Thatnerdyfella

Google's Fancy New Toy

15 posts in this topic

Alright, I don't know how kept up anyone is with the latest technology like I am. If you're not aware of this fancy new thing Google has been planning to do and make a step further into the future of gaming I will post this Announcement they made down below. I think it's a pretty neat idea but with every gamer that has sunk hours and so much investment  into the latest consoles i.e PS4, Xbox One S/X, PC, Switch. This new gaming system is called Stadia. It will run on Vulkan and Linux. Focused on gamers, inspired by developers, and amplified by Youtube creators. Watching a normal game trailer for any game, at the end of the video there will be an option to play that game within the matter of only 5 seconds and it's opened into another browser. I'll cut this description short and let you watch it down below if it seems like something you'd be interested in. I know most people wouldn't be, understandable. 

 

 

Edit: Things I'd be worried about is data caps, relying on Edge Nodes for better performance, you're internet's crappy one day and no games. Gaming on Stadia feels like it's a take away from "owning a game" completely. 

 

 

 

Edited by SIMPLY_CODY
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting idea, but certainly not for me and I am not sure it will gain traction with 'hardcore' gamers.

 

I am no longer bothered by game ownership, but a LOT of people that frequent game forums are. Also, the perception of lag (whether it exists or not) will bother the hell out of people. Also people are embedded in ecosystems going back years. Also....let's just say there are many reasons!

 

Where I do see it working is with the more casual audience...someone who plays for a couple of hours a week and maybe just pick a couple of the big franchises per year. That is actually a far bigger audience, I could see that working for them.

 

One thing is for sure...if streaming is the future, Google just ate the only lunch Xbox had left!! 

 

I hope Sony keep doing what they are doing and don't get sucked onto the streaming future. Release a box, with a disc drive, keep making the best games = next generation winner!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ZenRhino said:

One thing is for sure...if streaming is the future, Google just ate the only lunch Xbox had left!! 

 

Nope they did not. Microsoft already has a streaming service/game cloud operating for years now. It might be not as fancy as Stadia but no one really knows any details about the Microsoft server park. And they can update them just as easily as Google. They also have big advantage over Google. They doing this for years now, they have practically every publisher/developer as a partner. And they are working on similar service as well, that's a well known fact. Google just came out early because they know it would be much harder finding customers when Microsoft and Sony will announce their next consoles.

 

As far as streaming goes. It's the most boring concept I can imagine. And you have to rely not only on the service provider but also on your internet provider. If one fails everything fails. Plus it is only interesting if you don't mind just renting games and being totally dependent on a company.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Google is finally throwing their complete hat into the gaming landscape... That's interesting.

 

I agreed with what has been already said by the commenters about me. People with a pretty good Internet connection that don't mind about the ownership of their games will find a good place to play here. The whole technology behind it is pretty amazing actually.

 

However, this product is not for me. Streaming is a thing that is completely out of reach for me due to many reasons that I won't be listing here but let's simply said that, if streaming was the future of the gaming train, then I'll most likely end up staying on the next station before we head there. I really don't see the appeal in paying full price for a digital service, personally. I can sort of understand getting a digital game on a discount at a more reasonable price but full price for a service, that I personally don't agree with.

 

I can imagine this thing requiring a pretty robust and powerful internet connection without data caps to work and those getting games on it should be aware that, if they decide to close the service for any reason, then there is the potential of them losing access to everything they have purchased so far.

 

As for me, this device will be interesting to watch on how it performs given the current market but me, myself using it, nah thanks.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I hope this idea flops. I'm already not a fan of "always on" games. Furthermore this evidenty hasn't been thought through at all. It should be obvious that internet is not always stable, nor is it available everywhere, it has speed and download caps and streaming in itself has latency and potentially lag to it. All of that will make the gaming experience insufferable. That's not taking into consideration that their hosting platform might have an issue at some ppint and suddenly you're locked out of every game.

 

Then there are several factors that everyone seems to skip over. The actual monthly cost of this, because it will definitely be subscription based, the appaling customer support that is exemplified by youtube already (and likely would be the same for this service) and the possibility of exclusivity similar to what's recently been happening with the epic game store.

Edited by voodoo_eyes
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, voodoo_eyes said:

Honestly I hope this idea flops. I'm already not a fan of "always on" games. Furthermore this evidenty hasn't been thought through at all. It should be obvious that internet is not always stable, nor is it available everywhere, it has speed and download caps and streaming in itself has latency and potentially lag to it. All of that will make the gaming experience insufferable. That's not taking into consideration that their hosting platform might have an issue at some ppint and suddenly you're locked out of every game.

 

Then there are several factors that everyone seems to skip over. The actual monthly cost of this, because it will definitely be subscription based, the appaling customer support that is exemplified by youtube already (and likely would be the same for this service) and the possibility of exclusivity similar to what's recently been happening with the epic game store.

