Google Stadia Review: Good, But Unfinished - MMORPG.com

System

Google Stadia Review: Good, But Unfinished - MMORPG.com

What would gaming be if we removed the need for expensive hardware? That’s the question Google set out to answer with Google Stadia. It did so with a bold promise: cloud-based gaming that would completely remove the need to buy into expensive hardware cycles. Did they succeed? We’ve spent the last few days putting the Stadia through its paces to find out exactly that. Let’s find out.

Read the full story here

Tiller

I read they panicked and added 10 more games.

Sovrath

So one needs to use "some type" of controller for a pc game?

Albatroes

Google always the innovator.....introducing Early Access 'consoles'

Aeander

And the world collectively asks "who is this even for?"

halfmystic

Aeander said:

And the world collectively asks "who is this even for?"

Nah, just the bandwagoning douchey-side of the internet. 10 popular people hating cloud gaming service, everyone and their brother joins in.

Google is actually taking a step forward in furthering technology. Cloud Gaming, and platforms in general, are what everyone is going to be using eventually. If you think otherwise, you're joking yourself.  ISPs just over the past 10 years are gotten MASSIVELY better in speeds. Data caps are a thing, yes, but as soon as the infrastructure gets better, you'll be seeing less of that as well.

This is similar to the days when smartphones were starting to become a thing - everyone was saying it was stupid to have a touch screen and no one will like it, and here we are.


Get off the high horse, you're gonna break your neck.

halfmystic

Arterius said:

halfmystic said:

Aeander said:

And the world collectively asks "who is this even for?"

Nah, just the bandwagoning douchey-side of the internet. 10 popular people hating cloud gaming service, everyone any their brother joins in.

Google is actually taking a step forward in furthering technology. Cloud Gaming, and platforms in general, are what everyone is going to be using eventually. If you think otherwise, you're joking yourself. Internet speeds just over the past 10 years are gotten MASSIVELY better in speeds. Data caps are a thing, yes, but as soon as the infrastructure gets better, you'll be seeing less of that as well.

This is similar to the days when smartphones were starting to become a thing - everyone was saying it was stupid to have a touch screen and no one will like it, and here we are.


Get off the high horse, you're gonna break your neck.

I agree with you but it is much to early for that. Even my family in California  don't have good enough internet to use Stadia. I think Google will drop this in a year tops. I think Microsoft and Sony will be the ones to make true cloud gaming a success.

It also says something when Microsoft and Sony say they are excited to see how Google Stadia does and they are excited for it over all but they are not worried about. Why? In there studies they have found that streaming games won't be reliable for gaming for at least 4 years or more.

Google is starting to make a believer out of me with the Pixel - it's a well made phone with stock Android that they haven't abandoned even after backlash. I believe this is going to follow suit. There's going to be a lot of backlash, people will trash it and eventually, it's going to be great. It's pretty great right now if you value the ease of use like I do.


But very possible, as with most things in life, it'll get better over time. 4 years is a joke compared to the life-span of the PS4 who still gets sub 30 FPS on most games.

Good input btw! ( not sarcasm, I appreciate thought-out replies to forum posts, it's refreshing. )

Gutlard

Data Caps put this as a non-contest no buy for me. Will that issue be resolved? Who can say? My services haven't improved in years, but the prices keep going up, and I'm not getting too many options in my area.

When that issue 'goes away' then I'll check it out.

Thanks, Ajit. :P

Gut Out!

halfmystic

Arterius said:

halfmystic said:

Arterius said:

halfmystic said:

Aeander said:

And the world collectively asks "who is this even for?"

Nah, just the bandwagoning douchey-side of the internet. 10 popular people hating cloud gaming service, everyone any their brother joins in.

Google is actually taking a step forward in furthering technology. Cloud Gaming, and platforms in general, are what everyone is going to be using eventually. If you think otherwise, you're joking yourself. Internet speeds just over the past 10 years are gotten MASSIVELY better in speeds. Data caps are a thing, yes, but as soon as the infrastructure gets better, you'll be seeing less of that as well.

