Google Stadia

[Hammettf2b]

Not surprised at all tbh. There was never much of an incentive for gamers to get one.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Not surprised at all tbh. There was never much of an incentive for gamers to get one.

I think the incentive of pricing never surfaced as hardware is still required at this time, the games are relatively old and still require purchase, and the free-to-play version has yet to be found. Also, Google heavily oversold on the quality of the service that has been provided to date, if reports are to be believed (whether that is their fault, the the fault of the developers, or somewhere in between, the advertising doesn't match the user experience).

I wonder if Stadia will see a surge near the release of the next gen consoles, as gamers will be already looking for new hardware (or other solutions) at that time.



I always figured Stadia would be slow out of the gate, as it is a bit of a niche product (even if we're only talking internet connections), but I didn't expect it to be this slow.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Stadia a miserable failure? Shocker...

 

[Jussi]

Stadia a miserable failure? Shocker...

Inbefore 18leafsfan18 praises it.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Inbefore 18leafsfan18 praises it.

Lol.

But to be fair, I get it. I completely disagree with him on everything regarding Stadia, but I get it. We all have things that we have been extremely passionate and defensive about, only for it to completely bust. The key is to know when to let go.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Lol.

But to be fair, I get it. I completely disagree with him on everything regarding Stadia, but I get it. We all have things that we have been extremely passionate and defensive about, only for it to completely bust. The key is to know when to let go.

I get the interest as well. There's a lot of good in the tech and ideas of Stadia, but a lot of that is ruined by marketing and...well, actual implementation, particularly when it comes to the actual games.

That said, that sort of input latency would kill my interest....not sure how they will get around that problem.


I think Google may have underestimated this project. I expect Microsoft will be the game streaming champion going forward, especially since they have an existing platform in Xbox and easy access to stuff like Game Pass.

 

[TomPlex]

Stadia marketed PERFECTLY to me. I don't have a console but I used to be a big-time gamer. Kept my PC up-to-date as long as I could, but unfortunately, I would've had to dish away $500 to be able to play BL3. To me, it was simple math. And on my 120 Mbps connection in Montreal, the service runs flawlessly. In the meantime, I got FF to keep me going (using my Google Play credits) until Cyberpunk comes out. It's an epic win for me. As a 33 year old, there's no way I can justify spending $500+ on a console, nor do I have any interest in doing so.

For my needs, Stadia gets a A.

 

[Osprey]

Stadia marketed PERFECTLY to me. I don't have a console but I used to be a big-time gamer. Kept my PC up-to-date as long as I could, but unfortunately, I would've had to dish away $500 to be able to play BL3. To me, it was simple math. And on my 120 Mbps connection in Montreal, the service runs flawlessly. In the meantime, I got FF to keep me going (using my Google Play credits) until Cyberpunk comes out. It's an epic win for me. As a 33 year old, there's no way I can justify spending $500+ on a console, nor do I have any interest in doing so.

For my needs, Stadia gets a A.

Simple math works in Stadia's favor over the short term, but not the long term. At $10/month, Stadia will have cost you $500 after just 4 years. Buying a new console every generation (~6 years) is actually cheaper than paying for Stadia indefinitely (i.e. 6 years of a console = $500, 6 years of Stadia = $720) and you don't have to pay again to keep playing your old games. It's the age-old question of renting versus investing. Renting is always cheaper in the short term and more expensive in the long term. For users planning to use Stadia for only a year or two, it may make sense, but for users looking at it long-term, it shouldn't be hard to justify paying for a console upfront, instead. Now, whether a person can afford to do so is another matter.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Stadia a miserable failure? Shocker...

There is an old english expression

stick to pealing your onions--google needs to remember this

keep to what they know

 

[TomPlex]

Simple math works in Stadia's favor over the short term, but not the long term. At $10/month, Stadia will have cost you $500 after just 4 years. Buying a new console every generation (~6 years) is actually cheaper than paying for Stadia indefinitely (i.e. 6 years of a console = $500, 6 years of Stadia = $720) and you don't have to pay again to keep playing your old games. It's the age-old question of renting versus investing. Renting is always cheaper in the short term and more expensive in the long term. For users planning to use Stadia for only a year or two, it may make sense, but for users looking at it long-term, it shouldn't be hard to justify paying for a console upfront, instead. Now, whether a person can afford to do so is another matter.

Forgive my ignorance, but don't all new generation consoles also force you to pay to access online service? Also, I can pay with Google Play credits, which I get by doing Google Play Rewards for free.

EDIT: I just checked, it's $60 for Xbox and $50 for PlayStation. So your math doesn't totally work out. Stadia still remains cheaper over the long-run, and once you've purchased your new console in six years, Stadia is the clear victor. Obviously it has to last that long, but if it does, there should theoretically never be a reason to upgrade.

 

[Jussi]

Forgive my ignorance, but don't all new generation consoles also force you to pay to access online service? Also, I can pay with Google Play credits, which I get by doing Google Play Rewards for free.

