3 ms·

> Then the next step is that Google Cloud offers you an on demand high end gaming machine, pay by the minute, which runs Steam on Windows x86 and has an instant

by jchw 5y ago

> Then the next step is that Google Cloud offers you an on demand high end gaming machine, pay by the minute, which runs Steam on Windows x86 and has an instant VPN to your Chromebook. I find it difficult to believe they'd offer this, given that they already have Stadia. I do see how this could be more appealing for consumers, but aside from competing with themselves, I also would be curious about the economics. Considering how expensive GPUs are, is it even possible the prices for an on-demand gaming service could ever make that much sense? With Stadia, they are making you buy the games through Stadia itself, where they would get a cut of the revenue, which probably helps subsidize the actual cost of the service a bit more. There's also other very irritating issues. For example, a litany of AAA game companies do not allow their games to be streamed via GeForce Now, even though it would be running your own copy that you bought from your Steam or other library. I assume they would fight to earn additional money on game streaming, even though the money simply isn't there. This is unfortunate, but perhaps it's OK. Lower end devices will be getting more and more powerful and eventually I'm sure even reasonably priced Chromebooks will be able to play games decently. Given this launch only applies to newer Intel processor based Chromebooks, that day is not today... but still, it certainly could be on the horizon.

crummy 5y ago
> I find it difficult to believe they'd offer this, given that they already have Stadia. Isn't Stadia moving to a PaaS for purposes just like this?
- technobabbler 5y ago
  I don't think Google really has a game plan (no pun intended). They never gave Stadia the dev and marketing resources it needed so it just died on the vine. Their "pivot" is more like a surrender, I think, an act of desperation where they hope other companies will pay them for their tech that never really took off with consumers. Thing is, porting to Stadia is so much work vs flicking a switch in Steam to publish to GeForce Now. And Stadia can't cross play or cross save with anything else by default, making it a very lonely ecosystem.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    That is why they are now writing a Windows emulation layer for Stadia, which I think won't convince anyone that isn't yet bought into their Stadia sales pitch. See last week Stadia sessions for developers.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > they are now writing a Windows emulation layer for Stadia So they are going in the same direction as LiquidSky.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        > LiquidSky shut down their service on December 17th, 2018 while they focus their efforts on building a new streaming platform. > As of 2018, LiquidSky was acquired by Walmart and now focusing on other projects. I guess that is where Stadia will land as well.
mikepurvis 5y ago
It feels to me like the only logical economic future for game streaming is as a value add for a game subscription service (so like, xgp and xcloud as a logical pairing).
- technobabbler 5y ago
  $100 or so a year for a game steaming service is a heck lot cheaper than a gaming PC and a graphics card update every few years. And you can play anywhere, on any device, where you have a fast connection. It was a godsend for me before I could afford a gaming PC (or find one, during the pandemic)
  - josefx 5y ago
    > $100 or so a year for a game steaming service is a heck lot cheaper than a gaming PC and a graphics card update every few years. You are not going to compete with high end hardware/graphics using Stadia, not sure if that was solved but for quite some time they just upscaled to the promised resolution instead of actually rendering it. Everyone casual will be kicked to the next set of consumer hardware by Microsoft(Windows 11 incompatible) or Google (required native codec support for some android apps) either way. That $100 or so (definitely way more) is going to go on top of the hardware upgrade treadmill, not as alternative to it.
    - technobabbler 5y ago
      Not Stadia maybe but GeForce Now gets you a 3080 and 120Hz (not necessarily fps) at 4k. But sorry, it's apparently $200 a year now, not $100. My bad.
technobabbler 5y ago
Google never really tried with stadia. It's just another dead Google product, now changing into some sort of B2B thing. Shrug. Meanwhile Nvidia kept improving geforce now and it's actually really good now, running on everything from operating systems to browsers with no noticeable lag. Cheap too, like $15 a mo or so, and works with most of your Steam library. Where it doesn't, usually means that the publisher wanted to get off for some reason. Xbox Game Pass is another great steaming option (via xcloud), Netflix like subscription service that lets you stream games. There's also Shadow and Luna and such. Many companies are doing this well, just not Google.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Google is even worse than Apple in what concerns talking to game developers, they always focus on the Play Store and KPIs, and seldom focus on the tools. Even when they really try (see last week Games Development Summit), it is mostly about high level stuff, like PMs talking to PMs, handwaving to lightweight docs and github repos. Naturally very few game devs ever get enthusiastic from whatever comes out of Google.
  - technobabbler 5y ago
    Great point. Meanwhile Steam and the other platforms spent years and years making great tooling and ecosystems to court developers. Stadia just feels like an executive's half assed demo...
rapind 5y ago
Stadia was dead on arrival. Working with Valve has the potential of being really really smart, but I’m not sure this develops into anything significant.

