Stadia, Google Game Streaming platform [2019-2021]

Stadia is going to be in an interesting position with the new consoles. Its not going to be able keep up visually and it already lags behind in ummm lag. I honestly think Google will sunset it instead of upgrading their infrastructure.

Microsoft on the other hand seems to have made a smart play with the xsx hardware and its machine learning enhancements along with its ability to have one xsx series run multiple instances of an xbox one game. I think with that MS may have solved the scaling issue in regards server farms. I'm guessing a mid 2021 launch.

MS coupling the games to game pass is also a good idea. MS is going to try and get you on a single subscription plan that you can take across all devices. MS has two devices coming later this year that will make one second guess a switch for portable gaming

To be fair, MS is going to suffer the same situation WRT to input feedback lag. It's something all streaming platforms have in common that you just can't handwave away.

Regards,
SB
 
To be fair, MS is going to suffer the same situation WRT to input feedback lag. It's something all streaming platforms have in common that you just can't handwave away.

Regards,
SB

Oh i don't disagree , however its a different story when you pay full cost for a game vs perhaps getting it with your game pass subscription
 
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-duo
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-neo

I've used both and with xcloud it will make me leave my switch at home. High end gaming is also now possible on my surface pro once xcloud come to windows.
A lot of phones are already more capable processorwise than the switch, but what they dont have is good controls, anything that doesnt have these built in is at a disadvantage, sure you can pair a controller to your phone/laptop, but its not the same thing
 
Stadia is going to be in an interesting position with the new consoles. Its not going to be able keep up visually and it already lags behind in ummm lag. I honestly think Google will sunset it instead of upgrading their infrastructure.
Stadia hardware could become twice as powerful tomorrow. That is the flexibility of the cloud. They don't need to do that yet and barriers are elsewhere but it would be foolish to write off a cloud service based on what it is today. Doubly-so when that service is run by Google.
 
Stadia hardware could become twice as powerful tomorrow. That is the flexibility of the cloud. They don't need to do that yet and barriers are elsewhere but it would be foolish to write off a cloud service based on what it is today. Doubly-so when that service is run by Google.

So they could finally match current-gen midgen consoles on more titles? Some say they have to be running multiple instances per server going by the current results with reviewers.

I wonder how long Google plans on running with any level of hardware, like when do they plan on transitioning and how long between the transitions. Also, do they dump the old hardware or reassign it to do something else? I imagine they're power and space constrained.

I know when Facebook did a major server upgrade to hit twice the performance with same power usage, it had ripples onto eBay server pull sales. That's when I picked up dual cpus for $90 each and motherboard for $100 where normal prices would be $490 each and $350. Ram was also dirt cheap too, so I got 128 GB to go with it.
 
So they could finally match current-gen midgen consoles on more titles? Some say they have to be running multiple instances per server going by the current results with reviewers.

I wonder how long Google plans on running with any level of hardware, like when do they plan on transitioning and how long between the transitions. Also, do they dump the old hardware or reassign it to do something else? I imagine they're power and space constrained.

Google is a very heavy recycler of server components, many 'new' servers deployed contain significant chunks of dead or repurposed servers that weren't needed or beyond economical repair. I still don't understand Google's plan to monetise Stadia because their basic business model does not look sustainable unless they're happy for this unit to run at a loss. In terms of server architecture, the Stadia goal surely has to be to find hardware that is dual-use, i.e. works well for Stadia but can be used or other Google needs when Stadia demands are low. Likewise Microsoft with XCloud.

I don't think any of Stadia's key issues are related to the server hardware.
 
Stadia hardware could become twice as powerful tomorrow. That is the flexibility of the cloud. They don't need to do that yet and barriers are elsewhere but it would be foolish to write off a cloud service based on what it is today. Doubly-so when that service is run by Google.
that requires google to install more powerful hardware. But people aren't subscribing or buying. So why invest ?
 
Not been following too closely, but whats been the Stadia response to various services (Netflix,Steam,etc) reducing their quality to try and help with the CV crisis?
 
Because sometimes to break into a market you have to accept a loss. Microsoft were very transparent about profitability being a long haul goal, not something that would happen straight away.
The first xbox sold 25m or so plus units with the xbox. The xbox 360 sold over 80m units . The last numbers i could find is the free stadia app was downloaded a 175k times and then radio silence afterwards.

Current stadia graphics compared to the xbox one x. When the ps5 and xbox series x hit later this year they will outperform stadia and have new features like ray tracing. Xcloud will get ray tracing , GeForce streaming already has ray tracing. So Googles hardware will already need to be upgraded. MS had 4 years with the xbox and 8 years with the xbox 360 before having to reinvest into new hardware and like i said their user base was massive compared to stadia.
 
I thought Stadia Free wasn't released yet.
Well the app is free, but you can't use it unless you're a trial or paying member of the subscription service. Maybe the point was you could download it irrespective of whether you're doing anything with it, which makes their download numbers even worse?
 
The first xbox sold 25m or so plus units with the xbox. The xbox 360 sold over 80m units . The last numbers i could find is the free stadia app was downloaded a 175k times and then radio silence afterwards.

And they lost $5-7bn on it. Most people cannot afford to buy their way into a market like that. Microsoft and Google can.

Sales and download metrics have no correlation to profitability, nor does revenue. Revenue does not account for running costs or costs sunk through R&D and marketing to date to bring a product to launch. The only winner with the Xbox was Nvidia.
 
Google’s “overpromising” led to Stadia “disappointment,” says RDR2 publisher
If you're paying $60 for a game, “are you really unwilling to buy a $300 console?”
{ Especially if you're having to spend $130 on the Stadia Console already }

"It's not a game changer," Zelnick said. "People who want our games now can get our games now. The fact that you could stream them and not have to have a console interface is really not that big of a deal."

Who is streaming for, exactly?
Zelnick went on to deride a key concept underpinning the entire Stadia business model: the idea that streaming would appeal to billions of potential players clamoring for high-end games on their mobile phone or low-end PCs.

"If you're going to pay $60-plus in US dollars for a frontline release, and more internationally, are you really unwilling to buy a $300 console?" Zelnick mused. "The belief that streaming was going to be transformative was based on a view that there were loads of people who really [had] an interest in interactive entertainment, really wanted to pay for it, but just didn't want to have a console. I'm not sure that turned out to be the case."

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020...lishers-says-streaming-is-not-a-game-changer/
 
Back
Top