Stadia, Google Game Streaming platform [2019-2021]

and why this isn't exactly the same with Stadia?
It probably will be. They should aim for higher framerates and with less framebuffers as possible.

Eliminating latency is the core goal of streaming services, same as maintaining high framerate is needed for VR. That's why, zero PSVR games have framerate drops bellow 60. When there is the will, there's the way.
 
I wouldn’t say the population is divided, but perhaps growing. If we’re realistic about Googles actual competitive advantage, it is the low barrier solution they have with YouTube and chrome.

All other things can be done by competitors in some fashion, but going from browsing YouTube to playing in 5 seconds really acts on some instincts of impulse we’ve never had in gaming before. And no one else can do it. I have to say looking back at MS, and their move to purchase Mixer and such, they had the right idea but Google showed them how to execute. At least they have a good roadmap on what to do now. But mixer is a fraction of YouTube and twitch.

The streaming is very strong in large households, 2-3 children, means no fighting for a console, no needing to buy 3 consoles or 3X the titles to do multiplayer.

Google brought an electric bus service to an industry that has largely been happy with everyone purchasing their own cars and driving them point to point.
Not everyone like you said, countries other than US, UK or Canada might not fair so well due to sub par net infrastructure. It's still a pipe dream for many others especially to fully utilize the advertised 10.7 TF hardware for 4k/60 hdr stream. So far we've seen some rather poor input lags even at 1080p/60fps inside a controlled area, what prospects it holds for the general public is questionable at best. Then comes the inevitable DF comparison on image quality, compression and what not. So yeah I wouldn't say the execution is perfect at this stage.
 
Not everyone like you said, countries other than US, UK or Canada might not fair so well due to sub par net infrastructure. It's still a pipe dream for many others especially to fully utilize the advertised 10.7 TF hardware for 4k/60 hdr stream. So far we've seen some rather poor input lags even at 1080p/60fps inside a controlled area, what prospects it holds for the general public is questionable at best. Then comes the inevitable DF comparison on image quality, compression and what not. So yeah I wouldn't say the execution is perfect at this stage.
And that's okay for now. It takes a long time for technologies to mature and Google wants to be out there first. MS is going to be lagging behind a year or 2. Other competitors will crop up over time.

It's unlikely at launch you're going to immediately dethrone a way of life that has been churning since the 80s.

But that doesn't mean people won't dive in. They most certainly will, and deal with performance issues, only because it's all too easy to.
 
How do Google's claims compare to OnLive et al's? IIRC they made amazingly low latency claims that never delivered in the real world. Are Google's more realistic or still very best case?
 
How do Google's claims compare to OnLive et al's? IIRC they made amazingly low latency claims that never delivered in the real world. Are Google's more realistic or still very best case?
DF posted their results earlier in this thread. The results are pretty good. But consistency is an issue that cannot be tested. It's not like DF can go to everyone's home and test results. I suspect they will provide a free trial so that people know whether they are getting the results they want.
 
Not everyone like you said, countries other than US, UK or Canada might not fair so well due to sub par net infrastructure. It's still a pipe dream for many others especially to fully utilize the advertised 10.7 TF hardware for 4k/60 hdr stream. So far we've seen some rather poor input lags even at 1080p/60fps inside a controlled area, what prospects it holds for the general public is questionable at best. Then comes the inevitable DF comparison on image quality, compression and what not. So yeah I wouldn't say the execution is perfect at this stage.

Nearly all country in European Union have good internet, most of them better than US without data caps. In Switzerland I had 100 Mbits/s but I was on the cheaper plan of my ISP, the most expensive was 1 Gbit/ symetric connexion. In Spain Madrid I have acccess to fiber same thing between 100 bit/s and 1 Gits/s. In France it was the same.

If you live in a city in European Union there is a good chance you have a very good internet connection...
 
