8 ms·

Glass cost money, more than 10x what this cost, and that was not a signal of their long term ambition. The problem with Stadia is that it costs money, the serv

Glass cost money, more than 10x what this cost, and that was not a signal of their long term ambition. The problem with Stadia is that it costs money, the service costs a monthly fee, and on top of it you have to buy the games. What happens to those games if you stop paying the fee? If you stop using Stadia? If Google deprecates Stadia like many are worried. I'll tell you: you lose the game. If I, conversely, buy the same $60 game on Steam, I know it'll be there years down the road, that I'll be able to play it on any PC I build, and I don't have to maintain a monthly fee for it. What Google is trying has been tried many times before, by people who had more permissive game ownership structures. Do not tell us we shouldn't be worried about using such a product from Google given their track record -- especially when the costs to them are enormous in terms of computing power and the reception has been very tepid (meaning those costs are larger per-user than they likely anticipated).

40acres 7y ago
Honestly, glass simply seems too early. We know that Apple is also working on AR glasses, even Intel came out with a AR glasses platform but quickly had to kill it because the market is simply not mature. I think Google is betting that cloud steaming is now viable and are going to put as much resources as possible to make it work. I am not doubting that there are issues with the product and concerns about Google, I obviously have reservations but don't believe that it hinders me from being excited about the prospect itself
- berberous 7y ago
  It’s not the market that wasn’t mature, it’s the technology/product —- although the latter is what you need to grow a market. I love new technology and gadgets. I bought an Oculus DK2 and Vive and they were both mind blowing when I first tried them, although I don’t still use them. Trying Google Glass, on the other hand, was beyond underwhelming. Holo Lens and Magic Leap, while slightly better, were also extremely underwhelming. Other than niche industrial applications, these products are far far too early for any consumer product.
- lostcolony 7y ago
  I feel like "X was too early/ahead of its time" is kind of a red herring. What it's basically saying is "this failed until it succeeded", because the alternative option, that of being able to accurately predict the exact point the technology is 'good enough', has proven effectively impossible to do (given how so many companies that manage it occasionally also fail at it most of the time; it's a crapshoot). To that end, given Stadia is here, does anyone think the tech is ready? No. In fact, people seem to think the opposite, that Stadia is Google's attempt to get the tech to a specific point, or to offset the cost of the tech serving another use case. The only way Stadia has a shot is if Google stays viewing it as a way to profit from having unused GPUs sitting around within its cloud offerings.
modwilliam 7y ago
> it costs money, the service costs a monthly fee, and on top of it you have to buy the games While this is true now, you'll later be able to play games by only paying a monthly fee or only buying the game for the normal <=$60 price. The subscription isn't necessary to play games at all. The problem you have with the service potentially going away also applies to Steam, to a lesser degree. I acknowledge that they have a proven track record now and also require much less to continue serving games though.
- nihonium 7y ago
  If Steam says "We're shutting down" , I would be able to download the games to my computer and manage my own backups. If Stadia shuts down, the games I've bought will vanish. In that case, I hope Google would make a deal with a company like Steam to transfer already purchased games. Actually, If I buy a game, I'd like to be able to download it just in case if I wanna play with low settings on my laptop while I'm on holiday with crappy internet connection. PS Now gives you option to download and/or stream PS4 games.
Waterluvian 7y ago
> "...it costs money, the service costs a monthly fee, and on top of it you have to buy the games." WHAT? I've been under a rock and I assumed that it was a service where you buy a controller, already own a streaming device (or maybe the controller has the device in it), and pay monthly for the whole service. You have to buy the games too? That is an immediate about-face for me. If they shut down the service then I just stop paying the monthly fee. This is perfectly comfortable for any service. But if I have to buy-in to every game...
- vsuqf 7y ago
  lol yeah. I thought the games catalogue was included. Now this is just retarded.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    There is a no monthly fee version that you only have to buy games to use eventually that will be limited to 1080p streams. 4k costs a monthly fee + the cost of games though they are saying there will be some discounts to games if you're paying for the better service.
    - krzyk 7y ago
      But the issue is that the games with 4k, are currently only upscaled to 4k - https://9to5google.com/2019/11/20/stadia-4k-games-quality/ https://9to5google.com/2019/11/20/stadia-4k-games-quality/
      - rtkwe 7y ago
        Oh yeah the whole thing is kind of a shit show right now but that's what they're pitching so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for the moment and treating this like one big early access trial for the minute. From all indications this launch came in incredibly hot with the lineup doubling at the last minute, almost as if they had some last minute major issues with some of their Linux ports.
saynay 7y ago
Stadia does not have a monthly required. It has a monthly fee only for the highest quality streaming tier (4k@60). If you stop paying that fee, you will keep games you purchased (with the exception of those given away for free with the subscription). There is certainly room to be concerned with what happens to purchases if Google eventually pulls the plug on the whole service.
nvrspyx 7y ago
