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?
a lot of people have fast internet but there are two big factors to take into consideration for many people. 1) data caps, and 2) everyone else using the internet at home.
If i want to remove my data cap with Comcast to play Stadia I have to pay an additional $30 a month on top of whatever amount the internet bill is. That's $360 in just 1 year not including the actual Stadia sub. And people still think streaming is cheaper than getting the hardware?
Lets say I get rid of all my hardware. If stadia is $10 a month that's $120 a year. 120 for stadia sub + 360 to maintain my internet uncapped the whole year... that's $480 of Stadia a year with no games, and i didn't factor in taxes either.
Google is really putting all their eggs on people not doing their math and finding out how much cheaper it is to own your hardware.
Edit: Even for people with no data caps, by the time you need to replace a
computer part or a console you will have paid the same or more in stadia
sub alone in that amount of time that took you too replace that part.
2 big factors?! Whoever has "data caps" on broadband home internet needs to change his provider. I mean, I really never heard of "data caps" on broadband home internet ever. This is the first time I'm hearing it. We in Europe don't have this shit. On mobile? Yes, home internet ( wire, fiber ) ? Nope.
Everyone else using the internet at home? If everyone is a gamer , watching streams online , etc in your house, then yes, you might have a problem here. But if that's true, you may want to ..take care of your number 1 problem and remove your data cap maybe?
Everything else you've said, and some others in here, makes me thing that if you really have any idea what are you guys talking about. I mean, suddenly , you guys know better then Google right?
Fibre, which has now reached 26% of all fixed broadband subscriptions, is the fastest growing broadband technology, with a growth rate of 13% in 2018 and 16% in the preceding two years. Overall, fixed broadband subscriptions in OECD countries totalled 418 million as of December 2018, up from 406 million a year earlier and averaged 30.9 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. Switzerland still leads the pack with a penetration rate of 46.8 subscriptions per 100 people, followed by Denmark (43.3%), France (43.3%), The Netherlands (43%) and Norway (41.5%).
And that's for OECD countries and in 2018.
Pretty sure we are talking about 1 Bil in world wide by now.
If Stadia ( or similar services ) will fail, will not be because of the internet. Believe it or not, internet will soon be capless. Yes, including the mobile one.
The ISP model assumes that most customers won't use very much bandwidth. If a majority of your customers are using under 100 GB/month, you may be able to just ignore the 1% using over 1 TB per month. If your median customer tried to use several TB per month on existing infrastructure, the system wouldn't be able to handle it, and you'd see some form of data caps and/or throttling show up in a hurry.
And don't think of 10 GB/hour as what game streaming would ideally like to have. Ideally, you'd like to use a lot more bandwidth than that, or at minimum, have it available to spike up quickly when the screen is changing rapidly. That's already scaled way back to reflect the reality that Internet infrastructure just isn't ready for what you'd like to do.
Way to assume that everyone and their mother, will use Stadia
Anyway, you don't get it , do you? Internet Providers will need to adapt, not the other way around. If they don't adapt, there will surely come brand new providers which will advertise unlimited bandwidth "no matter what", and they will take the lead. Exactly what happened with the Internet Speed caps back in the days. They had to increase it to stay competitive.
Same will happen here, when the other big players like Microsoft & Sony, will release their "Stadia" service too.
If today's internet providers will ignore the services such as Stadia and will keep their "data caps", they will be the first to lose in the long term.
I will say it again, you guys are talking like you know better then Google and with no sense of the "future".
I assume you were also against downloadable games back in the early 2000s ? "...but it will take days to download a game and people have bad internet. They will fail." , right?
So long as hardly anyone uses Stadia or anything remotely like it, the system will be fine. If you want to predict that a few years from now, game streaming will account for 1% of gaming, then that won't break infrastructure, but neither will it be anything more than a minor niche.
ISPs absolutely could lay out enough infrastructure to deliver ten times the bandwidth that they do now. The reason that they haven't is that it's expensive to do so. If the median homeowner or tenant in the area were willing to pay $300/month to get a few TB of bandwidth per month, the ISPs would have no problem with scaling up their infrastructure, at least outside of sparsely populated rural areas.