Last edited:
When you think about it, Google's integration of YouTube with Stadia can actually be super-successful, and cause some concern for Sony and Microsoft without a similar platform that reaches billions of users a month. Having the ability to live-stream with a click of button and having participants join in at a click on a major social media streaming platform can be a game changer in the world of live-streaming for YouTube [gamer] personalities and new beginners. Just imagine multiple (possibly hundreds) users live-streaming immediately / synced on a particular game without the need for fussy PC or game console settings between users systems or the need for personal (or 3rd party) servers that manage multiplayer gaming sessions, users, and the streaming component. Everything will be a self-contained platform by Google, the users simply click, join, stream and play without much hassle. Mind you, I'm talking about this in the most optimal situation where users have minimally a 30-50 mbps connection, the Google controller, and Stadia gaming services. Think about all the pitfalls (i.e., gaming sessions/system crashes, is everyone system/game up to date, synchronization issues, server down, etc.) that live-streaming of games, especially multiplayer, go through. Something like the Stadia platform can relieve a lot of those burdens.

Then the question becomes, how does Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo leverage or create a live-streaming service as robust as YouTube? I'm almost certain Google isn't going to integrate their competitors services into their systems... not in the fashion Stadia platform is offering.
 
Last edited:
Then the question becomes, how does Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo leverage or create a live-streaming service as robust as YouTube? I'm almost certain Google isn't going to integrate their competitors services into their systems... not in the fashion Stadia platform is offering.
Microsoft can try with their Mixer platform to attempt some emulation there.
Sony would need to pair with a partner as would Nintendo.

But perhaps the alternative is to not play on Google's ground, MS, Sony and Nintendo will need to find their own way to survive in this growing competitive landscape.
 
Bandwidth and associated caps are one thing.

Latency to and from the actual server is the more important issue, I think. That will depend on where physically Google will deploy their servers.
 
Not everyone like you said, countries other than US, UK or Canada might not fair so well due to sub par net infrastructure.

https://www.speedtest.net/result/8127097516.png

I'm not in a major center. I have family in small towns who even have fibre.

Most of Canada has decent infrastructure, really rural areas maybe not so much, but that is to be expected. I do think the ping issue will be a bigger problem.
 
When you think about it, Google's integration of YouTube with Stadia can actually be super-successful, and cause some concern for Sony and Microsoft without a similar platform that reaches billions of users a month. Having the ability to live-stream with a click of button and having participants join in at a click on a major social media streaming platform, can be a game changer in the world of live-streaming for YouTube [gamer] personalities and new beginners. Just imagine multiple (possibly hundreds) users live-streaming immediately / synced on a particular game without the need for fussy PC or game console settings between users systems or the need for personal (or 3rd party) servers that manage multiplayer gaming sessions, users, and the streaming component. Everything will be a self-contained platform by Google, the users simply click, join, stream and play without much hassle. Mind you, I'm talking about this in the most optimal situation where users have minimally a 30-50 mbps connection, the Google controller, and Stadia gaming services. Think about all the pitfalls (i.e., gaming sessions/system crashes, is everyone system/game up to date, synchronization issues, server down, etc.) that live-streaming of games, especially multiplayer, go through. Something like the Stadia platform can relieve a lot of those burdens.

Then the question becomes, how does Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo leverage or create a live-streaming service as robust as YouTube? I'm almost certain Google isn't going to integrate their competitors services into their systems... not in the fashion Stadia platform is offering.

My question is if people start to be able to play the latest AAA games at the click of a button in their browser....how many of them are just not going to bother with buying a next-gen console? Probably a lot.

Of course Google's main problem is going to be getting games on their platform.
 
My question is if people start to be able to play the latest AAA games at the click of a button in their browser....how many of them are just not going to bother with buying a next-gen console? Probably a lot.

I still believe diehard PC/Console gamers will still purchase standalone hardware for the foreseeable future or at least until game streaming services provide equal or better visuals & sound than such standalone wares.

Where services such as Stadia can succeed are with those professional YouTube gamers that stream for a living. Those professionals can really benefit from such a platform if the monthly subscription fees are reasonable, and the platform has the latest third-party games on day one. Plus, the savings on needless hardware/software upgrades or fixed console wares would be a bonus (i.e., lower overhead cost, maximize profits, etc.) for those users.

As for casual gamers, they are like farts in the air... they go where the wind blows. j/k

Of course Google's main problem is going to be getting games on their platform.

It seems from their presentation yesterday, that most, if not all, the major third-parties are working with them.
 
Last edited:
It just needs to pick up Steam™.