I don’t disagree with your main point about losing games, but the fee is strictly for Stadia Pro, which permits 4K and 5.1 surround sound. Stadia Base is free and will launch in February, but only permits up to 1080p and stereo sound. You still obviously also need to buy the games though (except F2P). They’re using the “Founder’s Edition” almost like Early Access. If you have Stadia Pro and you stop paying, you lose access to the free games that are included with Pro, which right now are Destiny 2 and Samurai Showdown. This is the same as Xbox Live Gold and the Free Games with Gold. You don’t lose access to the games you purchased if you stop paying for Pro.
- whynaut 7y ago
  > If you have Stadia Pro and you stop paying, you lose access to the free games that are included with Pro, which right now are Destiny 2 and Samurai Showdown. This is the same as Xbox Live Gold and the Free Games with Gold. Games With Gold are actually free. You need the Gold membership to get them, but you can unsubscribe - they're yours. Edit: You may be thinking of Game Pass, which behaves in the way you describe.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    Yes on the 360 because its Store was never built with Memberships in mind. No on the Xbox One (and PC where applicable) where a lapse in your Gold status will make those games unplayable until you rejoin.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - nvrspyx 7y ago
    Nope. I’m not mistaken. What you’re talking about only applies to Xbox 360. For Xbox One, you lose access to your claimed Free Games with Gold when your subscription lapses until you resubscribe. The same is true for the free games to PlayStation Plus subscribers.
  - robertony 7y ago
nilkn 7y ago
If I could play high-end complex modern AAA games like RDR2 on my iPad Pro while traveling, I think there's a valuable proposition there. But ironically that's exactly the area where Stadia falls flat: internet connections are weak or nonexistent while traveling, and currently it's not even usable from an iPad.
- NotATroll 7y ago
  This is the thing I don't get. Who precisely is this concept even marketable to? People with high speed internet, that also can't afford a gaming console? But can afford a device capable of handling all of the inputs & playback of the video. So lets low ball and say a $140 chromebook. + the cost of the games. How many people is this? Genuinely.
  - msh 7y ago
    Well I bought stadia. With 3 young kids and a busy job i don't have a lot of time to game so I want something where I can just sit down and game. No wasting time downloading/installing games. No patches. Just games ready to play. A second point, sometimes i play coop games with my wife. Its nice not needing 2 consoles or gaming pc's. One can play on the TV and the other on a tablet or cheap laptop.
    - falcolas 7y ago
      > A second point, sometimes i play coop games with my wife. Its nice not needing 2 consoles or gaming pc's. One can play on the TV and the other on a tablet or cheap laptop. Unless you have (particularly good) fiber, this probably won't happen. The bandwidth requirements are too high. > No wasting time downloading/installing games. No patches. Just games ready to play. FWIW, all of the current generation consoles (even the Switch) have a standby mode that will let them patch your games while you're not playing, meaning that in most cases when you go to play, you can immediately play. They'll even download pre-ordered games without your input. The only time you would need to be concerned about download times is when you're purchasing a new game for the first time. That's typically a one-time event per game.
SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
PC's don't generally need a subscription service to access games or multiplayer, but your upfront hardware costs to play modern AAA games are huge. And existing consoles require you to: * pay a large upfront fee for the hardware * purchase games at full price * buy a recurring subscription service for access to updates and essentials, like multiplayer. Stadia doesn't seem unreasonable at all by comparison.
- nilkn 7y ago
  The biggest problem I see with this right now is that Stadia appears to be sub-console quality and really nowhere close to PC gaming. The Pro service that is supposed to be 4K@60 is not at all 4K. I do agree that if it reaches the point where Stadia allows you to effectively rent a $3k - $4k high end gaming PC for just $10/month, it will become an interesting proposition.
- falcolas 7y ago
  $400 amortized over a lifetime of 5 years (10, at the outside). ~$6 a month. You can also buy a console used for less than half the price at this point in the console lifecycle. The game purchase story is identical. The multiplayer subscription is approximately another ~$4 a month, and includes an average of two new, free, games per month. It's also not required outside of multiplayer. So, the deal is virtually identical to (or better than) Stadia, but with much more stability in poor internet zones, and the chances of Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo turning off their entire ecosystem are much lower than Google's (they have a positive track record spanning decades on this topic).
  - SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
    So cost of ownership over time is similar and competitive for the non-free Stadia. But I'm not sure I really care about that, or that most people think of money that way. Its just easier to part with a few bucks every month for most people, than it is to part with $400 at one time. You can look at the cost another way: Buying a console is like buying a 5-year pre-paid plan for a subscription service. That puts it in clearer terms, to me. Anyhow, once Stadia's free version is released, unless its drastically limited in someway, it will be cheaper than everything. Honestly, I don't know why they didn't advertise as a primarily free service. People think of it as a paid service first, that has a crappy free tier, rather than a free service that has a value-add pro tier.
lonelappde 7y ago
7 years later, Glass is still a successful product for its users.
- sipos 7y ago
  Yes, all 7 of them are very happy with it.
nwah1 7y ago
This could be solved in theory by a streaming service that didn't try to lock you in. Alas, almost every streaming service of every kind does want to lock you in, and often the licensing agreements necessary to offer competitive pricing require it. But having a pricier option where you can save your content offline would be a way to satisfy both audiences. Although in this case, I personally think a pure subscription model should replace the fee + pay-per-game model as the basic streaming option.

