Silent_Buddha
Legend
Is that a problem? If the subscription cost is low then it could be seen as an alternative.
It all depends on what is finally delivered. What's the actual cost of ownership? How much is the box you have to buy? How much is the service? Do you have to buy titles on the service to play them? All titles or only titles that aren't included in a subscription. If there is subscription what is the monthly fee and what do you get with it? What internet infrastructure do you need for a playable experience?
What is the experience like in an ideal situation (good internet close to data center) versus a less than optimal situation (sketchy internet or long distance from a data center).
With Stadia they are all in with the streamed experience. With Sony and MS, there's still an option of a local experience.
MS is likely going to be Stadia's closest competition if speculation is correct that Stadia will be leveraging PC games along side some exclusive content. With MS planning on offering a streaming service as well, how will Stadia stand out? In the best case they'll compete for streaming customers. But even in that case, gaming customers still have an option of a non-streaming experience with MS if they find streaming less than satisfying.
It gets even murkier if MS's non-streaming solution ends up offering a better experience at the same or cheaper cost (Xbox Game Pass or EA Access).
We'll be able to get a better grasp of just how Google intends to compete once they release more details on Stadia. But at the moment, it doesn't appear they will be offering anything that MS won't be offering.
Regards,
SB