This is similar to the days when smartphones were starting to become a thing - everyone was saying it was stupid to have a touch screen and no one will like it, and here we are.


Get off the high horse, you're gonna break your neck.

I agree with you but it is much to early for that. Even my family in California  don't have good enough internet to use Stadia. I think Google will drop this in a year tops. I think Microsoft and Sony will be the ones to make true cloud gaming a success.

It also says something when Microsoft and Sony say they are excited to see how Google Stadia does and they are excited for it over all but they are not worried about. Why? In there studies they have found that streaming games won't be reliable for gaming for at least 4 years or more.

Google is starting to make a believer out of me with the Pixel - it's a well made phone with stock Android that they haven't abandoned even after backlash. I believe this is going to follow suit. There's going to be a lot of backlash, people will trash it and eventually, it's going to be great. It's pretty great right now if you value the ease of use like I do.


But very possible, as with most things in life, it'll get better over time. 4 years is a joke compared to the life-span of the PS4 who still gets sub 30 FPS on most games.

Good input btw!

I could be wrong and if I am that would be cool. I live in a small town in South Dakota. So small you probably wouldn't even find it on a map. So odds are Google Stadia will never be for me. I may not have a data cap but my streaming capabilities are non existent. I can barely stream a Netflix show at 1080p,

Saying that I think it says a lot that Microsoft has said there will be a console after the Scarlett and Playstation has locked down the copyright for up to PlayStation 8. Even Microsoft and Sony realize that even when game streaming is possible that more then likely they will have to keep making consoles. Even if you can only buy games digitally at that point. 

Streaming video games will get to the point that it is feasible for a good chunk at some point but its going to be forever before everyone can stream video games. I mean who knows how long it will take before my small town will get the capabilities to do so,

Yeah, I'll concede that it's definitely not for everyone. People is rural areas are going to have a hard time. Even Playstation Now suffers a lot and that's been out for 5 years or something. 


But Sony never really put their backs into it until recently, and even though Microsoft put their hat into the ring, they don't even come close to Google's vast amounts of data centers - there's just no comparison. In my eyes, I believe the company with the best shot of making this work will be Google from now until it's apex, and they will stay on top in the cloud until most devs jump onboard.


I believe in 5 years, you'll see Google Stadia as a serious contender for your money..Well, until Steam pushes out their cloud service. Then Stadia will probably be shot dead if they allow you to use your steam library in the cloud.

That'd be a big ole yikes for Stadia.

maskedweasel

Arterius said:

halfmystic said:

Arterius said:

halfmystic said:

Aeander said:

And the world collectively asks "who is this even for?"

Nah, just the bandwagoning douchey-side of the internet. 10 popular people hating cloud gaming service, everyone any their brother joins in.

Google is actually taking a step forward in furthering technology. Cloud Gaming, and platforms in general, are what everyone is going to be using eventually. If you think otherwise, you're joking yourself. Internet speeds just over the past 10 years are gotten MASSIVELY better in speeds. Data caps are a thing, yes, but as soon as the infrastructure gets better, you'll be seeing less of that as well.

This is similar to the days when smartphones were starting to become a thing - everyone was saying it was stupid to have a touch screen and no one will like it, and here we are.


Get off the high horse, you're gonna break your neck.

I agree with you but it is much to early for that. Even my family in California  don't have good enough internet to use Stadia. I think Google will drop this in a year tops. I think Microsoft and Sony will be the ones to make true cloud gaming a success.

It also says something when Microsoft and Sony say they are excited to see how Google Stadia does and they are excited for it over all but they are not worried about. Why? In there studies they have found that streaming games won't be reliable for gaming for at least 4 years or more.

Google is starting to make a believer out of me with the Pixel - it's a well made phone with stock Android that they haven't abandoned even after backlash. I believe this is going to follow suit. There's going to be a lot of backlash, people will trash it and eventually, it's going to be great. It's pretty great right now if you value the ease of use like I do.