40acres 7y ago

Honestly, glass simply seems too early. We know that Apple is also working on AR glasses, even Intel came out with a AR glasses platform but quickly had to kill it because the market is simply not mature. I think Google is betting that cloud steaming is now viable and are going to put as much resources as possible to make it work. I am not doubting that there are issues with the product and concerns about Google, I obviously have reservations but don't believe that it hinders me from being excited about the prospect itself

berberous 7y ago
It’s not the market that wasn’t mature, it’s the technology/product —- although the latter is what you need to grow a market. I love new technology and gadgets. I bought an Oculus DK2 and Vive and they were both mind blowing when I first tried them, although I don’t still use them. Trying Google Glass, on the other hand, was beyond underwhelming. Holo Lens and Magic Leap, while slightly better, were also extremely underwhelming. Other than niche industrial applications, these products are far far too early for any consumer product.
lostcolony 7y ago
I feel like "X was too early/ahead of its time" is kind of a red herring. What it's basically saying is "this failed until it succeeded", because the alternative option, that of being able to accurately predict the exact point the technology is 'good enough', has proven effectively impossible to do (given how so many companies that manage it occasionally also fail at it most of the time; it's a crapshoot). To that end, given Stadia is here, does anyone think the tech is ready? No. In fact, people seem to think the opposite, that Stadia is Google's attempt to get the tech to a specific point, or to offset the cost of the tech serving another use case. The only way Stadia has a shot is if Google stays viewing it as a way to profit from having unused GPUs sitting around within its cloud offerings.