Don't forget it's also google. What they probably didn't tell you is that every 5-10 mins you will need to sit through a ad that is based on the game you are playing. Imagine playing Call of Duty and every 5-10 mins it's a unstoppable ad for you to join the military. Or you are playing Red Dead Redemption 2 and now all the sudden you are being told to buy old texan steak sauce. How about you are playing over watch and get slammed with a paid ad by EA to tell you to go play Apex instead?


EDIT: Gamespot confirmed it will also require internet 24/7 https://www.gamespot.com/articles/googles-stadia-wont-allow-offline-downloads/1100-6465733/ Even if you download something you can not use any content while offline. Period. Xbox One reveal much?

Edited by EmoKitten4
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EmoKitten4 said:

EDIT: Gamespot confirmed it will also require internet 24/7 https://www.gamespot.com/articles/googles-stadia-wont-allow-offline-downloads/1100-6465733/ Even if you download something you can not use any content while offline. Period. Xbox One reveal much?

 

I thought this was pretty obvious.  It's a streaming box, a glorified video player with controller support.  The hardware to run games isn't in the box, it's in their server farm.  The innovation here isn't the box or the controller... it's the fact that this service is going to be available in a browser, in smartphone apps, usable on Chromebooks, Chromecast, etc.  All the box and the controller are for is a somewhat vain attempt at buying some legitimacy among the real gaming consoles, and for the handful of diehard fans that want to pretend it is.

 

Google is trying to blur the line between the quick pick-up smartphone games people play waiting for an oil change, and traditional games... and IMO they'll likely end up missing the mark on both.  Traditional gamers aren't going to care about streaming Dark Souls on their phone at the cost of image quality, input lag and latency issues.  And casual mobile gamers aren't going to put in the investment into games that are designed to be longer, immersive experiences that require more than 5 minutes at a time of minimal focus.

 

EDIT: Don't get me wrong... it's actually a pretty cool idea and will probably be downright impressive technology (the whole thing, not the box).  And if any company could give it their best shot, it's probably Google.  But as a physical collector that values "owning" my games and less oppressive ecosystems, the idea of it also disgusts me and I don't think there will ever be a "right time" for an entirely streaming game service.  Even if internet standards across the globe were up for it (which they aren't)... who is their demographic exactly?

Edited by Dreakon13
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing is that this whole streaming thing isn't exactly new. Does anyone remember the first companies who tried to make money with this service? Probably nobody! Well I don't exactly. Fact is they don't exist anymore. Either they were too expansive or the technology wasn't ready or good enough. Of course Playstation Now wouldn't exist without one of these companies, because Sony bought one and turned it into PS Now. But I find it a bit hilarious how persistent these companies are. I mean even nVidia is building a streaming service right now. And I bet Sony is going to announce some sort of streaming box too at some point. But I doubt that playing games via a streaming service is the future. It's just not nearly as reliable as a console or a PC and will most likely never be.

 

Reminds me a bit of this VR hype. It's at least two decades old and it still hasn't changed a damn thing. It is and will always be a niche product, at least when it comes to gaming.

Edited by Durandal
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Durandal said:

Funny thing is that this whole streaming thing isn't exactly new. Does anyone remember the first companies who tried to make money with this service? Probably nobody! Well I don't exactly. Fact is they don't exist anymore. Either they were too expansive or the technology wasn't ready or good enough. Of course Playstation Now wouldn't exist without one of these companies, because Sony bought one and turned it into PS Now. But I find it a bit hilarious how persistent these companies are. I mean even nVidia is building a streaming service right now. And I bet Sony is going to announce some sort of streaming box too at some point. But I doubt that playing games via a streaming service is the future. It's just not nearly as reliable as a console or a PC and will most likely never be.

 

Reminds me a bit of this VR hype. It's at least two decades old and it still hasn't changed a damn thing. It is and will always be a niche product, at least when it comes to gaming.

 

I dunno the first companies, but I remember trying OnLive.  It didn't work back then and it won't work now.

 

That being said, watched a little of that presentation yesterday evening and Google does have some awesome ideas.  In particular I like the idea of save states or share states or whatever its called, where you can jump into a game at any point just from clicking a link (like jumping to a spot in a YouTube video via timestamp).

 

I'm starting to think its less merging casual mobile games and traditional games... and more about taking the interactivity of YouTube/Twitch streamers to the next level.  Which is honestly a smart bet for Google to make, with the way streaming has taken off the last 5 years or so.  Using those save state links and the ability for the audience to join the streamer by hopping into the games in a matter of seconds, streamers and their audience can take things to a whole 'nother level... as long as they're all subscribers to the Stadia platform I guess.

 

It's a shame (or not lol), as cool as all that is, that the core of it just won't work as far as a mass audience goes.  IMO.  It feels like it's less competition for Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo and more trying to catapult Google/YouTube above other live streaming platforms with this unparalleled level of interactivity.  I mean, streamers and their audience are already chugging data and HD video streams by the truckload and really "playing" the games is kind of an afterthought anyways... it makes sense that's the demographic they're targeting with the means to handle/tolerate Stadia.  Not average Joe Gamer just trying to eek out a few hours of some 100 hour RPG uninterrupted and latency free between work shifts.