But very possible, as with most things in life, it'll get better over time. 4 years is a joke compared to the life-span of the PS4 who still gets sub 30 FPS on most games.

Good input btw!

I could be wrong and if I am that would be cool. I live in a small town in South Dakota. So small you probably wouldn't even find it on a map. So odds are Google Stadia will never be for me. I may not have a data cap but my streaming capabilities are non existent. I can barely stream a Netflix show at 1080p,

Saying that I think it says a lot that Microsoft has said there will be a console after the Scarlett and Playstation has locked down the copyright for up to PlayStation 8. Even Microsoft and Sony realize that even when game streaming is possible that more then likely they will have to keep making consoles. Even if you can only buy games digitally at that point. 

Streaming video games will get to the point that it is feasible for a good chunk at some point but its going to be forever before everyone can stream video games. I mean who knows how long it will take before my small town will get the capabilities to do so,

Microsoft making consoles doesn't necessarily mean that microsoft is making high powered consoles.  Both Sony and MS have their toes in the GAAS pie, and it's highly likely we'll see more of this as time goes on.  The fact is though, we're just not there yet with our infrastructure. While I have great internet where I am, fiber connection 1GBPS, no data caps... many people can't get anything close to that where they are. 


That being said though, we're getting closer to a time where connection speed won't be an issue, so these preliminary devices and services will only get better.  

For gamers, it's best not to be resistant to change. We all cried foul when games went from subscription to free 2 play. Then we railed against cash shops.  

Now the biggest argument is... whether the free 2 play is generous enough and whether the cash shops are not pay 2 win but still worth spending money on.

Quizzical

Flops are cheap.  Bandwidth is expensive.  That's just the way that the universe works.  While streaming will improve as time passes, so will rendering games locally.  The intrinsic hardware costs of streaming at a given quality will always be much greater than the intrinsic hardware costs of rendering a game locally at equivalent quality.  That's what Stadia has to try to overcome, and that's why I'd bet against them.

Plenty of phones today are already more powerful than a PlayStation 3 or an Xbox 360.  It won't be long before they're more powerful than a Nintendo Switch, too.  If you think that Google Stadia will end up being built into televisions, I'd question why, when it's so cheap to build more gaming power than a Switch has into the television.

I see three ways that Stadia or something like it could become something more than a minor niche:
1)  The market for gaming becomes dominated by the sort of short-sighted idiots who buy stuff like rent-to-own furniture.
2)  People predominantly decide that avoiding the initial download times of games is worth the extra cost and inferior experience.
3)  A lot of games move to full ray-tracing, radically changing the balance of local compute to streaming bandwidth.

Aeander

Gutlard said:

Data Caps put this as a non-contest no buy for me. Will that issue be resolved? Who can say? My services haven't improved in years, but the prices keep going up, and I'm not getting too many options in my area.

When that issue 'goes away' then I'll check it out.

Thanks, Ajit. :P

Gut Out!

Ajit has data if you have coin.

halfmystic

Quizzical said:

Flops are cheap.  Bandwidth is expensive.  That's just the way that the universe works.  While streaming will improve as time passes, so will rendering games locally.  The intrinsic hardware costs of streaming at a given quality will always be much greater than the intrinsic hardware costs of rendering a game locally at equivalent quality.  That's what Stadia has to try to overcome, and that's why I'd bet against them.

Plenty of phones today are already more powerful than a PlayStation 3 or an Xbox 360.  It won't be long before they're more powerful than a Nintendo Switch, too.  If you think that Google Stadia will end up being built into televisions, I'd question why, when it's so cheap to build more gaming power than a Switch has into the television.