modwilliam 7y ago

> it costs money, the service costs a monthly fee, and on top of it you have to buy the games While this is true now, you'll later be able to play games by only paying a monthly fee or only buying the game for the normal <=$60 price. The subscription isn't necessary to play games at all. The problem you have with the service potentially going away also applies to Steam, to a lesser degree. I acknowledge that they have a proven track record now and also require much less to continue serving games though.

nihonium 7y ago
If Steam says "We're shutting down" , I would be able to download the games to my computer and manage my own backups. If Stadia shuts down, the games I've bought will vanish. In that case, I hope Google would make a deal with a company like Steam to transfer already purchased games. Actually, If I buy a game, I'd like to be able to download it just in case if I wanna play with low settings on my laptop while I'm on holiday with crappy internet connection. PS Now gives you option to download and/or stream PS4 games.

Waterluvian 7y ago

> "...it costs money, the service costs a monthly fee, and on top of it you have to buy the games." WHAT? I've been under a rock and I assumed that it was a service where you buy a controller, already own a streaming device (or maybe the controller has the device in it), and pay monthly for the whole service. You have to buy the games too? That is an immediate about-face for me. If they shut down the service then I just stop paying the monthly fee. This is perfectly comfortable for any service. But if I have to buy-in to every game...

vsuqf 7y ago
lol yeah. I thought the games catalogue was included. Now this is just retarded.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  There is a no monthly fee version that you only have to buy games to use eventually that will be limited to 1080p streams. 4k costs a monthly fee + the cost of games though they are saying there will be some discounts to games if you're paying for the better service.
  - krzyk 7y ago
    But the issue is that the games with 4k, are currently only upscaled to 4k - https://9to5google.com/2019/11/20/stadia-4k-games-quality/ https://9to5google.com/2019/11/20/stadia-4k-games-quality/
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      Oh yeah the whole thing is kind of a shit show right now but that's what they're pitching so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for the moment and treating this like one big early access trial for the minute. From all indications this launch came in incredibly hot with the lineup doubling at the last minute, almost as if they had some last minute major issues with some of their Linux ports.

saynay 7y ago

Stadia does not have a monthly required. It has a monthly fee only for the highest quality streaming tier (4k@60). If you stop paying that fee, you will keep games you purchased (with the exception of those given away for free with the subscription). There is certainly room to be concerned with what happens to purchases if Google eventually pulls the plug on the whole service.

nvrspyx 7y ago

I don’t disagree with your main point about losing games, but the fee is strictly for Stadia Pro, which permits 4K and 5.1 surround sound. Stadia Base is free and will launch in February, but only permits up to 1080p and stereo sound. You still obviously also need to buy the games though (except F2P). They’re using the “Founder’s Edition” almost like Early Access. If you have Stadia Pro and you stop paying, you lose access to the free games that are included with Pro, which right now are Destiny 2 and Samurai Showdown. This is the same as Xbox Live Gold and the Free Games with Gold. You don’t lose access to the games you purchased if you stop paying for Pro.

whynaut 7y ago
> If you have Stadia Pro and you stop paying, you lose access to the free games that are included with Pro, which right now are Destiny 2 and Samurai Showdown. This is the same as Xbox Live Gold and the Free Games with Gold. Games With Gold are actually free. You need the Gold membership to get them, but you can unsubscribe - they're yours. Edit: You may be thinking of Game Pass, which behaves in the way you describe.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  Yes on the 360 because its Store was never built with Memberships in mind. No on the Xbox One (and PC where applicable) where a lapse in your Gold status will make those games unplayable until you rejoin.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- nvrspyx 7y ago
  Nope. I’m not mistaken. What you’re talking about only applies to Xbox 360. For Xbox One, you lose access to your claimed Free Games with Gold when your subscription lapses until you resubscribe. The same is true for the free games to PlayStation Plus subscribers.
- robertony 7y ago

nilkn 7y ago

If I could play high-end complex modern AAA games like RDR2 on my iPad Pro while traveling, I think there's a valuable proposition there. But ironically that's exactly the area where Stadia falls flat: internet connections are weak or nonexistent while traveling, and currently it's not even usable from an iPad.