But given the choice between scaling up the ISP infrastructure to handle high quality game streaming being widely used or buying all gamers their own gaming computer (or console, for those who prefer that) to be able to run games locally, the latter would be cheaper. A lot cheaper. So I don't think it makes any sense to argue that the latter is impossible, but the former will just happen on its own.
And as I said, if Stadia and such services will fail, will not be because of the internet, as Internet Providers, if there is demand, will adapt.
Because people will not feel comfortable or it will be cheaper to use the .. current 'system' , yes, it might be a valid reason for such service to .. fail, but not because of the internet.
I still believe that this will be very successfully in say 5 years, but again .. internet will be the last ..thing to make Streaming Games to fail.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
My data cap is 1 tb and with a house of 4 we pretty much almost hit it every month ;\
Don't want to be rude, but .. 4 people using the internet and almost every time you're hitting the cap .. maybe you want to pay a bit extra to remove that cap?
I know, a bit of a jerk move to say that!
Anyway, how much are you guys paying per month just for the internet?
It is waay too much to get unlimited. You are talking 30-40$ more a month.
Fair enough!
Edit: $120 a month for DATA CAPS internet ?! I am currently living in Italy and I pay around 30 euros for 50MBs bandwidth ( with no data caps ) and I find it pretty expensive. Reason why I can get 100MBs or 1GB bandwidth is because I live around 700 meters away from the main street ( and their "hub" ).
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Streaming and games seem to be incompatible things. Streaming is all about pushing content downstream to the local consumer. Games, however, rely on frequent inputs to adjust the content, i.e., doing things from movement to shooting or positioning the mouse or initiating any other action. This data flows upstream, from the client to the provider. Streaming might work for some types of games, but only well for those that allow simplistic inputs. This is more where the network transmission issues mentioned by others would affect a game.
I'm not interested in this type of service, and this particular one lost my business when the sample setup showed a console-type controller.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Streaming and games seem to be incompatible things. Streaming is all about pushing content downstream to the local consumer. Games, however, rely on frequent inputs to adjust the content, i.e., doing things from movement to shooting or positioning the mouse or initiating any other action. This data flows upstream, from the client to the provider. Streaming might work for some types of games, but only well for those that allow simplistic inputs. This is more where the network transmission issues mentioned by others would affect a game.
I'm not interested in this type of service, and this particular one lost my business when the sample setup showed a console-type controller.
Destiny 2 on Stadia would like to have a word with you. And that's a shooter ( FPS ) game where input lag is important.
And keep in mind this is just the beginning and on day 1 launch.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
See, you live in Europe and have no problems with your internet. Here in the US data caps are a huge problem, and even with no data caps internet connection is unreliable in many areas (bad service would be my guess).
Changing providers would always be the best option, if there was a better option. ISPs in the US love to monopolize their areas of coverage, throttle speeds, add data caps to charge more money, and have everyone at their mercy.
I guess we need some of those European consumer laws over here.
That's .. very very weird. Caps on wire internet? DAMN!
I didn't know that internet providers in US added a data cap a few years ago ( as pointed by @maskedweasel ) . Yuck!!
Not going to comment anymore on this lol, as I feel very bad for gamers with data caps!
Anyway, what's the..monthly cap?
I didn't know data caps existed until i moved from New Jersey to Florida and was received with that slap in the face.
My data cap is 1TB/month, i used to hit 800-900mb(GB) in 2 weeks just keeping the games i actively play on PS4 and PC games up to date and ready to play (plus daily internet use on multiple decides). I've been playing only 2 games for the last few months so I haven't updated anything else to try and keep the data available for other things.
EDIT: i hear in Australia people have much much lower caps
That's around 33 GB per day to use.
That's more then enough to hardcore play on Stadia daily on 1080p ! Assuming it will take around 2-3G per hour.
So US customers will be ok even with data caps it seems!
My bad, i meant to say 800-900GB in 2 weeks, not Mega Bytes, i just noticed my error.
And the world collectively asks "who is this even for?"
Me I could buy Red Dead redemption 2 on PC or for Stadia. It might run better on Stadia than my PC and I can play on PC and living room without any issues. Now it comes down to if it works well given my wireless set-up.