View attachment 2934

View attachment 2935

QzgL7H5.gif


:mrgreen:
 
Yeah I'm seeing the benefit of a Cloud based approach for sure, it does make sense in many perspective especially for the more bandwidth capable countries. And yes we need to see more in terms of pricing, subs and how it performs in real world at 4k/60fps HDR. I'm a bit pessimistic tho, we shall see.

Not even sure 4K60 HDR should even be their main target.

They'll probably get more subscribers by aiming for a 1080p60 portable device. Maybe run on phones but with support for physical controllers which would attach to the phone or cradle it.

Then make a dock to connect to UHD HDR TVs as either an option or bundled.

IOW, the Switch on steroids.
 
But perhaps the alternative is to not play on Google's ground, MS, Sony and Nintendo will need to find their own way to survive in this growing competitive landscape.

Maybe, instead of keeping all game processing on the server-side, they can create stronger local hardware that runs their games offline right at the person's home, out of a Blu-ray disk or maybe a cartridge. They could call it "console" or some such.
 
Interesting viewpoint from The Verge...

what if Stadia isn’t a case of Google aggressively entering a new business sphere, but rather a defensive one to protect its existing kingdom?

...My thinking is that Google’s Stadia project is motivated, to a greater or lesser degree, by the desire to maintain its predominance as the home of gaming video. As of right now, Google gets more than 200 million logged-in daily active users watching gaming content. That’s 200 million pairs of eyes to present ads to every day.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18274184/google-stadia-youtube-streaming-future-gaming-cloud

Tommy McClain
 
When you think about it, Google's integration of YouTube with Stadia can actually be super-successful, and cause some concern for Sony and Microsoft without a similar platform that reaches billions of users a month. Having the ability to live-stream with a click of button and having participants join in at a click on a major social media streaming platform can be a game changer in the world of live-streaming for YouTube [gamer] personalities and new beginners. Just imagine multiple (possibly hundreds) users live-streaming immediately / synced on a particular game without the need for fussy PC or game console settings between users systems or the need for personal (or 3rd party) servers that manage multiplayer gaming sessions, users, and the streaming component. Everything will be a self-contained platform by Google, the users simply click, join, stream and play without much hassle. Mind you, I'm talking about this in the most optimal situation where users have minimally a 30-50 mbps connection, the Google controller, and Stadia gaming services. Think about all the pitfalls (i.e., gaming sessions/system crashes, is everyone system/game up to date, synchronization issues, server down, etc.) that live-streaming of games, especially multiplayer, go through. Something like the Stadia platform can relieve a lot of those burdens.

Then the question becomes, how does Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo leverage or create a live-streaming service as robust as YouTube? I'm almost certain Google isn't going to integrate their competitors services into their systems... not in the fashion Stadia platform is offering.

It all sound neat but it may not be all that practical for some features. A simple click that puts you right into a steamer’s game is ripe for abuse. Screen watching and trolling is pretty much guaranteed for any pvp multiplayer. Plus, this doesn’t seem all that different than what’s available on consoles when it comes to interacting with friends. There is a reason why MS and Sony doesn’t allow just anyone to jump into anyone else’s gaming session.

Furthermore, dropping into a “never played before” single player game into anything other than the intro level is bound to be problematic unless the title is super intuitive to control. How’s that going to work with RPG based titles?

Building a feature that allows console games or streaming services to launch from within twitch or mixer isn’t all that hard. So the biggest advantage Google has is YouTube but what happens to YouTube’s streaming features if google creates a walled garden around it using Stadia as a gate keeper. I imagine Twitch can offer similar features and support across consoles, PC and smartphone markets. Stadia can end up being seen as hit or miss in terms of consistency if there is a ton of YouTube content from pc and consoles that don’t allow for the streaming features intergrated into YouTube.
 
Last edited:
Phil Spencer on Stadia...

We just wrapped up watching the Google announcement of Stadia as team here at GDC. Their announcement is validation of the path we embarked on two years ago..

Today we saw a big tech competitor enter the gaming market, and frame the necessary ingredients for success as Content, Community and Cloud. There were no big surprises in their announcement although I was impressed by their leveraging of YouTube, the use of Google Assistant and the new WiFi controller.

More at...

https://www.thurrott.com/xbox/20335...ia-google-went-big-today-at-e3-we-will-go-big

Tommy McClain
 
Back
Top