4 ms·

I work at Google and I was immediately skeptical of Stadia (I don't work on that product, obviously). Partly from being a gamer myself, thinking about latency,

I work at Google and I was immediately skeptical of Stadia (I don't work on that product, obviously). Partly from being a gamer myself, thinking about latency, but also because: * Google has a reputation for abandoning services, and games bought on Stadia would be locked there. What happens if/when Stadia goes under? Who knows, but there's a decent chance of, "tough shit, all your games are gone." * It's hard to get momentum when you're targeting hardcore gamers, who mostly already have consoles/PC's, thus removing one of your biggest advantages.

Handytinge 4y ago
> What happens if/when Stadia goes under? Who knows, but there's a decent chance of, "tough shit, all your games are gone." This had now been answered [1]: > We will be refunding all Stadia hardware purchases made through the Google Store, and all game and add-on content purchases made through the Stadia Store. 1. https://www.ign.com/articles/google-is-shutting-down-stadia-its-cloud-gaming-service https://www.ign.com/articles/google-is-shutting-down-stadia-...
Gigachad 4y ago
The whole setup just hardly makes any sense. They are targeting people who have super fast and reliable internet, are hardcore gamers, and don't have a gaming pc. I just can't imagine who this target market is. Fast hardware is usually much more accessible than fast internet. The idea might have worked if the subscription included access to games. Since at least then you aren't buying in to the platform with lock in.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  If latency wasn't an issue, I could see it as a luxury/convenience thing. Pay for the top tier experience, don't have to manage your own hardware, including the weirdness and annoyances you get into sometimes with PC gaming. But latency is an issue, so the experience will always be inferior in terms of responsiveness. Which, to a lot of gamers, means it would have to be a budget option, not a luxury one.
  - msh 4y ago
    I think the latency part depends a lot on the games. I have used stadia and geforce now and for single player games I cant feel any latency difference. I have tried playing multiplayer games like CS:GO on geforce now, and that gave me latency issues and was not a great experience.
    - leodriesch 4y ago
      My experience on Stadia was that when playing controller the latency is barely noticeable, but keyboard and mouse was really uncomfortable to me.
- Yizahi 4y ago
  This could be a lot of people with a business or Apple laptop living far from home - business trips, expats, migrants. I had to migrate recently and currently have only a work laptop with me, so I have tried Stadia and it was rather good for some games. Best example - ESO, which for 10$ pulled all my progress and DLCs from the cloud. But yes, with the Google "reputation" and the requirement to re-buy all games the second time Stadia is dead in the water, I won't invest there anything above a few dollars.
  - solardev 4y ago
    Have you ever tried GeForce Now? Similar or better performance than Stadia, but it just uses your existing Steam library. It's a separate subscription (free to $20/mo) for the streaming service, but you can play many of your current titles without re-buying them (not all, due to publisher withdrawals). To play ALL your games, Shadow.tech will stream a full GPU-enabled desktop that you can run anything you want in.
    - Yizahi 4y ago
      Not yet, but I plan to try, thanks for the suggestion. It is definitely a better idea, a pity that some publishers withdrawed from that service.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  There are plenty of people whose only computer is a non-gaming laptop. Or even an iPad. Hell, I'm a developer in my 40s, and I only got a decent-ish gaming PC at the start of the pandemic. Stadia could be amazing if Google had any interest in it. Even OnLive of 10 years ago was amazing. LiquidSky knocked everyone out of the park, but had licensing issues unfortunately (play unmodified Steam games in the cloud what?!). There are plenty of people who don't want to invest hundreds of dollars in consoles and gaming PCs but who still play plenty of games. Apple understands that with their Apple Arcade, but Apple doesn't understand gaming. Google doesn't understand gaming either.
- msh 4y ago