I see three ways that Stadia or something like it could become something more than a minor niche:
1)  The market for gaming becomes dominated by the sort of short-sighted idiots who buy stuff like rent-to-own furniture.
2)  People predominantly decide that avoiding the initial download times of games is worth the extra cost and inferior experience.
3)  A lot of games move to full ray-tracing, radically changing the balance of local compute to streaming bandwidth.

1)    While rent-to-own furniture is indeed stupid, that doesn't really apply here. Online games aren't able to do a lot of things development wise due to the limitations of local hardware. Stadia also aims to tackle that short-sight. Also silly reference because 1080p streaming is free so.. what?

2)   See my second point in 1.

3) Pretty sure the ray-tracing gets done on the data-center's side, you just get the streamed output - it's not like the resolution changes so at most you'd get compression. This is a weird thing to point out.


Weird flexes on your part.

Gutlard

Aeander said:

Gutlard said:

Data Caps put this as a non-contest no buy for me. Will that issue be resolved? Who can say? My services haven't improved in years, but the prices keep going up, and I'm not getting too many options in my area.

When that issue 'goes away' then I'll check it out.

Thanks, Ajit. :P

Gut Out!

Ajit has data if you have coin.

Gotta keep that big coffee cup of gamer tears full somehow. 

Gut Out!

joewolf79

Well I find this idea appealing, I've been dreaming of a future where our gaming setup is just a terminal since cable internet became a thing. I really hope it doesn't bomb. I honestly have no idea how much of the US is like my little chunk, but there's no way it's going to be viable here right now. I live in the midwest, but not the boonies. I'm actually right near a military base and a college. Yet income is low for most of us, cable bills are up to $150 a month for just the first 2 tiers of tv and mid tier internet, and they have data caps. And this thing needs a smartphone to work too? I won't pretend like most people don't have one, but here they all use GSM, which gets about one bar of signal. Plenty of people run around here with their fancy phones complaining about being unable to actually use them. If you want a phone that actually works here you need to get a $20 CDMA clamshell. Hopefully this isn't too common in the US, but given some of the many discussions I've seen over the years I'm worried it is.

SplitStream13

halfmystic said:

Aeander said:

And the world collectively asks "who is this even for?"

Nah, just the bandwagoning douchey-side of the internet. 10 popular people hating cloud gaming service, everyone and their brother joins in.



Google is actually taking a step forward in furthering technology. Cloud Gaming, and platforms in general, are what everyone is going to be using eventually. If you think otherwise, you're joking yourself.  ISPs just over the past 10 years are gotten MASSIVELY better in speeds. Data caps are a thing, yes, but as soon as the infrastructure gets better, you'll be seeing less of that as well.



This is similar to the days when smartphones were starting to become a thing - everyone was saying it was stupid to have a touch screen and no one will like it, and here we are.





Get off the high horse, you're gonna break your neck.

I'm guessing you weren't born when OnLive tried the same thing. Also Sony. Actually I think Sony still has the service up. You know, this fad never caught up, lol.

Talking about getting off of the high horse. Oh the irony.

Gdemami

joewolf79 said:

Well I find this idea appealing, I've been dreaming of a future where our gaming setup is just a terminal since cable internet became a thing. I really hope it doesn't bomb. I honestly have no idea how much of the US is like my little chunk, but there's no way it's going to be viable here right now. I live in the midwest, but not the boonies. I'm actually right near a military base and a college. Yet income is low for most of us, cable bills are up to $150 a month for just the first 2 tiers of tv and mid tier internet, and they have data caps. And this thing needs a smartphone to work too? I won't pretend like most people don't have one, but here they all use GSM, which gets about one bar of signal. Plenty of people run around here with their fancy phones complaining about being unable to actually use them. If you want a phone that actually works here you need to get a $20 CDMA clamshell. Hopefully this isn't too common in the US, but given some of the many discussions I've seen over the years I'm worried it is.

Starlink, OneWeb.

The former is supposed to launch commercially next year, providing broadband services over US, the latter is scheduled for 2021.

halfmystic

SplitStream13 said:

halfmystic said:

Aeander said:

And the world collectively asks "who is this even for?"