Edited by Dreakon13
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dreakon13

 

I agree the possibility to jump to a specific location in a game is great. So many ways to to use it, either for a guide or helping someone else to reach a hard to reach location. It would certainly add a new way to interact with each other and it would even work for single player games! But of course it won't ever work outside of Stadia/Youtube. Unless Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo would integrate Stadia into their consoles. Which shouldn't be that hard to do, but I guess it won't be cheap and they aren't to keen to allow another system on their platform, well maybe Microsoft. They are already moving away from the classic console market and trying to sell Xbox as a service and not just a console.

 

It will certainly be interesting to see how this whole streaming thing evolves over the next years. And who knows who will be next to announce something like Stadia, maybe Apple.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Durandal said:

Funny thing is that this whole streaming thing isn't exactly new. Does anyone remember the first companies who tried to make money with this service? Probably nobody! Well I don't exactly. Fact is they don't exist anymore. Either they were too expansive or the technology wasn't ready or good enough. Of course Playstation Now wouldn't exist without one of these companies, because Sony bought one and turned it into PS Now. But I find it a bit hilarious how persistent these companies are. I mean even nVidia is building a streaming service right now. And I bet Sony is going to announce some sort of streaming box too at some point. But I doubt that playing games via a streaming service is the future. It's just not nearly as reliable as a console or a PC and will most likely never be.

 

Reminds me a bit of this VR hype. It's at least two decades old and it still hasn't changed a damn thing. It is and will always be a niche product, at least when it comes to gaming.

*raises hand* Oh, I do, I do, I do. xD

 

One was the famous OnLive console, which came out and even worked for some time. It eventually went downhill fast, was bought by Sony and repurposed as PlayStation Now today.

 

And the second one I believe was Phantom Entertainment with their aptly named console, The Phantom. And it was indeed and phantom because it never even came out. A console advertised to play games through the internet on demand. Way ahead of the time considering it was announced during the early years of this millennium.

 

Did I get it right lol? 😂

 

But yeah, companies never learn. My bet is that they are really hellbent on having complete and total control over their properties. No second-hand sales, no piracy, full control over their licenses. That's something that they gain by jumping fully into a stream-based service. Of course we, the customers, only get shafted in the process. Probably they want to take a new shoot now given that the network has improved over the years to some degree and that there is a very big market of casual gamers who may be willing to jump there. I have my reservations on that but hey, let them try and see. Third time's a charm.

 

Can't comment much on VR myself but it is something that it has failed to gain traction in gaming too.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting idea, but this seems all too familiar to OnLive, and look how that turned out in the end. I just don't think the internet infrastructure is there yet for this thing to take off. They can go on about 4K 60fps all they like, but we all know that's too good to be true. Even if you have amazing internet, there's still going to be compression artifacts, so it's never going to look as good as it would on native hardware. I know the controller is supposed to connect via Wi-Fi to the machine itself which they claim minimises input lag, but I'll believe it when I see it. My two major problems with "Google's new toy" as the OP put it is how you no longer own any of the games you buy, and its reliance on a good, stable internet connection since there is no offline mode.

 

Maybe this is the so-called "future" of gaming, but all I know is that I'll be holding onto my consoles and physical games for as long as possible. I want no part of this.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Honor_Hand I think you did. I don't recall any names though. But OnLive was one of them, never heard of Phantom Entertainment and there was at least one more. But I guess that's the point I was making. :) OnLive was the one who Sony bought or the patents at least. And I am pretty sure there is still on new player at the table. I think it's a french company who is working on a game streaming service too. Guess the internet will be a very, very crowded place in the years if everyone jumps on this awesome new gaming experience.

 

Although I am not against per se, there is some merit that can come out of all this. Like having the ability to stream a game on any device anywhere is a great idea, but only as an alternative use for a game you own, may it be digital or physical. Or you could easily share games with friends but that's already possible with PSN. But I was always skeptical about this and will probably always will be. It's like Undead Wolf said:

 

18 minutes ago, Undead Wolf said:

Maybe this is the so-called "future" of gaming, but all I know is that I'll be holding onto my consoles and (physical) games for as long as possible. I want no part of this.

 

Although I am more of a digital gamer but I am getting this fine vibe again which you get when you open a game box, especially when it comes with a few nice extras.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A streaming cloud gaming service, like PlayStation Now? Sorry Google, I'm out. I can't get interested in this for even a second.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google Fiber was supposed to service many of the major cities here in America. But unfortunately Google basically fuddled it up, and now only a select few have access to the internet service. That being of course, people living in well to do, newer neighborhoods in Kansas City and a few other towns.

 

Now they are coming out with a streaming cloud gaming service. We got Steam. We got Playstation Now. Microsoft has it's own gaming services with Xbox One. Pitiful.

 

I guess the one thing that would be worse is if Apple came out with a gaming service, which would probably fail in the first week.

Edited by Spaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.