever's available on the service. So this is a bit disappointing. Guess it'll be nice to not have to manage storage and wait for downloads if the games accessible with the Pro subscription are ever ones I'm interested in.
The thing with using multiple hardware instances is really cool to think about, but seems we'll have to wait and see what comes of that.
Google's head might be....up in the clouds.
Weird poll, I don't know why next -gen consoles that are a year away would factor into a decision to try a service with a much lower cost barrier of entry.
The Founder's Edition seems like a decent enough value to fully evaluate what the service has to offer without breaking the bank. I'm not sure I really care about 4K game streaming right now, and my internet service seems to be borderline capable of supporting it, but I would like to see the kind discounts and "free" library they plan to offer the Pro subs, so 3 months seems a decent amount of time and if they haven't made a convincing value proposition by then, I just drop to a basic sub.
The Founder's Edition seems like a decent enough value to fully evaluate what the service has to offer without breaking the bank. I'm not sure I really care about 4K game streaming right now, and my internet service seems to be borderline capable of supporting it, but I would like to see the kind discounts and "free" library they plan to offer the Pro subs, so 3 months seems a decent amount of time and if they haven't made a convincing value proposition by then, I just drop to a basic sub.
Sounds like you have to "buy" a game (that you can't ever download? and these are full price I guess? Will these all disappear when google changes its mind and EOLs this in 5 years?) and then pay another $10 a month to play them at 4K?
Yeah, I'll just stick to buying games the old fashioned way thanks.
Yeah, I'll just stick to buying games the old fashioned way thanks.
I'm already preordered on the Founder's Edition, so yes. I'm going to try it out for the first 3 months to see how it fares, and if it isn't that great I'll just stop subbing. This isn't an end all be all solution for me - if I can use this during my downtime at work or when I want to play a game in a different room other than the one that houses all my gaming equipment, then it will have served its purpose for me.
you don't have to pay $10 a month, that's optional, I suppose if you want 4K you have to pay the extra, but I think most people are fine with 1080P60
if you buy the game from them, you can play it on their services without paying subs or buying anything else, the controller and whatever are all optional.
I was interested in Stadia until I read the thread on ERA discussing how much bandwidth would be used. Too rich for me.
Even if that's the case, Google has played their role in pushing Microsoft to bring a Cloud gaming service to the forefront rather than it being a niche thing or a "maybe in 5 years" type thing.
Not my cup of tea. I am used to PC gaming hurdles and comforts for so many years to change my habits.
I'm not buying this ever bc I prefer to play games offline and I strongly prefer discrete purchases to never-ending charges.
The sad the thing is that I'm in the extreme minority. Ppl seem to love paying $15/month to 10 different companies in perpetuity instead large one-time charges.
The sad the thing is that I'm in the extreme minority. Ppl seem to love paying $15/month to 10 different companies in perpetuity instead large one-time charges.
Might use the 1080p option if it gets some of those PC games that don't usually make it to console, but absolutely zero interest in the Sub option.