by jchw 5y ago

crummy 5y ago

> I find it difficult to believe they'd offer this, given that they already have Stadia. Isn't Stadia moving to a PaaS for purposes just like this?

technobabbler 5y ago
I don't think Google really has a game plan (no pun intended). They never gave Stadia the dev and marketing resources it needed so it just died on the vine. Their "pivot" is more like a surrender, I think, an act of desperation where they hope other companies will pay them for their tech that never really took off with consumers. Thing is, porting to Stadia is so much work vs flicking a switch in Steam to publish to GeForce Now. And Stadia can't cross play or cross save with anything else by default, making it a very lonely ecosystem.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  That is why they are now writing a Windows emulation layer for Stadia, which I think won't convince anyone that isn't yet bought into their Stadia sales pitch. See last week Stadia sessions for developers.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > they are now writing a Windows emulation layer for Stadia So they are going in the same direction as LiquidSky.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      > LiquidSky shut down their service on December 17th, 2018 while they focus their efforts on building a new streaming platform. > As of 2018, LiquidSky was acquired by Walmart and now focusing on other projects. I guess that is where Stadia will land as well.

mikepurvis 5y ago

It feels to me like the only logical economic future for game streaming is as a value add for a game subscription service (so like, xgp and xcloud as a logical pairing).

technobabbler 5y ago
$100 or so a year for a game steaming service is a heck lot cheaper than a gaming PC and a graphics card update every few years. And you can play anywhere, on any device, where you have a fast connection. It was a godsend for me before I could afford a gaming PC (or find one, during the pandemic)
- josefx 5y ago
  > $100 or so a year for a game steaming service is a heck lot cheaper than a gaming PC and a graphics card update every few years. You are not going to compete with high end hardware/graphics using Stadia, not sure if that was solved but for quite some time they just upscaled to the promised resolution instead of actually rendering it. Everyone casual will be kicked to the next set of consumer hardware by Microsoft(Windows 11 incompatible) or Google (required native codec support for some android apps) either way. That $100 or so (definitely way more) is going to go on top of the hardware upgrade treadmill, not as alternative to it.
  - technobabbler 5y ago
    Not Stadia maybe but GeForce Now gets you a 3080 and 120Hz (not necessarily fps) at 4k. But sorry, it's apparently $200 a year now, not $100. My bad.

technobabbler 5y ago

Google never really tried with stadia. It's just another dead Google product, now changing into some sort of B2B thing. Shrug. Meanwhile Nvidia kept improving geforce now and it's actually really good now, running on everything from operating systems to browsers with no noticeable lag. Cheap too, like $15 a mo or so, and works with most of your Steam library. Where it doesn't, usually means that the publisher wanted to get off for some reason. Xbox Game Pass is another great steaming option (via xcloud), Netflix like subscription service that lets you stream games. There's also Shadow and Luna and such. Many companies are doing this well, just not Google.

pjmlp 5y ago
Google is even worse than Apple in what concerns talking to game developers, they always focus on the Play Store and KPIs, and seldom focus on the tools. Even when they really try (see last week Games Development Summit), it is mostly about high level stuff, like PMs talking to PMs, handwaving to lightweight docs and github repos. Naturally very few game devs ever get enthusiastic from whatever comes out of Google.
- technobabbler 5y ago
  Great point. Meanwhile Steam and the other platforms spent years and years making great tooling and ecosystems to court developers. Stadia just feels like an executive's half assed demo...

rapind 5y ago

Stadia was dead on arrival. Working with Valve has the potential of being really really smart, but I’m not sure this develops into anything significant.