Google Stadia

Nope, it's a streaming service. You need to supply your own box.

Well this is a load of wank dreamed up by some distruptive innovators in urban California who can't comprehend that there are people who can't use Internet-based services. Sweet Jim Sterling that's a bad controller. Yup, this is going to be abandoned in a few years.

But on the plus side, a lot of people are (ironically?) hoping for a 1983-style crash to bring down the AAA developers. If GaaS really is successful, that actually starts to look plausible.

Wait, what's GaaS?

And you think we'll see another crash a la the 1983 one on the more than off-chance the Stadia crashes and burns? Could it make EA eat humble pie?

Games as a Service.

Basically, any game where adding additional content to keep players coming back and/or bringing in new players.

This can extent to practically any multiplayer shooter, MMO, or any game with constant DLC (free or paid)

Also, we aren't to the point where a crash will be caused by a new company on the market.

Edited by tclittle on Mar 19th 2019 at 12:31:28 PM

Ars tries Google Stadia hands on.

As much as I despise companies like EA and think the world would be better off without them, the Stadia is still trying to sell games on an internet connection with no killer apps, no owning of games, etc. The only way this works is if they price themselves so low it undercuts everyone else, and even then, you still need a Switch to play Mario.

Oh my god, that's right...

People are going to be sorely disappointed when they realize this "play a game just by watching gameplay of it on YouTube" idea probably won't apply to Nintendo games. And by proxy, it won't apply to PlayStation exclusive games either.

Whoops.

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Mar 20th 2019 at 8:16:06 AM

Honestly for me the "What about slow internet" thing is the least of it. Like, Google has probably already taken that into account and accept that their clientele will be urban people.

No, the more terrifying thing is what if this takes off? Coz consider that AAA publishers won't be making 60$ a sale on this. They'll be making whatever share of your subscription fee google decides to give them. So the games for the Stadia, if AAA Publishers have any say, will be even MORE crippled with microtransactions. Think the worst excesses of Free to Play games, and now picture them as done by say Activision or EA (Remember Dungeon Keeper mobile? Imagine that shit on an AAA game).

And best part for the AAA publishers is how you can't go "But I paid for the game already!". No, you paid for the service the game is on. And make no mistake, that's all gonna be a feature when Google tries to court AAA Publishers.

Not specifically. The Stadia failing won't bring down the industry. What I imagine could possibly happen is that the rest of the industry follows the GaaS model, with streaming instead of physical or digital sales. EA really wants that to happen, and Ubisoft and Capcom are enthusiastic. Microsoft will jump on board (indeed I think XCloud is an attempt at the same idea), and Sony will also embrace what looks like the future. Nintendo will incorporate GaaS, but they'll still focus on unit sales because they're more conservative.

Then fragmentation and multiple streaming tiers happen, as we're seeing with video streaming. People are spending the equivalent of a new console every few months just to keep up with all the different streaming platforms. As Ghilz points out, microtransactions become standard. Games keep vanishing off streaming services only to pop up on others, and some vanish into the aether when the license expires or the company goes out of business. Developers push their games to every-more intense graphics, meaning that only people with like quantum fibre connections can actually play the games at a reasonable speed.

Eventually, people say "screw this" and abandon streaming. The market crashes. Google abandons streaming like they have so many other things. Microsoft may well ditch the gaming market altogether to focus on operating systems and productivity. Sony will at the very least have to do some sort of corporate restructuring. Nintendo is bruised but survives by doing what they've always done. Coleco, having carved out a niche in 2D handheld consoles, sees a gap in the market and, rising from the ashes like a phoenix, makes a new home gaming console to compete directly with Nintendo.

Here are some hot takes.

Shane and Adam at Rerez are sceptical as ever, pointing out all the flaws.

Spawnwave is more positive but still suspicious

And RGT 85 is just plain unimpressed

Edited by VampireBuddha on Mar 20th 2019 at 1:40:48 PM

Sony already has. Playstation Now exists.

Considering how their Retro VGS failed to make a console (Let alone make a failed console like the Ouya), now you're outright writing fiction. The new Coleco was a confidence scheme.

Edited by Ghilz on Mar 20th 2019 at 10:19:54 AM

I’m pretty sure the Coleco thing was sarcasm.

