Investors want to see growth, and the console vendors are already well entrenched in homes. So at least they're trying something to expand their revenue streams rather than being so closed minded as this. Is it the right time bearing in mind the hurdles of internet connections? Maybe not yet, or maybe it just needs another push from someone as big as Google (who is also big on fibre connectivity and those data centers). The streaming gig has been done for years, but it's probably just a matter of time and perseverence as connectivity grows.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.
This sort of snark isn't particularly productive for thoughtful discussion.
streaming is limited, though. Switch and a physical console can achieve things like this, streaming can't.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.
This is Google's weakest point. They are using a platform that no-one writes games for. Who's going to do the porting? What's in it for the devs, because at first glance you're looking at all that effort to port only to make zero money when no-one's using the service because there are no games on it and you only get a small cut from a small subscription fee.They need more than news games though, they need to get a lot of PC game running on that thing.
Without any back catalog they are fighting an up hill battle but on the plus side depending on their business model the buy-in price for players to get a couple games could really low compared to PC and consoles. For example my ALienware Alpha i3 is fine for what I would start to show its age if I were to play demanding game. UPgrading the CPÜ is still a good 115€ (for a use quad core). With online service I can kee p a lot of old game running locally and accves new game with 0 investment. It may even allow ma Windows PC to stealthily acces Andoird app (if Google want it). I'm displeased with windows marketstore.This is Google's weakest point. They are using a platform that no-one writes games for. Who's going to do the porting? What's in it for the devs, because at first glance you're looking at all that effort to port only to make zero money when no-one's using the service because there are no games on it and you only get a small cut from a small subscription fee.
Google need a couple of (in house) killer games, only playable on Stadia, shown on top streamers' channels with a 'play now' button. So...uh...buy Respawn and make Apex Stadia only.
so doom3, which you were lucky to hit 30fps was not doom?
So do I, but it's only running at 1080p30 at moment, not what they plan for launch.so doom3, which you were lucky to hit 30fps was not doom?
i take his point though
Yeah, Linux and Vulkan are really bad choices, maybe not Vulkan, but lower level API in general demand much more involvement from the developer. Windows and DX11 should result in a faster porting process.This is Google's weakest point. They are using a platform that no-one writes games for. Who's going to do the porting?
Not sure even this would be enough, it will just mean that Stadia is a platform for some battle royale titles, just like Battle.Net is a platform for OverWatch and Destiny 2. Or Epic Store was a platform for Fortnite. People will still buy consoles and PCs to play the majority of titles, past, present and future.Google need a couple of (in house) killer games, only playable on Stadia, shown on top streamers' channels with a 'play now' button. So...uh...buy Respawn and make Apex Stadia only.