Nah, just the bandwagoning douchey-side of the internet. 10 popular people hating cloud gaming service, everyone and their brother joins in.



Google is actually taking a step forward in furthering technology. Cloud Gaming, and platforms in general, are what everyone is going to be using eventually. If you think otherwise, you're joking yourself.  ISPs just over the past 10 years are gotten MASSIVELY better in speeds. Data caps are a thing, yes, but as soon as the infrastructure gets better, you'll be seeing less of that as well.



This is similar to the days when smartphones were starting to become a thing - everyone was saying it was stupid to have a touch screen and no one will like it, and here we are.





Get off the high horse, you're gonna break your neck.

I'm guessing you weren't born when OnLive tried the same thing. Also Sony. Actually I think Sony still has the service up. You know, this fad never caught up, lol.

Talking about getting off of the high horse. Oh the irony.




I am 100% sure I'm older than most people on this forum and yes, I was around in OnLive. Sony has their service still alive, it's called Playstation Now - good minimal effort in your research.

Quizzical

halfmystic said:

Quizzical said:

Flops are cheap.  Bandwidth is expensive.  That's just the way that the universe works.  While streaming will improve as time passes, so will rendering games locally.  The intrinsic hardware costs of streaming at a given quality will always be much greater than the intrinsic hardware costs of rendering a game locally at equivalent quality.  That's what Stadia has to try to overcome, and that's why I'd bet against them.

Plenty of phones today are already more powerful than a PlayStation 3 or an Xbox 360.  It won't be long before they're more powerful than a Nintendo Switch, too.  If you think that Google Stadia will end up being built into televisions, I'd question why, when it's so cheap to build more gaming power than a Switch has into the television.

I see three ways that Stadia or something like it could become something more than a minor niche:
1)  The market for gaming becomes dominated by the sort of short-sighted idiots who buy stuff like rent-to-own furniture.
2)  People predominantly decide that avoiding the initial download times of games is worth the extra cost and inferior experience.
3)  A lot of games move to full ray-tracing, radically changing the balance of local compute to streaming bandwidth.

1)    While rent-to-own furniture is indeed stupid, that doesn't really apply here. Online games aren't able to do a lot of things development wise due to the limitations of local hardware. Stadia also aims to tackle that short-sight. Also silly reference because 1080p streaming is free so.. what?

2)   See my second point in 1.

3) Pretty sure the ray-tracing gets done on the data-center's side, you just get the streamed output - it's not like the resolution changes so at most you'd get compression. This is a weird thing to point out.


Weird flexes on your part.

On (1) and (2), I'm not talking about the cost to consumers.  I'm talking about the cost to provide the service.  A company may be willing to operate at a loss for a while to try to gain market share, but they're not going to do that forever.  One way or another, costs of doing business will eventually be passed on to the consumer.  If it's much cheaper to provide a given service via method A than method B, then method A will eventually win out.

On (3), my point is that for rasterized graphics, you can do that cheaply on the client, which makes it dumb to stream it in most cases.  If the graphics are fully ray-traced in real time, then you can't do that cheaply on the client, so moving it to the data center via something like Stadia makes more sense.

Quizzical

DMKano said:

Arterius said:

According to IGN's review 1 hr = 10GB when streaming. If you have a data cap then Google Stadia is not for you

10 gigabytes in 1 hour = 8 megabytes per second 

8MB = 67.1 megabits per second

67Mbps is pretty high - how many people dont even have 50Mbps internet service?

Meanwhile, my monitor cables will transfer 10 GB in about two seconds.  To spread that same bandwidth over an hour is going to be some really lossy compression.

Realistically, it's probably delta compression, which is what other thin clients commonly do.  So long as the image doesn't change much from one frame to the next, it looks more or less fine.  If you try to rotate the camera, then things fall apart.