EDIT: I just checked, it's $60 for Xbox and $50 for PlayStation. So your math doesn't totally work out. Stadia still remains cheaper over the long-run, and once you've purchased your new console in six years, Stadia is the clear victor. Obviously it has to last that long, but if it does, there should theoretically never be a reason to upgrade.

Most hardcore gamers get those at much cheaper prices via online stores.

 

[Osprey]

Forgive my ignorance, but don't all new generation consoles also force you to pay to access online service? Also, I can pay with Google Play credits, which I get by doing Google Play Rewards for free.

EDIT: I just checked, it's $60 for Xbox and $50 for PlayStation. So your math doesn't totally work out. Stadia still remains cheaper over the long-run, and once you've purchased your new console in six years, Stadia is the clear victor. Obviously it has to last that long, but if it does, there should theoretically never be a reason to upgrade.

I stand corrected, then. I forgot about the service fees, since I'm not a console gamer, either.

 

[TomPlex]

Most hardcore gamers get those at much cheaper prices via online stores.

So most hardcore gamers will buy Google Play gift cards when on sale

 

[syz]

Long term something like a Game Pass subscription will easily dwarf a Stadia subscription in terms of value. You instantly get access to more free games than Stadia has on its entire service (with the added bonus of them looking and playing better than they would on Stadia.)

So, again, the ideal use case for Stadia still seems to be people who want to play a couple of games once in a while and don't care about the quality of them.

 

[TomPlex]

Long term something like a Game Pass subscription will easily dwarf a Stadia subscription in terms of value. You instantly get access to more free games than Stadia has on its entire service (with the added bonus of them looking and playing better than they would on Stadia.)

So, again, the ideal use case for Stadia still seems to be people who want to play a couple of games once in a while and don't care about the quality of them.

Not quite sure what you mean by not caring the quality of them?

 

[syz]

Not quite sure what you mean by not caring the quality of them?

Input delay and worse visual quality. Also selection in general, depending on how much developer support it ends up getting at this point.

 

[TomPlex]

Input delay and worse visual quality. Also selection in general, depending on how much developer support it ends up getting at this point.

See, that's the thing, with my 120 Mbps connection wired directly into the CCU, there is no input delay or worse visual quality. It's excellent. I got through all of BL3 without a single hiccup.

Game selection is a different story, but for now I'm satisfied because I don't spend 40 hours a week gaming as I'm 33 with a 3 year-old child.

 

[syz]

See, that's the thing, with my 120 Mbps connection wired directly into the CCU, there is no input delay or worse visual quality. It's excellent. I got through all of BL3 without a single hiccup.

Game selection is a different story, but for now I'm satisfied because I don't spend 40 hours a week gaming as I'm 33 with a 3 year-old child.

Both issues vary from game to game but are still issues nonetheless for those who care.

Every reported measurement of Stadia has shown at best an 40ms of extra input delay, so imo that automatically rules out playing any multiplayer games for me as long as better alternatives exist. On the visual side there are prevalent accounts of some minor artifacting, and some games just straight-up have graphical options stripped out of them. Destiny 2 in particular definitely doesn't look as good as a non-streamed PC version and has no settings available to tweak at all.

 

[RandV]

Both issues vary from game to game but are still issues nonetheless for those who care.

Every reported measurement of Stadia has shown at best an 40ms of extra input delay, so imo that automatically rules out playing any multiplayer games for me as long as better alternatives exist. On the visual side there are prevalent accounts of some minor artifacting, and some games just straight-up have graphical options stripped out of them. Destiny 2 in particular definitely doesn't look as good as a non-streamed PC version and has no settings available to tweak at all.

I've always had a hard time fathoming this as a problem as I don't really play multiplayer games anymore but during some formative gaming years in high school I do remember playing games such as Quake 3 with like 250ms ping times.

 

[Osprey]

I've always had a hard time fathoming this as a problem as I don't really play multiplayer games anymore but during some formative gaming years in high school I do remember playing games such as Quake 3 with like 250ms ping times.

That was typical of gaming over dial-up modems, which everyone did in the 90s and many still did in the early 2000s. It was playable so long as everyone had pings like that. Every now and then, though, someone would join a server from their work's T1 internet or super fancy home cable/DSL modem and own everyone with their double digit pings. There was a term for them that you may remember: low ping bastards (or LPBs, for short). Basically, the issue isn't so much what your ping is, but what it is compared to others on the server. Nowadays, it's common to have a ping of 40ms, so if yours is effectively 80ms, you're going to be at a disadvantage. I'm not sure that many people are paying for Stadia to play fast-paced shooters online, though, but I could be wrong. Most of the talk is about how that 40ms of input lag affects even single player games. Some people may not notice it, but others may, depending on how sensitive they are to it and how fast-paced the game is.

