Queso de Grande
Member
I finally watched the announcement stream. This feels bad to me. They show so many neat things, but it seems too good to be true. Like if this becomes a success, we would be giving Google so much of our freedom of choice.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Google Game Streaming Reveal Thread 'Stadia' (Launching in 2019)
- Thread starter Afro Republican
- Start date
I think that streaming will take a long time to replace dedicated hardware, assuming that it will at all.
It will be a really long transition, just like mobile games haven't killed consoles like many predicted in 2012, just like people (still the majority) continue to buy games on discs more than 10 years after the introduction of digital copies, it's not realistic to think that streaming services will be chosen as the main way to play by most people during the next few years.
Reasons are obvious.
Streaming will never be as good as dedicated hardware with the same power, so core gamers won't stop buying high end PC hardware and premium consoles just because there is an option to stream games with image compression and lag.
The quality of internet connection is not optimal in many countries and that will be an other obstacle in the diffusion of streaming services.
Relatively to the announcements made by Google I think that the questions are far more than the answers.
It's clear that Google atm has a big issue with contents, they have to rely on third parties to sell their service.
But if these third parties, as proven by Game Pass so far, have not been willing to put their premium titles on a cheap subscription service at launch because it's far more lucrative to sell them at 60$ on traditional platforms what kind of support Google is looking at?
Launching Stadia with games like Assassin's Creed Odyssey or Battlefield V or games that are one year old as their key titles would be laughable. Microsoft knows this and this is why they have invested in their own studios for example.
Google has not offered an answer on that and it should ring a bell.
Also if core gamers will realistically continue to buy dedicated hardware, the mobile audience and the younger generations used to play free software like Fortnite or Apex obviously won't be willing to pay a subscription service that easily either.
Price is infact an other issue, I really doubt that price will be the same regardless of the streaming quality, the cost to stream games at 1080p 30fps on the server side is clearly not the same of streaming a 4K HDR 60fps title. So we might be looking at different tiers of subscription and at that point we don't even know if it will be worth it. Would people be willing to pay 20$ a month to get 4K streams when they can buy a dedicated hardware that can do that natively once and for all?
No answer on that at the moment and then there's the reality that until the product is in the hands of consumers and people can actually test it in terms of image quality and lag there won't be a judgement on its quality.
Many people seem to give a free pass to the big well known company with tons of money but that might end up being misguided.
It will be a really long transition, just like mobile games haven't killed consoles like many predicted in 2012, just like people (still the majority) continue to buy games on discs more than 10 years after the introduction of digital copies, it's not realistic to think that streaming services will be chosen as the main way to play by most people during the next few years.
Reasons are obvious.
Streaming will never be as good as dedicated hardware with the same power, so core gamers won't stop buying high end PC hardware and premium consoles just because there is an option to stream games with image compression and lag.
The quality of internet connection is not optimal in many countries and that will be an other obstacle in the diffusion of streaming services.
Relatively to the announcements made by Google I think that the questions are far more than the answers.
It's clear that Google atm has a big issue with contents, they have to rely on third parties to sell their service.
But if these third parties, as proven by Game Pass so far, have not been willing to put their premium titles on a cheap subscription service at launch because it's far more lucrative to sell them at 60$ on traditional platforms what kind of support Google is looking at?
Launching Stadia with games like Assassin's Creed Odyssey or Battlefield V or games that are one year old as their key titles would be laughable. Microsoft knows this and this is why they have invested in their own studios for example.
Google has not offered an answer on that and it should ring a bell.
Also if core gamers will realistically continue to buy dedicated hardware, the mobile audience and the younger generations used to play free software like Fortnite or Apex obviously won't be willing to pay a subscription service that easily either.
Price is infact an other issue, I really doubt that price will be the same regardless of the streaming quality, the cost to stream games at 1080p 30fps on the server side is clearly not the same of streaming a 4K HDR 60fps title. So we might be looking at different tiers of subscription and at that point we don't even know if it will be worth it. Would people be willing to pay 20$ a month to get 4K streams when they can buy a dedicated hardware that can do that natively once and for all?
No answer on that at the moment and then there's the reality that until the product is in the hands of consumers and people can actually test it in terms of image quality and lag there won't be a judgement on its quality.
Many people seem to give a free pass to the big well known company with tons of money but that might end up being misguided.
Last edited:
The Scrivener
Member
GAF will be the black box recorder charting the doomed Stadia kamikaze flight destroying the Big-Two, all the while, floating the blue waters of hope, a tiny lone ship with the faded red letters Nintendo puffs steadily unto a new dawn.
Last edited:
Afro Republican
Banned
It is too good to be true, they didn't have any real dev partnerships set-up before the conference, they announced a new studio during the conference instead of havng it prepared before hand, they showed input lag live on stage, and gave no pricing information.
But it's supposed to come out this year?
Afro Republican
Banned
I wonder if those who voted Yes, Hyped or Neutral will change their minds now that the unfinished product has been officially released.
Er.. I mean finished product?
Looking back at the YouTube video we don't even have half the shit they promised, what a joke.
Er.. I mean finished product?
Looking back at the YouTube video we don't even have half the shit they promised, what a joke.
Similar threads
- Poll