Google executives claim that this thing will be more powerful than the One X and PS 4 Pro combined.

And it’s like “great, but the majority of Midwest states aren’t wired for FIOS. If your fancy pants console is useless outside urban centers, it’s not going to sell.”

You'd have thought that Google, with all their data points, R&D etc would have spotted that.

This thing screams Xbox always online fracas all over again. But for some reason "streaming" seems to get a pass.

The sheer level of impracticality here is astounding. I mean, I'd love to be able to play some games on my phone or tablet if I can't be on my TV. But if I'm commuting? Nope, not a chance in hell. Can't on work wifi.

And at home? My virgin media speeds are more up and down than a City trader on coke. The worry here is if this becomes industry "standard" despite impracticality. I doubt it WOULD (As people would just stop using it if it doesn't work)

But it could influence more subscription style models.

The midwest states are also a drop in the ocean compared to larger urban centres in terms of population.

Heck, the top played games right now are all things that require robust internet connections (Battle Royales, for example). If your console is aimed at the same kind of crowd, I can see it happening. Though I have a ton of doubt about anything run by google. Their support tends to be fucking awful.

Like I said, I'm more worried what this means if it does take off.

Google Plus, anyone? Google Wave?

Hell, they sold off Boston Dynamics as they hadn't a clue how to really use it.

I don't think even US urban infrastructure is stable enough for this. Not with the Verizon or AT&Ts out there looking to squeeze the market.

the stadia is a console for rich people who don't like owning their content

Microsoft is going big at E3 in response to Google Stadia.

I saw a comment elsewhere on the Internet that Stadia will appeal to people who can't afford it and be dismissed by people who can afford it.

There is such a big difference between playing online and streaming a whole high end game that this comparison is silly. Sure you need a good internet to play Fortnite, but you still have the have installed on your high end computer already.

This is why I focused on stability on my post. I have a pretty good Internet connection myself. I still wouldn't trust it to consistently stream the massive volume of data that would be required for the whole gaming session. And from what I hear from done US folks, they wouldn't either, even on Urban center.

I had the same idea. This will appeal to people who cannot afford expensive consoles or full price games, but they won't be able to afford the high speed internet needed, and the people who can will also be able to afford a full console and games, and won't feel the need to use the service.

The net connection bit is definitely a bit iffy, but as long as there's decent quality options it may not be that big of an issue (input lag, though...). I think game selection and price point are more likely to be the major problems. I can't see this taking off at over $20/month, but I'm not sure that'd really be enough to pay for everything? As far as games go, missing more than one or two major publishers could sink the whole thing. If it doesn't have the one game you're really interested in it's easy to let your subscription lapse (and then not renew), after all

Edited by Hylarn on Mar 21st 2019 at 6:24:16 AM

You know, one the one hand, I don't replay games often. I play them once, and then they just end up collecting dust on my shelves.

I really don't like the ideas of streaming games, though. My internet is probably good enough to handle it, but the idea that the games will be entirely lost forever to everyone when the service ends just bugs me. At least with steam, there's always going to be the GOG versions, or pirated copies if it comes to that, to Keep Circulating the Tapes.

Also, I like having that shit on my shelves. That's hours worth of memories.

Edited by Kayeka on Mar 21st 2019 at 3:05:50 PM

Okay, wait, hold on, first of all, how does streaming video games work again?

IIRC, the game is booted up and played through Google's servers and you're streamed a video of you playing the game.

Imagine streaming a game on Twitch, but your TV's off and you're using the stream as your direct feed. Kinda like that, except with less latency (according to Google at least, no idea if that's how it'll pan out in execution.)

...wait, but... so am I playing the game or am I not playing the game?

You're playing the game. But instead of the console doing all the work of running the game, rendering the graphics, and all that, Google's servers do that. They then send the results to your console who only puts it on your TV.

All your console does is gather your inputs and send them to google, and recieve google's outputs and put them on your tv.

Edited by Ghilz on Mar 21st 2019 at 12:24:58 PM

Oh, so it's like Twitch Plays Pokemon but with only one player and much higher bandwidth requirements?

Can't say I'm interested, then, outside of how the gaming scene itself might change if this thing is a success (which seems less and less likely the more I hear about it).