I could buy it on Epic. . and still not own the game. Why not stream it? I have no bandwidth limit etc. The biggest issue I see is latency. I will let you know how it turns out.
Also, I could wait for a sale or for it to be added to GamePass sometime. I don't mind risking some money on new things.
My data cap is 1 tb and with a house of 4 we pretty much almost hit it every month ;\
Don't want to be rude, but .. 4 people using the internet and almost every time you're hitting the cap .. maybe you want to pay a bit extra to remove that cap?
I know, a bit of a jerk move to say that!
Anyway, how much are you guys paying per month just for the internet?
It is waay too much to get unlimited. You are talking 30-40$ more a month.
Fair enough!
Edit: $120 a month for DATA CAPS internet ?! I am currently living in Italy and I pay around 30 euros for 50MBs bandwidth ( with no data caps ) and I find it pretty expensive. Reason why I can get 100MBs or 1GB bandwidth is because I live around 700 meters away from the main street ( and their "hub" ).
Internet and it's infrastructure is pretty arsebackwards in all of North America (USA+Canada)and good speeds and decent choice of ISP is not all that. There is lots of empty space aka out in the country here and ISP are loath to upgrade in those area so unless you live in a big city you either have the choice of one ISP offering braodband and very very often none and are still stuck with dsl.
Add to this that Trump and his cronies in the FCC are trying to give ISP's the tools to shaft the average citizen unless they pay out the wazzou or sub to all their service well......hell I think most ISP in the USA do not have any regulation forcing them to sell to TPIA's like here in Canada.
For example I am paying 95$ per month for 60Mbps without a cap and it's not higher because even though there is no other braodband provider in the town I live in we can go to a TPIA if you are willing to put up with the shenaningans the main 3 often cause.
Shite is going to get worse in the USA imo with the BS the FCC is trying to pull, hopefully the states that are suing the FCC will win if not well. lol
You can't really compare where you live since it's relatively tiny compared to NA, hell just the province of Ontario here in Canada is like what 3.6 times bigger than Italy.
The ISP model assumes that most customers won't use very much bandwidth. If a majority of your customers are using under 100 GB/month, you may be able to just ignore the 1% using over 1 TB per month. If your median customer tried to use several TB per month on existing infrastructure, the system wouldn't be able to handle it, and you'd see some form of data caps and/or throttling show up in a hurry.
And don't think of 10 GB/hour as what game streaming would ideally like to have. Ideally, you'd like to use a lot more bandwidth than that, or at minimum, have it available to spike up quickly when the screen is changing rapidly. That's already scaled way back to reflect the reality that Internet infrastructure just isn't ready for what you'd like to do.
Way to assume that everyone and their mother, will use Stadia
Anyway, you don't get it , do you? Internet Providers will need to adapt, not the other way around. If they don't adapt, there will surely come brand new providers which will advertise unlimited bandwidth "no matter what", and they will take the lead. Exactly what happened with the Internet Speed caps back in the days. They had to increase it to stay competitive.
Same will happen here, when the other big players like Microsoft & Sony, will release their "Stadia" service too.
If today's internet providers will ignore the services such as Stadia and will keep their "data caps", they will be the first to lose in the long term.
I will say it again, you guys are talking like you know better then Google and with no sense of the "future".
I assume you were also against downloadable games back in the early 2000s ? "...but it will take days to download a game and people have bad internet. They will fail." , right?
So long as hardly anyone uses Stadia or anything remotely like it, the system will be fine. If you want to predict that a few years from now, game streaming will account for 1% of gaming, then that won't break infrastructure, but neither will it be anything more than a minor niche.
ISPs absolutely could lay out enough infrastructure to deliver ten times the bandwidth that they do now. The reason that they haven't is that it's expensive to do so. If the median homeowner or tenant in the area were willing to pay $300/month to get a few TB of bandwidth per month, the ISPs would have no problem with scaling up their infrastructure, at least outside of sparsely populated rural areas.
But given the choice between scaling up the ISP infrastructure to handle high quality game streaming being widely used or buying all gamers their own gaming computer (or console, for those who prefer that) to be able to run games locally, the latter would be cheaper. A lot cheaper. So I don't think it makes any sense to argue that the latter is impossible, but the former will just happen on its own.