ChildoftheShadows

halfmystic said:

Arterius said:

halfmystic said:

Arterius said:

halfmystic said:

Aeander said:

And the world collectively asks "who is this even for?"

Nah, just the bandwagoning douchey-side of the internet. 10 popular people hating cloud gaming service, everyone any their brother joins in.

Google is actually taking a step forward in furthering technology. Cloud Gaming, and platforms in general, are what everyone is going to be using eventually. If you think otherwise, you're joking yourself. Internet speeds just over the past 10 years are gotten MASSIVELY better in speeds. Data caps are a thing, yes, but as soon as the infrastructure gets better, you'll be seeing less of that as well.

This is similar to the days when smartphones were starting to become a thing - everyone was saying it was stupid to have a touch screen and no one will like it, and here we are.


Get off the high horse, you're gonna break your neck.

I agree with you but it is much to early for that. Even my family in California  don't have good enough internet to use Stadia. I think Google will drop this in a year tops. I think Microsoft and Sony will be the ones to make true cloud gaming a success.

It also says something when Microsoft and Sony say they are excited to see how Google Stadia does and they are excited for it over all but they are not worried about. Why? In there studies they have found that streaming games won't be reliable for gaming for at least 4 years or more.

Google is starting to make a believer out of me with the Pixel - it's a well made phone with stock Android that they haven't abandoned even after backlash. I believe this is going to follow suit. There's going to be a lot of backlash, people will trash it and eventually, it's going to be great. It's pretty great right now if you value the ease of use like I do.


But very possible, as with most things in life, it'll get better over time. 4 years is a joke compared to the life-span of the PS4 who still gets sub 30 FPS on most games.

Good input btw!

I could be wrong and if I am that would be cool. I live in a small town in South Dakota. So small you probably wouldn't even find it on a map. So odds are Google Stadia will never be for me. I may not have a data cap but my streaming capabilities are non existent. I can barely stream a Netflix show at 1080p,

Saying that I think it says a lot that Microsoft has said there will be a console after the Scarlett and Playstation has locked down the copyright for up to PlayStation 8. Even Microsoft and Sony realize that even when game streaming is possible that more then likely they will have to keep making consoles. Even if you can only buy games digitally at that point. 

Streaming video games will get to the point that it is feasible for a good chunk at some point but its going to be forever before everyone can stream video games. I mean who knows how long it will take before my small town will get the capabilities to do so,

Yeah, I'll concede that it's definitely not for everyone. People is rural areas are going to have a hard time. Even Playstation Now suffers a lot and that's been out for 5 years or something. 


But Sony never really put their backs into it until recently, and even though Microsoft put their hat into the ring, they don't even come close to Google's vast amounts of data centers - there's just no comparison. In my eyes, I believe the company with the best shot of making this work will be Google from now until it's apex, and they will stay on top in the cloud until most devs jump onboard.


I believe in 5 years, you'll see Google Stadia as a serious contender for your money..Well, until Steam pushes out their cloud service. Then Stadia will probably be shot dead if they allow you to use your steam library in the cloud.

That'd be a big ole yikes for Stadia.

If you think steam can compete with Google’s infrastructure you’re lost. Games are not an issue. They can buy games or by rights to stream games, but valve will play hell to compete with infrastructure. 

Mykell

DMKano said:

Arterius said:

According to IGN's review 1 hr = 10GB when streaming. If you have a data cap then Google Stadia is not for you

10 gigabytes in 1 hour = 8 megabytes per second 

8MB = 67.1 megabits per second

67Mbps is pretty high - how many people dont even have 50Mbps internet service?

People? How about whole countries. Australia just build a "world class" national broadband service and it turned out to be a turkey (that cost billions). Also the future will need internet that can stream Netflix/Disney/Apple while streaming games at the same time so you will need to be able to run 2 bandwidth sucking services simultaneously. Good luck with that.

