Stadia, Google Game Streaming platform [2019-2021]

Stadia Base as mpg1 mentions is free, no? Play on any device, no contract, just buy a Stadia game and play on anything. That's a new business model. Realistically, it's not tenable outside of someone like Google using that Cloud Compute for other stuff as well. $60 for a game and no running fees, on hardware that Google has to buy and operate, has to be a loss-leader for Google propped up by something else. Either that Stadia hardware is used for other stuff too and just used for gaming as a sideline, or Google have some longer term ambition that'll have far higher earnings potential, such as one day when 100 million are playing Stadia Base, introducing a $5 a month fee.

Also an obvious but key point with cloud is user base scaleability isn't tied 1-to-1 with hardware units. You really only need to match peak active demand at any given time. Google wouldn't need a 100M+ units of hardware to achieve the same "user base" as PS4.

So a single Stadia user is not contributing to the total cost of a single hardware unit. On average it's probably 3-4.

If Google uses Stadia instances for other compute tasks like youtube costs per user is driven down again.
 
What happens next year?

Stadia base will be available.

The requirement to buy the Founders and Premiere editions with the chromecast and controller to get access to Stadia is temporary. Stadia is really in a "soft launch" right now.
 
Stadia base will be available.

The requirement to buy the Founders and Premiere editions with the chromecast and controller to get access to Stadia is temporary. Stadia is really in a "soft launch" right now.
I understand that but in order for someone to play Stadia on their TV like a regular console, what it's competing against, they need a device to access and stream Stadia and they need a controller?
 
I understand that but in order for someone to play Stadia on their TV like a regular console, what it's competing against, they need a device to access and stream Stadia and they need a controller?

Yeah but as a bare minimum all you need is access to a chrome browser and input device (keyboard/mouse or controller). A lot of people have that already.
 
Yeah but as a bare minimum all you need is access to a chrome browser and input device (keyboard/mouse or controller). A lot of people have that already.
Yep, granted that. It's a reduction for barrier of entry for PC, not requiring a powerful CPU+GPU. Likely some old Dell Haswell will be fine playing it.
 
According to Google's press conference, If you don't use their controller you will have additional input latency.
 
Only Google's controller has built-in flux capacitor?

Something about their controller using WiFi to connect directly to their servers, removing the delay from sending to the 'local host' that then sends it to the 'cloud host' or in the bluetooth protocol delay. Or some such reasoning.
 
So a single Stadia user is not contributing to the total cost of a single hardware unit. On average it's probably 3-4.
Given current game quality, it appears google is already getting 3-4 active users onto one Stadia server. :p

Something about their controller using WiFi to connect directly to their servers...
That's some pretty powerful Wifi!

So just looked it up. Instead of connecting to the base hardware and that relaying info to the server, the controller connects to the router directly. It'll eliminate whatever latency comes from the host machine network stack forwarding/processing wifi inputs.
 
Yeah, that's what I meant, not to imply the controller goes direct to The Clouds...
 
It's Google. They'll keep chipping away and making Stadia better and better. It's foolish to write-off Google because every single market they've been serious about, they've dominated: search, advertising, maps, phone OS's, TV OSs. They all started rough and got better until they were industry leaders in features and execution. Google typically falter in 'pet projects'; the things they never cared for much to begin with.

Next year will be big for nextgen consoles for those early adopters, which will be a very small number of the overall console base. Stadia could be more powerful before they launch, or at the same time, or three months after. The key is not whether Stadia is good now but is it good when folks who are looking to move on from their current PS4 of Xbox One looking for something new. That's 1-3+ years time and that's a lot of time for Google to improve Stadia and for the networking it requires to improve.

Or to change their game/subscription model to make it more appealing. Google can easily afford to undercut Microsoft on a GamePass like solution. Google have stupid amounts of money to secure market share.



That's because you - and I'd wager most posters here - know what it is you want, i.e. a local device. But do the majority of the console owners? The appeal of not having to buy an expensive console, or knowing it's staggeringly portable, surely has to be a lure to a significant number of people.

Um, Google has scrapped a lot of things.

So I wouldn't commit big money to this just yet.

Sony and MS will make sure to have exclusives on their systems. I would assume Google is doing the same?
 
Yes. Microsoft and Sony both believe in streaming tech and Google are way better at bespoke server stuff than either Sony and Microsoft. Anybody who has used any Google service vs. pretty much any other company will tell you that.

I have no doubt that in years to come Google will not only eat a little of the existing console market but some of the PC market as well. We all know streaming all forms of media is the future and out of the three companies involved, one is way in front in terms of experience and proven track record.

I guess I'm just far more pessimistic. I don't see stream gaming really taking off, especially if it's going off the model that Stadia is using (basically paying retail prices for an inferior experience).

The only way I see stream gaming even having a chance is if it's a Netflix like (IE - if Gamepass included streaming or charged a little more for streaming) service, otherwise it'll mostly just be a niche thing for people who already own a console/PC and just want to play their games on the go (which won't work for a 4k service as I don't know of a single Hotel chain that would have good enough internet for even 1080p game streaming).