 

[syz]

I've always had a hard time fathoming this as a problem as I don't really play multiplayer games anymore but during some formative gaming years in high school I do remember playing games such as Quake 3 with like 250ms ping times.

I played Quake 3 competitively and there was a noticeable difference between an average 40-50 server ping and a 0-10 ping on LAN.

Something else to keep in mind with games now is that there's a cumulative effect going on. A lot of modern displays have input delay, wireless peripherals have input delay, being connected to a server or another player has input delay. Destiny 2 isn't as precise of a game as Quake 3, but it's already at ~80 frames of delay locally compared to ~160 streamed on Stadia. Again, depends on the game and depends on the person, but more people will notice the higher the number goes. Stadia was being pitched to the sort of crowd that tore Street Fighter V apart when it launched with 8 frames (8/60ths of a second) of local input delay. I'm not surprised that those people don't seem interested.

Lack of players on the platform will also probably compound the issue as well, depending on what happens with cross-play. At the moment if you wanna play MK11 or Destiny 2 or Samsho you have to play it against other Stadia players, of which there probably aren't many who are close to you, so your ping is gonna suck even before considering any streaming latency.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Stadia marketed PERFECTLY to me. I don't have a console but I used to be a big-time gamer. Kept my PC up-to-date as long as I could, but unfortunately, I would've had to dish away $500 to be able to play BL3. To me, it was simple math. And on my 120 Mbps connection in Montreal, the service runs flawlessly. In the meantime, I got FF to keep me going (using my Google Play credits) until Cyberpunk comes out. It's an epic win for me. As a 33 year old, there's no way I can justify spending $500+ on a console, nor do I have any interest in doing so.

For my needs, Stadia gets a A.

I'm happy you are enjoying it. If it works for you, great!


Unfortunately, this is not the case for a lot of people and their advertisements require quite a few of these bad boys: "****" In particular, the 4K 60 FPS only applies to a couple games at this point, and the "no console" pitch is a bit of a misnomer since you still need a CCU (or other hardware). If you don't already have that, a hardware purchase is still required. It is also highly dependent on god-tier internet with a good response time to your closest Google server.


It's obviously stumbled out of the gate at launch and has a long way to go. Not entirely unexpected, but I am surprised at how low those numbers are.


Side note: You can get consoles for significantly less than $500 (example: you can get an Xbox One S All Digital for ~$250 right now, PS4 Slim for ~$350 with games, and Switch for ~$400), although we are at the end of a generation this year as well.

Forgive my ignorance, but don't all new generation consoles also force you to pay to access online service? Also, I can pay with Google Play credits, which I get by doing Google Play Rewards for free.

EDIT: I just checked, it's $60 for Xbox and $50 for PlayStation. So your math doesn't totally work out. Stadia still remains cheaper over the long-run, and once you've purchased your new console in six years, Stadia is the clear victor. Obviously it has to last that long, but if it does, there should theoretically never be a reason to upgrade.

Quick note on this: the console subscription services are only if you want to play online games. If you play single player or local multiplayer, there is no reason to purchase the subscriptions (outside of the monthly offering of free games, I suppose). Comparing it to Stadia Pro (is that what it's called?) is sort of apples to oranges, and dependent on use case.

 

[RandV]

I played Quake 3 competitively and there was a noticeable difference between an average 40-50 server ping and a 0-10 ping on LAN.

Something else to keep in mind with games now is that there's a cumulative effect going on. A lot of modern displays have input delay, wireless peripherals have input delay, being connected to a server or another player has input delay. Destiny 2 isn't as precise of a game as Quake 3, but it's already at ~80 frames of delay locally compared to ~160 streamed on Stadia. Again, depends on the game and depends on the person, but more people will notice the higher the number goes. Stadia was being pitched to the sort of crowd that tore Street Fighter V apart when it launched with 8 frames (8/60ths of a second) of local input delay. I'm not surprised that those people don't seem interested.

Lack of players on the platform will also probably compound the issue as well, depending on what happens with cross-play. At the moment if you wanna play MK11 or Destiny 2 or Samsho you have to play it against other Stadia players, of which there probably aren't many who are close to you, so your ping is gonna suck even before considering any streaming latency.

I say this half jokingly but I've always had the suspicion that a lot of this performance talk from gamers is akin to pretentious New York art snob-types bs'ing about fine art. Maybe I'm just a dullard for these things since I primarily play single player games on outdated hardware (finally built a new PC last year though to catch up a bit) but I'll never not be at least a little skeptical and suspicious.

 

[syz]

I say this half jokingly but I've always had the suspicion that a lot of this performance talk from gamers is akin to pretentious New York art snob-types bs'ing about fine art. Maybe I'm just a dullard for these things since I primarily play single player games on outdated hardware (finally built a new PC last year though to catch up a bit) but I'll never not be at least a little skeptical and suspicious.

Only if fine art involved empirical math.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Yikes... it really starts at 2:24.