  I think you are wrong on the hardcore gamer part. There are something between casual and hardcore gamers (but that market might not be big enough). I used to be a hardcore gamer but being in my forties with kids and job I dont have the time to game as much as I used to. The whole just stream the game, no fiddling with installs and patches were very tempting to me. Given that I dont game as much it would be nice not paying for a beefy gaming PC. I already have great internet, I need it for work. I also have two preteens that are starting to game, its cheaper to get multiple stadia subscrptions that they can then play where they want, on my macbook, the TV or a cheap chromebook. I think google's biggest mistake was requiring you to buy the controller up front. If they had let people sign up with just their existing PC it would have been much easier to get people onboard.
  - najra 4y ago
    i have a similar situation, used to game a lot of friends, lots of us have kids now, would like to game 3-4 times a year. Dont want to bother getting a full on game setup, and I have a macbook for daily use, so not very gaming friendly. Decent streaming setup would be perfect.
- Ayesh 4y ago
  Oh TIL that Stadia didn't work as a game pass, makes it sound even worse!
  - wccrawford 4y ago
    Stadia had (has?) free games each month that remain on your account as long as you're subscribed. So in that way, it is. It just doesn't provide the huge library that XBGP does. The monthly fee was for 4k and other features that weren't necessary. You could stream anything you bought on Stadia for free at 1080p, no subscription. It was like buying a game and getting a console for free, but with an optional upcharge for an even better console. The marketing for all this was horrible. People still don't understand what Stadia was and wasn't. And the launch was limited to people willing to spend $130 for the custom hardware. That hardware wasn't necessary. They just decided to do that at launch as a way to milk some gamers of their money in return for early access. But again, the marketing was horrible. And the free access came many months later. For a system that it's best feature was the free streaming access, they completely destroyed it at launch. And of course, as everyone pointed out back then, Google doesn't support the things they create unless they're related to advertising somehow. And they've already shut down all the studios they created to make games for Stadia. And the big "wow" feature that they kept advertising, "negative latency", never got released. Many thought it was already in it, so the latency that Stadia has was very disappointing compared to the hype that Google gave it. It's just a disaster from start to finish, marketing-wise.
    - solardev 4y ago
      Exactly. I wonder if Stadia had a single gamer on their team. How did they botch it so badly?
- bentcorner 4y ago
  Maybe with the sky high 4090 pricing it would make more sense for gamers to go to the cloud. But then they'd be expecting 4k high resolution streams on 4090s which might mean high COGS anyway.
  - solardev 4y ago
    You can already get RTX 3080 @ 4k 120fps on GeForce Now for $20/mo. The 40xxs probably aren't too far behind, once they start mass production.
- solardev 4y ago
  There are many of us who grew up in the 90s and 2000s and used to have gaming PCs (because that's all there were those days). Nowadays we have jobs and much less time or space or money to keep up with that all the time any more, but being able to drop in for a couple of hours of cloud gaming here and there is awesome. I was able to loan friends my GeForce Now account so we could play something together (they didn't have a gaming PC). And streaming doesn't imply lock-in; GeForce Now just uses your Steam library, Shadow just streams you a virtual Windows desktop (with whatever software you want to install on it, you essentially have root). If you live in a city, fast (enough) internet is like $50/mo and you need it for your work/TikTok anyway. A good gaming PC is like $1500-$2000+ and is noisy and hot and Windows is a pain to keep updated, etc. I'm not saying game streaming is the future or that it will replace traditional PCs, but it's definitely a useful service!
solardev 4y ago
IMHO, as a gamer too, Stadia sucks not because it's streaming (the other streaming services are great for when I'm not on my desktop) but because Google totally botched its execution. Terrible pricing compared to Steam and other resellers, no crossplay, no mods, tiny library. And I think their architecture required specific ports from developers, vs GeForce Now's one-checkbox integration. Game streaming isn't for everyone, but there IS a market for it. In that market, though, Stadia is by far the worst offering. They should've had gamers lead its design and development, but they run it like it's some sort of business cloud offering... just totally missed the culture.