And as I said, if Stadia and such services will fail, will not be because of the internet, as Internet Providers, if there is demand, will adapt.
Because people will not feel comfortable or it will be cheaper to use the .. current 'system' , yes, it might be a valid reason for such service to .. fail, but not because of the internet.
I still believe that this will be very successfully in say 5 years, but again .. internet will be the last ..thing to make Streaming Games to fail.
As with so many other things, the question isn't whether there is demand, but at what price. If most gamers decide that they really like game streaming and are willing to pay a lot more to play games that way than running them locally, then there will be plenty of demand to pay ISPs to build out their networks and support game streaming well.
Conversely, if most gamers decide that game streaming is awful and they'd be willing to pay a lot more to run a game locally then to stream it, then game streaming is doomed, outside of a relative handful of niches where it's impossible to render it locally because of some incompatibility.
But most importantly, if gamers are ambivalent about game streaming, and not willing to pay more or less to stream games than to run them locally, then game streaming will also be relegated to a minor niche. Even if all that people care about is how much they pay, and not whether that money is paid to ISPs, hardware vendors, game developers, or whatever else, then rendering the game locally is going to be cheaper than streaming it. Streaming would only be the backup option for when you can't render it locally.
Worse than any console, hence a waste of time except for the most casual gamers.
Not even getting into the issue with bandwidth. Best I see on a 100mb line is about 3mb per sec and that is to be expected for normal cable. I don't see any chance at faster speeds in the near future. So that leave the vast majority of people on the outside looking in.
With Google this service won't last 2 years at best.
I'm fond of saying that a computer that works right 99% of the time is a computer that doesn't work. You'd think that MMORPG gamers of all people would understand that variable Internet lag is a real thing. Game streaming breaks a lot of the tricks that online games use to cover up latency, so that much smaller lag spikes will be obviously noticeable.
I'm surprised that it's as bad as it appears in that video. I expected that it would be something on the order of an extra 50-100 ms as compared to rendering the game locally, which will jump out at you if you can play the two approaches side by side, but usually not seem obviously wrong if you're not looking for it and never played the game locally.
How did they remove expensive hardware? It has a yearly sub dude, and the games aren't free, and you don't even own them vs use they are digital and always online. What exactly did Google add to the gaming industry? What is this propaganda.
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
New tech is always fun to watch to see where it goes but unless every ISP's "budget" plan is in the 100 Mbit + range without data caps I don't see this going very far. For my own ISP the fastest DL they even have is 150 and it is uncapped. That's about twice the monthly cost of my 75 (which is actually a reliable 85) with my 600 GB monthly cap.
I never come anywhere close to my monthly cap but streaming Netflix and Prime shows are nothing compared to what I would use if I did all my gaming on Stadia.
And that's all before you get into the additional problems that multiplayer games would have with lag. It's probably only Australians that wouldn't mind since they're already used to huge lag in MMOs that only have servers in NA and EU
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Just remember the is no "Cloud". Clouds provide shade, rain and rainbows. There are Data Centers that store and process data. You cannot access your data or run remote applications if you loose your connection or the server(s) go down. Do you older folks remember something called a "Thin Client"? Dumb terminals on a desk connected to your local main server. Same issues on a local scale. If you have your data and computer on your desktop you can survive, keep working and keep playing, with a few exceptions during network outages. Many tech companies would rather have a rental or subscription model as it increases their profits over outright ownership.
How did they remove expensive hardware? It has a yearly sub dude, and the games aren't free, and you don't even own them vs use they are digital and always online. What exactly did Google add to the gaming industry? What is this propaganda.
You don't own the games on Steam either. Game ownership died a long time ago. Only GOG provides game ownership.
Just wait until your account gets banned or Steam bankrupts. Those will be fun days to be had.
You don't own the games on Steam either. Game ownership died a long time ago. Only GOG provides game ownership.
Just wait until your account gets banned or Steam bankrupts. Those will be fun days to be had.
That's what I've been saying since steamy Gabe made his bloatware mandatory for CS (that was the turn-off point for me). Cue in the fanboys with "steam is too big to fall" and "if you get banned, that's on you" type of BS.