I just don't see how this can be successful in the short term since its going to have limited appeal world wide until the infrastructure is built. Then there is the question whether a huge gaming market like China would even allow Google to operate in their country without handing over significant control to them (of which i have no doubt they would for the right price).

I think what is happening here is everyone wants to be "first" as they see you can be the dominant player ala Netflix in the market and everyone else has to play catch up. Google has the cash to back a venture like this for who knows how long in the hopes if it ever takes off they will be the first to take advantage of it.

rojoArcueid

I'm a simple man, you take away my consumer choice and you'll never see another dollar from me.

Stadia is taking hardware, physical game collection, ownership, DRM-free downloads, offline gameplay, etc, away from people. And still it will be very expensive in the long run while giving you nothing in return, it's all borrowed.

Google wants to offer a streaming only option and that's fine for those who don't care about losing everything i mentioned above. But Google never should claim that will be the future. That future will only exist for those willing to lose everything, including their money.

Just my thoughts on this whole streaming-only thing.

Gdemami

rojoArcueid said:

I'm a simple man, you take away my consumer choice and you'll never see another dollar from me.

Stadia is taking hardware, physical game collection, ownership, DRM-free downloads, offline gameplay, etc, away from people. And still it will be very expensive in the long run while giving you nothing in return, it's all borrowed.

Google wants to offer a streaming only option and that's fine for those who don't care about losing everything i mentioned above. But Google never should claim that will be the future. That future will only exist for those willing to lose everything, including their money.

Just my thoughts on this whole streaming-only thing.

I suggest you deviler your next post in person to mmorpg.com site admins....you know, physical collection, hardware, ownership, etc...

maskedweasel

rojoArcueid said:

I'm a simple man, you take away my consumer choice and you'll never see another dollar from me.

Stadia is taking hardware, physical game collection, ownership, DRM-free downloads, offline gameplay, etc, away from people. And still it will be very expensive in the long run while giving you nothing in return, it's all borrowed.

Google wants to offer a streaming only option and that's fine for those who don't care about losing everything i mentioned above. But Google never should claim that will be the future. That future will only exist for those willing to lose everything, including their money.

Just my thoughts on this whole streaming-only thing.

Most of us have libraries of things that we never play. Plus there's all the costs of hardware, upgrades, hardware degradation, sometimes, people just want to play without worrying about any of that stuff.   You're not losing a bunch of stuff, you're gaining what you want when you want it, and leaving out the waste.  

There may be a time when streaming like this is just way more convenient.  We're not there right now, but we may be there soon.  

I can see myself pulling out a controller and a pair of glasses to play any game I want, anywhere, streamed through a wifi or 5G connection, rather than having to make sure I have a 6 lb laptop with me or being tied to my home pc.

Not saying we'll see it quite like that in the next few years, but we will get there one day.

IceAge

DMKano said:

Arterius said:

According to IGN's review 1 hr = 10GB when streaming. If you have a data cap then Google Stadia is not for you

10 gigabytes in 1 hour = 8 megabytes per second 

8MB = 67.1 megabits per second

67Mbps is pretty high - how many people dont even have 50Mbps internet service?

10GB per hour, they surely played Max Settings ( 4K ). If you want to watch a 4K movie online ( streamed ) how much bandwidth do you thing you'll consume ?

Here : 

• Low quality video is very low-quality. think 240p or 320p. Low-quality settings will use about 0.3GB (300MB) per hour.
• SD quality video is standard 480p video. SD-quality video uses about 0.7GB (700MB) per hour.
• HD quality video is between 720p and 2K (remember, the app adjusts the stream). HD-quality video uses about 0.9GB (720p), 1.5GB (1080p) and 3GB (2K) per hour.
• UHD quality video uses a lot of data. A 4K stream uses about 7.2GB per hour.

I swear some of you act like you are some beginners yet, you are lurking the internet and forums since "forever" .

If you are against Stadia, then you are against everything which includes "Online Streaming" : Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc. 

If people can afford to watch 1080p or 4K online, then they are good with Stadia.