Handytinge 4y ago

> What happens if/when Stadia goes under? Who knows, but there's a decent chance of, "tough shit, all your games are gone." This had now been answered [1]: > We will be refunding all Stadia hardware purchases made through the Google Store, and all game and add-on content purchases made through the Stadia Store. 1. https://www.ign.com/articles/google-is-shutting-down-stadia-its-cloud-gaming-service https://www.ign.com/articles/google-is-shutting-down-stadia-...

Gigachad 4y ago

The whole setup just hardly makes any sense. They are targeting people who have super fast and reliable internet, are hardcore gamers, and don't have a gaming pc. I just can't imagine who this target market is. Fast hardware is usually much more accessible than fast internet. The idea might have worked if the subscription included access to games. Since at least then you aren't buying in to the platform with lock in.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
If latency wasn't an issue, I could see it as a luxury/convenience thing. Pay for the top tier experience, don't have to manage your own hardware, including the weirdness and annoyances you get into sometimes with PC gaming. But latency is an issue, so the experience will always be inferior in terms of responsiveness. Which, to a lot of gamers, means it would have to be a budget option, not a luxury one.
- msh 4y ago
  I think the latency part depends a lot on the games. I have used stadia and geforce now and for single player games I cant feel any latency difference. I have tried playing multiplayer games like CS:GO on geforce now, and that gave me latency issues and was not a great experience.
  - leodriesch 4y ago
    My experience on Stadia was that when playing controller the latency is barely noticeable, but keyboard and mouse was really uncomfortable to me.
Yizahi 4y ago
This could be a lot of people with a business or Apple laptop living far from home - business trips, expats, migrants. I had to migrate recently and currently have only a work laptop with me, so I have tried Stadia and it was rather good for some games. Best example - ESO, which for 10$ pulled all my progress and DLCs from the cloud. But yes, with the Google "reputation" and the requirement to re-buy all games the second time Stadia is dead in the water, I won't invest there anything above a few dollars.
- solardev 4y ago
  Have you ever tried GeForce Now? Similar or better performance than Stadia, but it just uses your existing Steam library. It's a separate subscription (free to $20/mo) for the streaming service, but you can play many of your current titles without re-buying them (not all, due to publisher withdrawals). To play ALL your games, Shadow.tech will stream a full GPU-enabled desktop that you can run anything you want in.
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    Not yet, but I plan to try, thanks for the suggestion. It is definitely a better idea, a pity that some publishers withdrawed from that service.
dmitriid 4y ago
There are plenty of people whose only computer is a non-gaming laptop. Or even an iPad. Hell, I'm a developer in my 40s, and I only got a decent-ish gaming PC at the start of the pandemic. Stadia could be amazing if Google had any interest in it. Even OnLive of 10 years ago was amazing. LiquidSky knocked everyone out of the park, but had licensing issues unfortunately (play unmodified Steam games in the cloud what?!). There are plenty of people who don't want to invest hundreds of dollars in consoles and gaming PCs but who still play plenty of games. Apple understands that with their Apple Arcade, but Apple doesn't understand gaming. Google doesn't understand gaming either.
msh 4y ago
I think you are wrong on the hardcore gamer part. There are something between casual and hardcore gamers (but that market might not be big enough). I used to be a hardcore gamer but being in my forties with kids and job I dont have the time to game as much as I used to. The whole just stream the game, no fiddling with installs and patches were very tempting to me. Given that I dont game as much it would be nice not paying for a beefy gaming PC. I already have great internet, I need it for work. I also have two preteens that are starting to game, its cheaper to get multiple stadia subscrptions that they can then play where they want, on my macbook, the TV or a cheap chromebook. I think google's biggest mistake was requiring you to buy the controller up front. If they had let people sign up with just their existing PC it would have been much easier to get people onboard.
- najra 4y ago
  i have a similar situation, used to game a lot of friends, lots of us have kids now, would like to game 3-4 times a year. Dont want to bother getting a full on game setup, and I have a macbook for daily use, so not very gaming friendly. Decent streaming setup would be perfect.
Ayesh 4y ago
Oh TIL that Stadia didn't work as a game pass, makes it sound even worse!
- wccrawford 4y ago
  Stadia had (has?) free games each month that remain on your account as long as you're subscribed. So in that way, it is. It just doesn't provide the huge library that XBGP does. The monthly fee was for 4k and other features that weren't necessary. You could stream anything you bought on Stadia for free at 1080p, no subscription. It was like buying a game and getting a console for free, but with an optional upcharge for an even better console. The marketing for all this was horrible. People still don't understand what Stadia was and wasn't. And the launch was limited to people willing to spend $130 for the custom hardware. That hardware wasn't necessary. They just decided to do that at launch as a way to milk some gamers of their money in return for early access. But again, the marketing was horrible. And the free access came many months later. For a system that it's best feature was the free streaming access, they completely destroyed it at launch. And of course, as everyone pointed out back then, Google doesn't support the things they create unless they're related to advertising somehow. And they've already shut down all the studios they created to make games for Stadia. And the big "wow" feature that they kept advertising, "negative latency", never got released. Many thought it was already in it, so the latency that Stadia has was very disappointing compared to the hype that Google gave it. It's just a disaster from start to finish, marketing-wise.
  - solardev 4y ago
    Exactly. I wonder if Stadia had a single gamer on their team. How did they botch it so badly?
bentcorner 4y ago
Maybe with the sky high 4090 pricing it would make more sense for gamers to go to the cloud. But then they'd be expecting 4k high resolution streams on 4090s which might mean high COGS anyway.
- solardev 4y ago
  You can already get RTX 3080 @ 4k 120fps on GeForce Now for $20/mo. The 40xxs probably aren't too far behind, once they start mass production.
solardev 4y ago
There are many of us who grew up in the 90s and 2000s and used to have gaming PCs (because that's all there were those days). Nowadays we have jobs and much less time or space or money to keep up with that all the time any more, but being able to drop in for a couple of hours of cloud gaming here and there is awesome. I was able to loan friends my GeForce Now account so we could play something together (they didn't have a gaming PC). And streaming doesn't imply lock-in; GeForce Now just uses your Steam library, Shadow just streams you a virtual Windows desktop (with whatever software you want to install on it, you essentially have root). If you live in a city, fast (enough) internet is like $50/mo and you need it for your work/TikTok anyway. A good gaming PC is like $1500-$2000+ and is noisy and hot and Windows is a pain to keep updated, etc. I'm not saying game streaming is the future or that it will replace traditional PCs, but it's definitely a useful service!

solardev 4y ago

IMHO, as a gamer too, Stadia sucks not because it's streaming (the other streaming services are great for when I'm not on my desktop) but because Google totally botched its execution. Terrible pricing compared to Steam and other resellers, no crossplay, no mods, tiny library. And I think their architecture required specific ports from developers, vs GeForce Now's one-checkbox integration. Game streaming isn't for everyone, but there IS a market for it. In that market, though, Stadia is by far the worst offering. They should've had gamers lead its design and development, but they run it like it's some sort of business cloud offering... just totally missed the culture.