Besides that, this paradigm change is my main issue with Stadia and its incoming competitors, the so-called "cloud gaming" in general. The tech aspects are not so much, as kishe said above for the Eu it ain't really a problem, in some countries even fiber-to-home starts to get common, and 5G will give a boost as well... there were a few Stadia test reviews, and usually on PC/ethernet they say it only has a minimal lag, through Chromecast it's much worse however, regardless of the quality of the wi-fi. Over time though I'm sure the tech side will be decent, at least in places with good ISPs.
No, my issue is the definitive change in games themselves. While game was a product, you could use it at your will, for as long as you want, there are even museums for old games, running on old gear. As Split said that's still the case on digital distribution, GOG as a whole, but Humble too offers games which you can keep and play any time.
Steam (and Epic, Ubi, Rockstar, etc.) is a step towards the game as service bullshit, but there's still a grey area since the games themselves are available and with some, khm. tinkering you can play them even if steamy Gabe crashes and pulls the plug. MMORPGs are in the same shoes, they might cancel but since the client is available, they can be revived (let's skip the part for now how grey that area is).
With Stadia (and the incoming other cloud-based services) that's the part which will be gone. Not at start, while they're building the playerbase and the (yet very narrow) catalog, but the whole point is to get rid of providing actual game data. When the first cloud-only games appear, all you'll have is the subscription to receive a video feed of a game. And it will change a LOT within the genre, some are predictable but I'm sure some we couldn't even estimate...
(just like with steam, when it started who'd guessed it will bring options like editing and replacing game features in your game without your consent)
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?
a lot of people have fast internet but there are two big factors to take into consideration for many people. 1) data caps, and 2) everyone else using the internet at home.
If i want to remove my data cap with Comcast to play Stadia I have to pay an additional $30 a month on top of whatever amount the internet bill is. That's $360 in just 1 year not including the actual Stadia sub. And people still think streaming is cheaper than getting the hardware?
Lets say I get rid of all my hardware. If stadia is $10 a month that's $120 a year. 120 for stadia sub + 360 to maintain my internet uncapped the whole year... that's $480 of Stadia a year with no games, and i didn't factor in taxes either.
Google is really putting all their eggs on people not doing their math and finding out how much cheaper it is to own your hardware.
Edit: Even for people with no data caps, by the time you need to replace a
computer part or a console you will have paid the same or more in stadia
sub alone in that amount of time that took you too replace that part.
2 big factors?! Whoever has "data caps" on broadband home internet needs to change his provider. I mean, I really never heard of "data caps" on broadband home internet ever. This is the first time I'm hearing it. We in Europe don't have this shit. On mobile? Yes, home internet ( wire, fiber ) ? Nope.
Everyone else using the internet at home? If everyone is a gamer , watching streams online , etc in your house, then yes, you might have a problem here. But if that's true, you may want to ..take care of your number 1 problem and remove your data cap maybe?
Everything else you've said, and some others in here, makes me thing that if you really have any idea what are you guys talking about. I mean, suddenly , you guys know better then Google right?
Fibre, which has now reached 26% of all fixed broadband subscriptions, is the fastest growing broadband technology, with a growth rate of 13% in 2018 and 16% in the preceding two years. Overall, fixed broadband subscriptions in OECD countries totalled 418 million as of December 2018, up from 406 million a year earlier and averaged 30.9 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. Switzerland still leads the pack with a penetration rate of 46.8 subscriptions per 100 people, followed by Denmark (43.3%), France (43.3%), The Netherlands (43%) and Norway (41.5%).
And that's for OECD countries and in 2018.
Pretty sure we are talking about 1 Bil in world wide by now.
If Stadia ( or similar services ) will fail, will not be because of the internet. Believe it or not, internet will soon be capless. Yes, including the mobile one.
Easier said than done. I have 3 providers in my area. 1-DSL and 2-Cable. Both cable offer 1 GB D/L speeds. One has a cap with no option to remove it and one doesn't. I'm with the one that has no cap, but the trade-off is terrible service. It cuts out daily and has for years. The company is Suddenlink and known around here as Seldom links.