NotATroll 7y ago
This is the thing I don't get. Who precisely is this concept even marketable to? People with high speed internet, that also can't afford a gaming console? But can afford a device capable of handling all of the inputs & playback of the video. So lets low ball and say a $140 chromebook. + the cost of the games. How many people is this? Genuinely.
- msh 7y ago
  Well I bought stadia. With 3 young kids and a busy job i don't have a lot of time to game so I want something where I can just sit down and game. No wasting time downloading/installing games. No patches. Just games ready to play. A second point, sometimes i play coop games with my wife. Its nice not needing 2 consoles or gaming pc's. One can play on the TV and the other on a tablet or cheap laptop.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    > A second point, sometimes i play coop games with my wife. Its nice not needing 2 consoles or gaming pc's. One can play on the TV and the other on a tablet or cheap laptop. Unless you have (particularly good) fiber, this probably won't happen. The bandwidth requirements are too high. > No wasting time downloading/installing games. No patches. Just games ready to play. FWIW, all of the current generation consoles (even the Switch) have a standby mode that will let them patch your games while you're not playing, meaning that in most cases when you go to play, you can immediately play. They'll even download pre-ordered games without your input. The only time you would need to be concerned about download times is when you're purchasing a new game for the first time. That's typically a one-time event per game.

SmirkingRevenge 7y ago

PC's don't generally need a subscription service to access games or multiplayer, but your upfront hardware costs to play modern AAA games are huge. And existing consoles require you to: * pay a large upfront fee for the hardware * purchase games at full price * buy a recurring subscription service for access to updates and essentials, like multiplayer. Stadia doesn't seem unreasonable at all by comparison.

nilkn 7y ago
The biggest problem I see with this right now is that Stadia appears to be sub-console quality and really nowhere close to PC gaming. The Pro service that is supposed to be 4K@60 is not at all 4K. I do agree that if it reaches the point where Stadia allows you to effectively rent a $3k - $4k high end gaming PC for just $10/month, it will become an interesting proposition.
falcolas 7y ago
$400 amortized over a lifetime of 5 years (10, at the outside). ~$6 a month. You can also buy a console used for less than half the price at this point in the console lifecycle. The game purchase story is identical. The multiplayer subscription is approximately another ~$4 a month, and includes an average of two new, free, games per month. It's also not required outside of multiplayer. So, the deal is virtually identical to (or better than) Stadia, but with much more stability in poor internet zones, and the chances of Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo turning off their entire ecosystem are much lower than Google's (they have a positive track record spanning decades on this topic).
- SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
  So cost of ownership over time is similar and competitive for the non-free Stadia. But I'm not sure I really care about that, or that most people think of money that way. Its just easier to part with a few bucks every month for most people, than it is to part with $400 at one time. You can look at the cost another way: Buying a console is like buying a 5-year pre-paid plan for a subscription service. That puts it in clearer terms, to me. Anyhow, once Stadia's free version is released, unless its drastically limited in someway, it will be cheaper than everything. Honestly, I don't know why they didn't advertise as a primarily free service. People think of it as a paid service first, that has a crappy free tier, rather than a free service that has a value-add pro tier.

lonelappde 7y ago

7 years later, Glass is still a successful product for its users.

sipos 7y ago
Yes, all 7 of them are very happy with it.

nwah1 7y ago

This could be solved in theory by a streaming service that didn't try to lock you in. Alas, almost every streaming service of every kind does want to lock you in, and often the licensing agreements necessary to offer competitive pricing require it. But having a pricier option where you can save your content offline would be a way to satisfy both audiences. Although in this case, I personally think a pure subscription model should replace the fee + pay-per-game model as the basic streaming option.