So, in that regard, I fully expect Google to abandon the project in a few years similar to some of the other initiatives that they were REALLY into...YouTube game streaming, for example. They invested quite significantly into that for a while, but face a similar problem that Facebook and MS face in trying to get people to choose them over Twitch.

Alternatively, I could see Google completely abandoning the 4k angle and focusing heavily on mobile platform streaming (like MS seems to be doing with Xcloud).

Guess I'm just getting old and grumpy. :)

Regards,
SB
 
Stadia Base as mpg1 mentions is free, no? Play on any device, no contract, just buy a Stadia game and play on anything. That's a new business model. Realistically, it's not tenable outside of someone like Google using that Cloud Compute for other stuff as well. $60 for a game and no running fees, on hardware that Google has to buy and operate, has to be a loss-leader for Google propped up by something else. Either that Stadia hardware is used for other stuff too and just used for gaming as a sideline, or Google have some longer term ambition that'll have far higher earnings potential, such as one day when 100 million are playing Stadia Base, introducing a $5 a month fee.

The free 1080p max service is supposedly coming next year. But, it's not out yet, so it's difficult to gauge the draw of the platform at the moment.

Currently you must pay if you want to use Stadia in any capacity. There's a LOT of things that Google has claimed will come to the service that has yet to be delivered whether it's on their roadmap or not.

Something about their controller using WiFi to connect directly to their servers, removing the delay from sending to the 'local host' that then sends it to the 'cloud host' or in the bluetooth protocol delay. Or some such reasoning.

Still isn't working consistently for everyone. Network conditions are causing many people's Stadia controller to randomly disconnect every few minutes even when their game is still running. So a lot of work to do on that front still.

Checking out the Reddit thread, there are a lot of problems with Stadia. Not the least of which people are suddenly finding out that they actually have either a hard data cap (overage charges) or a soft data cap on their unlimited plans (for example, effective bandwidth suddenly being 20% of what it was after a few days of Stadia "4k"). Or seeing on thread where they've gone on vacation to visit their parents in the UK (likely replace just about any country in there) and suddenly the internet there was way to slow to game on.

One interesting tidbit that I saw. A person who has a troubleshooting site for people having problems with Google Stadia noticed that the modem with the most problems? The Google WiFi router. :p

Regards,
SB
 
Streaming will take off. The investment will have to begin now. The maturity or mainstream point is probably at least several years out.
But when that day happens; you need to have your pricing, infrastructure and name out there.

I can see why Google had to do what it needed to do. The competition has also begun to invest heavily and if they want a piece of the action they needed to start now.
 
I can see why Google had to do what it needed to do. The competition has also begun to invest heavily and if they want a piece of the action they needed to start now.
Well, they could have had a start in 6 months without significantly losing ground and launching a product that's properly tested and with a decent library and launch with a far stronger brand image than they'll have now. Two years from now, what's the reputation of Stadia going to be?

What they could have done instead was a closed-beta, iron out the kinks, then release with a big furore with the free tier as well as the paid, perhaps via a managed roll-out (sign onto a waiting list), at which point people would be talking about Stadia based on what it's doing, as opposed to what it might one day do regardless of it currently being a bit poop and a bit of a mug's game to buy into.
 
Well, they could have had a start in 6 months without significantly losing ground and launching a product that's properly tested and with a decent library and launch with a far stronger brand image than they'll have now. Two years from now, what's the reputation of Stadia going to be?

What they could have done instead was a closed-beta, iron out the kinks, then release with a big furore with the free tier as well as the paid, perhaps via a managed roll-out (sign onto a waiting list), at which point people would be talking about Stadia based on what it's doing, as opposed to what it might one day do regardless of it currently being a bit poop and a bit of a mug's game to buy into.
I definitely agree this would have been the ideal choice here; but I also believe going that route Google would have shut down stadia. This is where MS and Sony hold a competitive advantage over Google. In particular licensing for game titles.

google is perfectly okay with subsidizing bandwidth and infrastructure costs to make this fly. But they aren’t willing to subsidize the licensing costs for Their games.

Meaning a free beta with 12 launch titles would have messed heavily with their budgeting because there is no way to hide those Stadia costs; whereas infrastructure can be hidden elsewhere. If the service fails Google would have been left with 12 titles x number of free users using the service. That’s an unrecoverable hole for them. And a very expensive beta for them to trial to improve the service. google would have to be willing to spend Billions to break into the market; and they weren’t.

MS and Sony already have subscription style services readily available and worked out with their members. In theory the hard part is solved even if they have to subsidize those costs. It’s a non issue for them because they already hand out titles for free every month as well. So they can afford to just keep their service in beta for a few select users while they improve it.
 
Well they did have a beta with Project Sream

Stadia has it's issues but the reality is there was never going to a "good time to launch" because there is an inherent bias against streaming in general. You could read it in gaming forums before even it launched. A lot of the reviews were "StAdIa fAiL!" type clickbait because most reviewers of this sort of stuff are hardware enthusiasts who have little interest in game streaming succeeding.

If you don't really give a shit about having local hardware (like myself) then Stadia is appealing as it just simply cheaper and more convenient overall.

Also technically there will be a subscription service coming to Stadia. Ubisoft's Uplay+ service is supposed to be coming to Stadia sometime in 2020.
 
Back
Top