Go 10 miles more east of me and your down to two providers one of them DSL. Go 20 miles and you only have DSL. Until the US catches up with the rest of non-third world countries for no caps and internet D/L speeds, Stadia is a pipe dream for a good portion of the US.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
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.
Interesting ideas, but could be a financial miscalculation by the companies if they are relying on the larger population centers who really dont need this to support them.
For example, this quote by the Starlink CEO about whether this service will be competitive.
"Is anybody paying less than 80 bucks a month for crappy service? Nope. That's why we're gonna be successful."
Frontier (FIOS) just installed 500/500 in my house for $75 a month and it isn't at all crappy.
They offered up to 1000/1000 for more of course, but if they felt a squeeze my guess is the cost for their best service could quickly come down some.
Will be interesting to see how it all plays out, more competition is usually better for the consumer.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Because people will not feel comfortable or it will be cheaper to use the .. current 'system' , yes, it might be a valid reason for such service to .. fail, but not because of the internet.
I still believe that this will be very successfully in say 5 years, but again .. internet will be the last ..thing to make Streaming Games to fail.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Edit: $120 a month for DATA CAPS internet ?! I am currently living in Italy and I pay around 30 euros for 50MBs bandwidth ( with no data caps ) and I find it pretty expensive. Reason why I can get 100MBs or 1GB bandwidth is because I live around 700 meters away from the main street ( and their "hub" ).
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/11/18/google-stadia-review
And keep in mind this is just the beginning and on day 1 launch.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
I could buy it on Epic. . and still not own the game. Why not stream it? I have no bandwidth limit etc. The biggest issue I see is latency. I will let you know how it turns out.
Also, I could wait for a sale or for it to be added to GamePass sometime. I don't mind risking some money on new things.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Conversely, if most gamers decide that game streaming is awful and they'd be willing to pay a lot more to run a game locally then to stream it, then game streaming is doomed, outside of a relative handful of niches where it's impossible to render it locally because of some incompatibility.
But most importantly, if gamers are ambivalent about game streaming, and not willing to pay more or less to stream games than to run them locally, then game streaming will also be relegated to a minor niche. Even if all that people care about is how much they pay, and not whether that money is paid to ISPs, hardware vendors, game developers, or whatever else, then rendering the game locally is going to be cheaper than streaming it. Streaming would only be the backup option for when you can't render it locally.
I might run through Chrome on my crap laptop with HDMI to TV and use wireless keyboard and mouse.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Not even getting into the issue with bandwidth. Best I see on a 100mb line is about 3mb per sec and that is to be expected for normal cable. I don't see any chance at faster speeds in the near future. So that leave the vast majority of people on the outside looking in.
With Google this service won't last 2 years at best.
I'm surprised that it's as bad as it appears in that video. I expected that it would be something on the order of an extra 50-100 ms as compared to rendering the game locally, which will jump out at you if you can play the two approaches side by side, but usually not seem obviously wrong if you're not looking for it and never played the game locally.
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
I never come anywhere close to my monthly cap but streaming Netflix and Prime shows are nothing compared to what I would use if I did all my gaming on Stadia.
And that's all before you get into the additional problems that multiplayer games would have with lag. It's probably only Australians that wouldn't mind since they're already used to huge lag in MMOs that only have servers in NA and EU
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
-Eric
http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0320200000000659e/01003/signature.png
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Just wait until your account gets banned or Steam bankrupts. Those will be fun days to be had.
Go 10 miles more east of me and your down to two providers one of them DSL. Go 20 miles and you only have DSL. Until the US catches up with the rest of non-third world countries for no caps and internet D/L speeds, Stadia is a pipe dream for a good portion of the US.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
Interesting ideas, but could be a financial miscalculation by the companies if they are relying on the larger population centers who really dont need this to support them.
For example, this quote by the Starlink CEO about whether this service will be competitive.
"Is anybody paying less than 80 bucks a month for crappy service? Nope. That's why we're gonna be successful."
Frontier (FIOS) just installed 500/500 in my house for $75 a month and it isn't at all crappy.
They offered up to 1000/1000 for more of course, but if they felt a squeeze my guess is the cost for their best service could quickly come down some.
Will be interesting to see how it all plays out, more competition is usually better for the consumer.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon