Stadia Issues Continue And It's The One Thing That Can't Happen If We're Going To Give Up Our Consoles
from the back-to-the-future dept
Karl Bode had a nice write up earlier this week about the ongoing issues with Stadia, Google's play to get gamers to give up their home consoles and GaaS (Game as a Service). As Karl noted, Stadia faces inherent challenges in these United States, given the laughably substandard broadband resulting from full regulatory capture at the hands of a few telecom players. In addition, Google, with all of its resources, seems fully committed to punishing early adopters with a big price tag for what is essentially a public beta alongside some reports of failed hardware deliveries. So big price tag, maybe you get what you bought in order to use the streaming service, and maybe that streaming service works with your broadband connection. Cool.
Well, it looks as though Google is going for some kind of failure trifecta here, as reports are now surfacing that there was a SNAFU with how access to the streaming site itself is being granted, with pre-payers being promised admittance in order of purchase, while in reality access to the service is being granted without any sense of order.
“Anyone else wake up disappointed,” reads a post on the Stadia subreddit, where early adopters have spent the last 24 hours sharing their hopes, dreams, and frustrations with the service’s messy launch. While some who pre-ordered Stadia’s Founders Edition received their controller, Chromecast Ultra, and membership info yesterday, others are still waiting, either for their order to ship, for emails with instructions for setting up their account, or both.
“We’re aware that some of you who pre-ordered Founder’s Edition may not have received your invite codes in the expected time-frame,” said a Stadia community manager on the subreddit yesterday. In a subsequent update that evening, the Google representative said the problem was fixed. “We’ve identified an issue where a small fraction of Stadia access codes were sent out of order,” they said. “That has been addressed.”
On its own, is this the biggest deal? Not really. New product launches are messy. Still, this is but one aspect of a larger shitty rollout of a product that Google has been hyping for some time now. Given the emphasis on Stadia, it's not hard to draw analogies to the rollout of Obamacare and that site's failures at the time. By that I specifically mean the impact such a botched rollout will have on the trust that is absolutely required by the public in order to be willing to buy into this product to begin with.
That's because, when it comes to the gaming industry, an orderly, easy access to desired games is the one thing you cannot screw up with your product. And it's the one thing that Stadia's rollout appears to have fumbled. In a world used to playing games on home consoles that generally, you know, work, having a streaming service try to pry that status quo away while demonstrating the exact dangers of relying on gaming as a service is the one thing that couldn't happen. But here we are.
People who are still waiting on codes have latched onto a July 18 comment made by Stadia’s director of product, Andrey Doronichev, saying reservation emails would be sent out in the order pre-orders were received. But some users on the subreddit who pre-ordered in September have already received their shipment confirmation and registration emails while others who pre-ordered in June haven’t. Even if it’s only a very small number of people who are affected, the mixup has left a bad taste in many people’s mouths.
“My order has still not been shipped,” Reddit user Gamesearch56, who pre-ordered Stadia on June 8, told Kotaku in an email. If I don’t receive my code till friday, because i would use stadia on a family trip with my laptop, I will cancel my preorder. So disappointed in the whole launch.”
As stated, Google obviously has a ton of resources and marketing power. Still, this the kind of launch that can be really, really difficult to overcome.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: stadia, streaming, video games
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Third world country
It seems to me that the US is 80% a third world country, 20% first world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Third world country
That's... not possible, technically. Please elaborate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Third world country
"That's... not possible, technically. Please elaborate."
All too possible, I'm afraid. All you need to do is look at the state of infrastructure. Wealthy neighborhoods in prosperous cities in well-off states have a first world standard of living.
In thousands of places all over the US however, they're basically all drinking the Flint river. With water infrastructure at that sort of low, imagine how this looks concerning sanitation, power, road networks, bridges, dams etc.
Depending on which experts you ask the US poverty proportion (amount of citizenry living below the poverty treshold) is usually quoted to be an estimated 13% using conservative data with some estimates going up to around 30%.
That's enough to state that the US is partially at a third world level in many ways. Though 80-20 seems to be exaggerated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another product rollout that google will invest alot into, realize they flubbed up and give up on within 2 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what's your solution to that? Are you saying the Google should continue to pour money into failing product lines ad infinitum, unlike any other business on Earth, or that they should just give up on trying new things that might fail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The only solution I have is to try to find alternatives right off the bat. Good is more than famous for killing off projects that have traction and are used: https://gcemetery.co/ .
Why should I invest in something that I have no faith will continue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do people keep a similar list of all the stalled and failed projects from other countries, or just the ones from the company that gives them to you for free? Google are more public with their free-of-charge beta phases than many other companies but that's the only real difference.
"Why should I invest in something that I have no faith will continue?"
You don't have to. But, given that most Google projects cost you literally nothing and there's no penalty for leaving, why not try? You don't come here and list the projects that got a decent sized audience and continue to this day, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Archive Team have a decent list of dead services (or scroll up for ones that may/will be dead soon). They are not fond of Yahoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's just not true that they "cost you nothing". They don't cost you money. Obviously you're savvy enough to treat these things as mere experiments, such that you're not worried about data loss or inconvenience when things go down. Other people are distraught when that happens.
Not everyone is keeping track of every site they've experimented with, or keeping their email address up to date, or is available within the arbitrary shutdown-notice period. So sometimes their data just disappears, or something stops working, effectively without warning. Not everyone would know how to make a backup if someone said they should. Some sites make it intentionally difficult. See, for example, the time Archive Team sent Geocities photos to a widow who'd lost them.
If you don't see people bitching that technology companies (not just Google) are constantly changing things for no good reason, removing useful features, etc., you might not be paying attention. Try searching for "new web interface revolt" and you'll find plenty of examples (HoTMaiL, Snapchat, Yahoo Mail, Facebook). There's even a 2012 article on avoiding such revolts. It's nothing new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not the one your asking, but personally my solution is to not spend any money on Stadia. Unfortunately for Google this could become a self fulfilling prophecy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, as I've said in other threads, I'm not in the market for this either really. If enough people feel the same, that's fair enough. I don't see why we shouldn't applaud companies for at least trying new directions, even if we as a market agree that we ultimately don't want to go there.
The only problem with me is people who uniquely bitch about Google in this regard. Every other major company has had similar issues at some point, but you don't hear the same whining about them. Google are a company with a history of pushing new ideas that often don't work out, but to my mind that's far better than companies that play it safe and don't release a product to the public until it's been focussed grouped to remove the innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't pay much attention to gaming news do you? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You don't pay much attention to gaming news do you? ;-)"
I mean generally, not specifically in gaming, since most of the whining about Google has nothing to do with games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google's an enormous company that could have been using its reputation as an asset, if they hadn't screwed that up. "Forever" is a viable target with the amount of money they have. They could decide that they intend to be in the datacenter business forever, that the cost of CPU, network, and storage will only go down, and that the reputational benefits will, over the long term, outweigh the costs of carrying dead products. The dead products could be closed to new users and a skeleton team could keep that compatible with new APIs, operating systems, etc. (which might give Google further incentive not to break APIs frequently).
Look at Microsoft for comparison. They're not much better at cloud stuff, but they go to heroic efforts to make sure people can run their ancient Windows programs. They give a lot more than a year or two of notice when the intend to get rid of something. Or Intel, which carried the A20 gate until 2013 and still has other ways to run software originally written for the 8086 released in 1978. They tried to drop support all that cruft with Itanium, but eventually listened to customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Forever" is a viable target with the amount of money they have"
So, what you're saying is that a company should run losing divisions forever because other divisions are profitable. Which goes against every business logic since the idea of a business was first invented. Again, do you apply this logic to ever profitable company or only Google?
"They're not much better at cloud stuff, but they go to heroic efforts to make sure people can run their ancient Windows programs"
Because their OS and Office divisions are the only truly profitable things they've ever had. Seriously, they keep those things running at any cost because they have nothing else that's reliably stable, and even that's only because they abused their mono/poly position in the 90s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not saying they should do it. I'm saying that people don't seem to trust them anymore, and may be unwilling to do business with them (even for free). That's Google's problem to solve, and, short of something drastic like this, it's not clear how they can regain this trust.
Some companies are willing to take losses or reduced profits to keep long-time customers. Even greedy telcos and banks sometimes let people keep old plans that aren't sold any longer. Or for another example, "During his time at id Software, a medium pepperoni pizza would arrive for [John] Carmack from Domino's Pizza almost every day, carried by the same delivery person for more than 15 years. Carmack had been such a regular customer that they still charge him 1995 prices." I express no opinion about whether they "should".
You don't judge shit like this based on merit. Now, whether or not Google's decisions are reasonable is insignificant. But what is significant is that people feel wronged by Google.
When a person or company gets the reputation of being unreliable, it's hard to regain trust. There's nothing truly Google-specific here—Yahoo is not to be trusted either—but Google has enough financial resources that it could try to do better than some random no-name startup. It chooses not to, and will have to accept the consequences. (One of which, no matter how much it annoys you, seems to be that people are going to come to the comments section of every story about a new Google product and bitch about potential shutdowns.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like everything about google but their privacy practices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? Virtually every AAA online game has some kind of issue. Gears Of War 5 was almost unplayable during its Game Pass early access period, for example, even offline achievements were buggy until after the official launch date. I believe they had to compensate players at least 3 times to make up for the problems.
I understand the criticism, but Google's issues are far from unusual at the moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As the saying goes, 'You had ONE job'
It's bad enough for a particular game to screw things up such that players can't play that game in early access(when you'd expect things to be dodgy), but when you're selling people the equivalent of a console and you botch that that's a faceplant several orders of magnitude bigger, especially if you're trying to convince people that your way of doing things is better than the old way.
While it's possible to regain trust and good-will after a bad launch that first impression still matters, and if they botched it this bad that's not exactly going to encourage people to spend a not-insignificant amount on the new service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As the saying goes, 'You had ONE job'
And the one job is entirely related to storing and organizing data (rather simple data). I can't even be arsed to co struct a next sentence about google + data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google's issues are the result of the lack of infrastructure and an overwhelming desire, read: Financial Incentive, to be the first one to turn interactive media back into "non-interactive" media.
The single biggest issue with gaming from the publisher's standpoint is the fact that they cannot currently keep the program to themselves. Other forms of media, i.e. real non-interactive media, never gives out the materials used to make the final product to the masses. Further the final product is complete when it hits general availability. For video games, and other forms of interactive media, this is not the case, and it limits the publisher's ability to capitalize on production. The publishers hate this so their holy grail for decades has been to find a way to eliminate this drawback of the medium. Streaming, i.e. rental of a film reel, is their current answer, and it actually can achieve their goals if the infrastructure can be built to support it in a way that's economically viable.
Streaming is Google's ambition. Being one of the biggest advertising giants in existence, and arguably the biggest data collector, Google has plenty of resources to throw at an attempt. They've also got other incentives as being the first to be successful would give them access to more advertising revenue and the ability to set standards. The only problem is Google is incredibly wishy-washy and will give up when the going gets tough. Never mind they've tried infrastructure deployment before, Google Fiber, and that ended poorly. I don't see Stadia ending well for them either.
As for the general outlook, the publishers will win. It's a matter of when, not if. Why? Because the general public has been conditioned to love renting everything, and owning nothing. To accept what's given to them and demand nothing more. The only real question in this regard is whether or not the economy will collapse before or after streaming becomes the only option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was aimed at maybe 5 per cent of gamers that has fast internet, and very large usage cap,s .
Its like a bmw or a rolls royce of gaming service its for elite gamers ,
most people just buy a ford or a toyota car.
95 per cent of gamers will continue to play games on consoles or pcs as before .
even sony,s gaming streamiing service allow people to download the whole game to a hard drive if they want to.
Or maybe its 10 years to early,
Streaming tv is taking off now because millions of users have at least 20 meg/per second broadband.
Most new streaming services have problems at the time of the launch .
Google is not used to dealing with customers on a individual basis re delivering hardware
,its mainly a software company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is there evidence that self-identifying "elite" gamers like this idea? They're the type who are always building and upgrading high-end PCs, so I wouldn't be surprised if they don't take this seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This could be just another status symbol. Some people with a BMW or Rolls Royce have others to accompany them. Players that build elite gaming systems could add other symbols to show how elite they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Elite Gamer checking in. We in fact, abhor this concept. It will never replace my laptop or desktop. This is being pushed out with the 'hope' of capturing some kind of market.
We may get it and try it, but it will never replace our RGB-laden systems. It will never compare with the current generation of consoles, or the next.
For me in particular, it comes to latency. They are trying to get around the latency issue with 'AI'. In reality their AI is nothing more than advanced autoaim. Fuck that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Elite Gamer checking in. We in fact, abhor this concept. It will never replace my laptop or desktop"
Yeah, I have no idea where that concept came from. This isn't about getting people to sacrifice their $5,000+ rigs, it's about reaching people who can't afford those rigs.
"It will never compare with the current generation of consoles, or the next."
But, neither will the price. I somehow doubt the PS5 or the next Xbox are going to cost the $129 being charged for Stadia.
"They are trying to get around the latency issue with 'AI'. In reality their AI is nothing more than advanced autoaim. Fuck that."
That's you, that doesn't mean nobody wasn't that. Also, if you don't play FPS games who cares about auto aim? There's more games out there than ones that need twitch gaming capability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like, anyone who can't afford a decent gaming rig is unlikely to be able to afford the monthly payments for the kind of internet connection needed to play this reliably, while anyone who can afford that internet connection probably also has the disposable income for a decent gaming system. So I can't see it appealing to either income bracket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Like, anyone who can't afford a decent gaming rig is unlikely to be able to afford the monthly payments for the kind of internet connection needed to play this reliably"
But, they're more likely to be able to afford that compared to that and buying and upkeeping a decent rig.
Also, you're assuming that people are paying everything on their own. If internet is included in the rent, shared with other tentants / whatever then it might not cost them monthly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...work at all.
FTFY
The latency on such a network would make almost all games unplayable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you make sure you game at times nobody else is using it, then it's the same as paying for it on your own. The assumptions being made don't necessarily ring true for everybody, is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to assume people are making unemotional decisions based purely on financial or other practical concerns, when behavioral economics research suggests this is not how people actually make decisions. I don't find it rational when some "elite" gamers build cases with windows and put flashy lighting inside, use throughly obsolete CRT displays for some perceived latency advantage, or upgrade their machines when they're already getting 60 frames per second. But showing little concern to my ideas of logic, they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You seem to assume people are making unemotional decisions based purely on financial or other practical concerns"
...and you seem to be saying that because you personally hold a set of values, that's what everyone else values. You haven't even attempted to address why some people would want to buy a Stadia, only apply the reasons why you wouldn't want one yourself.
"I don't find it rational when some "elite" gamers build cases with windows and put flashy lighting inside"
Nor do I, but that market is the exact opposite market to the one under discussion. Why you insist on focussing on the people least likely to want a Stadia is a mystery, but if that's the only way you can make your point it's obvious how flimsy it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
$129 for for 1 year of Stadia. the PS4 was released November 15, 2013 and costs $399 at the time. If PS5 came out today and you considered the PS4 worthless when the PS5 comes out then you would have paid about $66.50 a year to the PS4. that's almost half the price of the Stadia. assuming the PS5 follows a similar model as the PS4 then the PS5 is actually much cheaper. and that's not even considering the resale value of the playstation and its games or the fact that you can keep it and continue to use it basically forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be assuming that people will save to get the ideal solution rather than go for the instant, convenient option that makes more sense in the long term.
I'm not sure which consumer society you live in, but it's not the one I generally observe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the PS4 is always a better deal if you intend to play fewer than 6-7 games in total on your console. If you intend to play more than 6 games, then Stadia is a better deal. Of course, the longer you are willing to wait to play the game after release, the more attractive the PS4 becomes.
Once you start putting game preferences into the equation, then those same general limits hold, but are now strongly subject to which platforms games are released for. Right now, Stadia has a very limited selection which severely curtails its attractiveness, though this has always been true for new consoles/marketplaces and says little about long term adoption rates (Steam's initial foray into offering third party games had ~150 titles for example). In the limit that all games available on PS4 are available on Stadia, 6-7 remains the cutoff. As the number (and popularity) of games not available on Stadia increase, the PS4 becomes more attractive. Conversely, if Stadia makes effective use of its hardware advantages, its much wider theoretical game compatibility could swing the needle strongly the other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Project Scarlett and Playstation 5 will be more expensive than Stadia. However I can spend ~$20 per month and have an X-box One S and a much larger bundle of games to play (~200) with no additional cost. This avoids the current $130 founders edition for Stadia and the costs of buying games individually. After 2 years the console is fully paid for and the game pass can be continued for $15 a month. Rather than streaming the games they are downloaded and can be played even if the internet connection completely fails. Maybe the full launch of Stadia that theoretically will happen in 2020 and not require special hardware or an ongoing subscription will be competitive to this offering assuming that Google doesn't give up on the service before then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
""It will never compare with the current generation of consoles, or the next.""
"But, neither will the price. I somehow doubt the PS5 or the next Xbox are going to cost the $129 being charged for Stadia."
Correct, Microsoft is trying to make streaming games happen and I am sure Sony will follow suit at some point. This would probably been better received if they waited a year while MS and Sony started talking more about their future offerings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, depending on region that some point was 2014 or 2015. Their streaming service works very well, offers some games for both downloading and streaming, and has more games beginning with the letter A than stadia has total. Also for $10 per month you get access to the total catalog instead of the privilege of buying games individually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that something you're assuming, or something Google have said? Does their marketing focus on affordability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This isn't about getting people to sacrifice their $5,000+ rigs, it's about reaching people who can't afford those rigs."
No. This is about shoving customer lock-in down people's throats.
Remember all those games which were console-only? That's the wet dream of game developers who only need a customer to go for their product in one case to own the rest of their online experience.
Fortunately enough game developers exist who realize that every title which gives up on the PC market is one less competitor, and so PC gaming thrives.
Game Streaming is just an attempt to ensure that in the future developers and distributors not only retain full control over their product but can dictate terms and options to everyone who wants to play a game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and nobody's forcing you to use it if you don't want to. For people who do want to, this is a valid option even if you're personally opposed to it.
Get that through your skull - it's not for you? Fine. Spend money on the things you do like rather than whining that other people prefer a different option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...and nobody's forcing you to use it if you don't want to. For people who do want to, this is a valid option even if you're personally opposed to it."
Anyone with a current gaming setup HAS that option already. Just replace your router with a 28.8k modem and throttle your CPU down to 20%. Voíla, instant stadia.
It may be a dictionary-definition option, but it's one you already have just by degrading whatever current setup you're running.
"Option" means you've added something new. Game Streaming does not do this. You might as well throw money down a sewer grate and call it "adding an option".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, we get this option is not for you, but you don't have to be such an obnoxious twat because you don't personally want it.
Are you going to be an unsufferable prick when other gaming companies release their streaming options next year as well, or will you have grown up by then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Are you going to be an unsufferable prick when other gaming companies release their streaming options next year as well, or will you have grown up by then?"
Let me get this straight - I'm an "insufferable prick" because i'm being factual, while you are slinging ad homs in full Baghdad Bob fashion while bringing what looks like umbrage over me not taking the marketing line seriously?
An "option" means you've got a choice. Game Streaming doesn't bring that. It brings, if you choose to use it, a service downgrade on what you already have.
So please, if you MUST insist Game Streaming brings ANYTHING then please provide an example of anything it could bring. Preferably something which ISN'T just a bundle of hype.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Let me get this straight - I'm an "insufferable prick" because i'm being factual"
No, because you think that your subjective opinion on the subject is "fact" as people who like or prefer the stuff you don't like don't matter. No, your opinions are not fact, they're just your opinion.
"An "option" means you've got a choice"
Yes,. nobody's forcing you to use streaming if you don't want to. Whereas, you seem to be wishing to take that option away from people who do want it.
"a service downgrade on what you already have."
This is only true if everyone already has what they want. Not everybody is in that position, even if you are. Your argument is based on a number of assumptions that just aren't true for everybody./ Which is why you're an insufferable prick - you're unable to understand anyone else's point of view.
"So please, if you MUST insist Game Streaming brings ANYTHING then please provide an example of anything it could bring"
The ability to play on a device when you don't have your main gaming machine with you (for example, XBox's streaming service allows you to use a phone). I think it would be cool to be able to bring my controller to work and game during my lunch break if I want to, the same as I can watch Netflix if I want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, because you think that your subjective opinion on the subject is "fact" as people who like or prefer the stuff you don't like don't matter. No, your opinions are not fact, they're just your opinion."
Common logic is objective fact, not opinion.
2+0 does not equal >2. Game Streaming offers nothing new and in fact, if anything, can be argued to add yet another burden to network management since just about every ISP around oversells the amount of bandwidth they actually possess.
"Whereas, you seem to be wishing to take that option away from people who do want it."
Nope. I've insisted that Game Streaming isn't a step forward, I've said it offers nothing which didn't already exist. You are mistaking viable criticism for me telling people not to be wasteful.
"The ability to play on a device when you don't have your main gaming machine with you (for example, XBox's streaming service allows you to use a phone)."
See how easy that was? Was it really necessary to descend into OOTB rhetoric and generally be a douche about it rather than assert facts?
There is that...but with the average mid-range phone already having 8 cores clocked at 2 GHz - not to mention handheld consoles like the twist - again, that option already exists for you.
Thin Clients just don't bring anything to the table other than a whole slew of net-related issues in exchange for...not loading the already existing overabundance of computing power held locally?
So we're back to where all you need to do is scale back your handheld console resolution to 720-1280 and throttle your AP and you've got the full Game Streaming experience anyway.
The debate on whether it's more efficient and provides a better experience in all ways to have as much of your computation needs loaded locally simply isn't a serious question.
There are similarly people who want to own and ride in vintage cars from the 40's. I don't begrudge them that experience and am fully on board with the idea that this is their choice. But i WILL maintain that they haven't increased their option of transportation in doing so over their day-to-day secondhand toyota or ford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Game Streaming offers nothing new"
Sigh... Yes it does. The fact that you find those things distasteful, unnecessary or even an indication of a direction you do not like does not mean that those things do not exist.
Seriously, this is boring now. It's like talking to people when streaming video first became a possibility. The exact same arguments. It's boring.
"See how easy that was?"
Yes, there are many other examples. The point is that you're being a twat when you claim that there's zero need for it. Just because you don't personally imagine such things does not mean they don't exist.
"all you need to do is scale back your handheld console"
I don't own a handheld console, but I do own a phone and an XBox. Why is streaming bad?
Again, the problem is that your entire objection is that you personally are not in the market. Good for you. Why are you complaining that the option is made available for those who are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yes it does. The fact that you find those things distasteful, unnecessary or even an indication of a direction you do not like does not mean that those things do not exist."
Then please enlighten me what new things it offers?
Functionality (or, rather, the reduction of it)? We've got that already.
Portable gaming? We've got that already.
Gaming without the need to own a console or PC? Nope, that's still needed.
So what, exactly, is new? You could argue that it adds a redundancy with a novel experience, like a man adding a golf cart to his garage next to his Ford...but that's stretching the definition of the word, i think.
"It's like talking to people when streaming video first became a possibility. The exact same arguments."
Nope and nope. Again, why did you start copying OOTB-style rhetoric?
Streaming video added options simply because the prior options were;
A) Downloading the pirated version.
B) Physically buying an aluminium-plated plastic coaster for every movie you wanted to see.
C) Get cable and settle for stacking up on video cassettes.
NONE of the above holds true for game streaming which ONLY differs in normal gaming today by the computation and graphics load being handed to the network and a remote server, respectively, rather than locally, and with the possibility of a subscription model (which is also already eminently possible although no platform i know of runs by it).
"Yes, there are many other examples. The point is that you're being a twat when you claim that there's zero need for it. Just because you don't personally imagine such things does not mean they don't exist."
Then name one which actually applies. Are you seriously calling me a twat because I'm calling you out on Russel's Teapot?
And do you even realize how many people you just consigned to "twat" status?
"I don't own a handheld console, but I do own a phone and an XBox. Why is streaming bad?"
For many reasons - let's start with the one which has actual impact on other people, not those just streaming.
How much do you know about traffic management in networks? Essentially, right now every router and switch handled by responsible network backbone providers prioritizes datagram traffic based on response need.
Audio/Video streaming is fairly low priority as local buffering can cover intermittent delays.
priority-marked datagrams from applications in need of instant response - such as game traffic and audio/video conferencing has higher priority.
Thus if the amount of video streamers rises the impact on every other user of the network is often negligible until you hit the actual bandwidth cap. If you increase the high-priority gaming datagrams, otoh, you've just boosted that traffic amount by a whopping factor of a few thousand times, if not more, since instead of handling 20-100 kbit high-prio traffic per person you now need to deal with 10-30 MBit in practical terms.
The result of which is network congestion for every network which comes even close to capacity - which is why it's unfortunate that almost every ISP oversells their bandwidth.
In summary in order to handle game streaming you need an overcapacity on current networks which doesn't exist - and probably won't exist until we've replaced most of our current network infrastructure. Any shortfall will directly impact every other user of the network.
It's a bit like the debate on electric cars - great in theory, but if the existing car pool is completely replaced by electric no existing power grids can handle the load.
Refurbishing a national infrastructure to provide overcapacity in any aspect...just doesn't happen often, or quickly.
So that's from the public perspective. Streaming low-priority traffic is fine because the end result depends entirely on bandwidth rather than traffic latency.
A thousandfold increase in streaming high-priority traffic is BAD for the network as a whole, if practiced at scale.
The phone you own already has the hardware required to perform all calculation and rendering locally. Why would you want to opt for the choice which is worse performance-wise, shoots your used bandwidth into the sky by a few orders of magnitude, and on top of that, incentivizes game developers to push even harder for the paradigm where they, rather than you, own the stuff you pay for?
"Again, the problem is that your entire objection is that you personally are not in the market. Good for you. Why are you complaining that the option is made available for those who are?"
Because Game streaming is high-priority traffic which if adopted at scale will fuck up network latencies? And THAT will screw ME over as well, the same way an ordinary car owner would if the local inner-city road network was suddenly converted into the main bypass for a steady stream of 18-wheelers.
Scale is a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, you're so intent on being a narrow minded prick that you're ignoring any use case that doesn't fit your personal needs.
"Functionality (or, rather, the reduction of it)? We've got that already."
Functionality without having to buy a new console for the next gen titles, or ability to access games not available on the hardware you own at all? No (e.g. streaming allows PS4 players to access PS1 titles despite that system not supporting backward compatability, XBox streaming will allow PC only gamers to access XBox exclusive titles included in Game Pass at no extra cost).
"Portable gaming? We've got that already"
Yes, if you want to buy the relevant hardware. As mentioned, XBox streaming will allow me to do that without additional hardware.
"Gaming without the need to own a console or PC? Nope, that's still needed."
Yes A PC or console is needed, but you no longer have to buy the specific console to access the games you want. Not everybody has the money to keep upgrading their existing PC or buy new console every gen. This removes the need to do so, in theory at least. You can still be chugging along on a PC that can't support any new game, or even be a Mac/Linux user, and access PC titles. Or, you can own a Switch as your only console, but still access XBox titles.
You're being wilfully ignorant of the way people would use such thin gs, just because you're happy with what you already own. But, nobody's telling you to get rid of that. Microsoft will still sell XBox hardware. But, they will happily offer access to games for people who don't buy it. Why are you intent on removing their customers' choice?
"Streaming video added options"
How is game streaming any different? I also notice you deliberately left out the "buy or rent digitally" option from your bullshit argument.
"Then name one which actually applies."
I've named them regularly, as have many other sources, try reading instead of being an ignorant twat.
"Any shortfall will directly impact every other user of the network."
Then your issue is with your ISP for providing such poor infrastructure rather than game companies offering more choices to their own customers. Again, I heard this bullshit argument when video streaming started out, and it's just as false now as it was then.
"Because Game streaming is high-priority traffic "
It shouldn't be if your ISPs respect net neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Again, you're so intent on being a narrow minded prick that you're ignoring any use case that doesn't fit your personal needs."
I put out a factual debunking. you counter by calling me an arrogant prick and a twat. Class act, PaulIT, and one we've only come to know from OOTB/Jhon around here so far.
You don't HAVE to read my criticism. I'm not forcing you to accept it. But when you try to force me to stop talking about the Bad Things about "topic X" I am NOT the one being an arrogant douche!
"Functionality without having to buy a new console for the next gen titles, or ability to access games not available on the hardware you own at all?"
Now that's at least a valid argument. I honestly can't say whether this is or ever will be practiced over the ability to force the public to buy the latest console rather than settle for streaming old titles. If you have a few good examples to show of this it would be good, because otherwise I'll counter with my own guess that old titles will just be disney vaulted, streaming or not. As they so often have been, so far.
"Yes, if you want to buy the relevant hardware. As mentioned, XBox streaming will allow me to do that without additional hardware."
Except you need a separate controller unless the game has been ported to touchscreen in the first place. I'm not convinced the cost saving is all that big, and I definitely don't believe you're much better off dragging a wireless controller around rather than a switch, for instance. I'll admit you have a very marginal advantage here.
"Yes A PC or console is needed, but you no longer have to buy the specific console to access the games you want."
That's...not exactly right. Assuming my fears that developers will keep disney vaulting their old offers don't come true your argument still only holds for the very marginal amount of games which have both not been ported to other consoles AND are available in your game streaming company of choice.
"This removes the need to do so, in theory at least."
Aren't we BOTH too damn old to believe the "theoretical" possibilities offered by media companies by now? I grant you microsoft has become better but you do realize that you are trusting in SONY to come up with a consumer-friendly offer here?
"You can still be chugging along on a PC that can't support any new game, or even be a Mac/Linux user, and access PC titles. Or, you can own a Switch as your only console, but still access XBox titles."
That's pretty marginal, again. With hardware at the state it is today the PC would have to be a dinosaur indeed. Hell, the 10+ year old dinosaur i built back in 2006 was still today capable of running fallout 4, skyrim, and most other titles with acceptable graphics and fps. At the point where you need high-end cutting-edge CPU and GPU we're already at the point game streaming won't touch for a long time.
"You're being wilfully ignorant of the way people would use such thin gs, just because you're happy with what you already own."
No, I'm not. I know full well people will spend time and money on anything catering to their interests, whether it's useful or not.
I'm choosing to offer factual knowledge over how much of what is promised is still hype.
"How is game streaming any different? I also notice you deliberately left out the "buy or rent digitally" option from your bullshit argument."
Because "buy or rent" has no place in this discussion so I didn't add it. But hey, thanks for tossing in a red herring just so you could call my argument "bullshit". Very mature.
"I've named them regularly, as have many other sources, try reading instead of being an ignorant twat."
The ones I just debunked as irrelevant, incorrect, or just plain wrong, you mean? You claiming "This is GREAT" is not an argument. You need to add a reason which actually reconciles with reality.
Oh, yea...while at it, you repeating "twat, twat, twat" isn't an argument either.
"Again, I heard this bullshit argument when video streaming started out, and it's just as false now as it was then."
And like i keep saying and you are either too angry or too ignorant to understand, low-prio video datagrams are NOT high-prio datagram. Video streaming only eats bandwidth which is the least capped resource in the network. High-prio video otoh, is an actual DDoS run through the routers and switches.
There WILL be an effect, and much like my example of having 18-wheelers suddenly being part of regular inner city traffic the size of that effect all depends on how many of them show up.
"It shouldn't be if your ISPs respect net neutrality."
That's not how it works. Traffic management acknowledges certain protocols to be time-sensitive and thus there is a priority order. Good network management assigns that priority according to protocol and packet flags. BAD network management assigns that priority according to origin and address.
You've got quite a few things ass-backwards and are apparently too damn busy trying to fit the word "twat" in as many sentences as possible to actually read what i wrote and seem to react on what you WANT me to have written.
You don't want to read my criticism of Game streaming? Fine. You don't have to. You don't have to agree. Feel free to raise contradictions.
But taking my criticism of the model personally and telling me to essentially stfu because I'm debunking marketing hype...that just tipped you into solid troll territory.
I used to take you a lot more seriously than OOTB and Jhon. Apparently that's a mistake. No sane man debates by repeatedly screaming invectives into another man's face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Damn, forgot to sign in. The above is by me, as if that wasn't clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I put out a factual debunking"
No, you haven't. You've put out a bunch of subjective opinion based on the assumption that everybody already owns the devices you have access to. It's not for you, we get it. That does not mean it's "fact" when you pretend that offering an additional function is taking something away.
"I'll counter with my own guess that old titles will just be disney vaulted, streaming or not"
Possibly, and if that's a problem with you, you use the other methods of accessing that title that are not being removed from you. What's the problem?
"Except you need a separate controller"
Yes, and XBox streaming will be compatible with many existing controllers, including the XBox and PS4 controllers.
"I definitely don't believe you're much better off dragging a wireless controller around rather than a switch, for instance"
Dragging one around? Maybe not. Leaving one in my desk drawer so I can fire it up in my lunch break should the urge arise? Yes.
"That's...not exactly right"
It is. You have the choice - buy the specific console you want to play locally, or access another game without buying another console. Your fears about what might happen at some long distant point in the future does not arrange the advantages of this extra choice for people who can't afford to buy every console they need to access every game they need right now.
"Because "buy or rent" has no place in this discussion so I didn't add it."
Well, apart from the bit where you said "Physically buying an aluminium-plated plastic coaster for every movie you wanted to see.". Which is disingenuous crap on numerous levels.
"I grant you microsoft has become better but you do realize that you are trusting in SONY to come up with a consumer-friendly offer here?"
Sony can do what they want, I haven't bought their products this gen, and haven't been given a reason to switch next gen. Other customers can vote with their wallet too.
"With hardware at the state it is today the PC would have to be a dinosaur indeed"
Perhaps, but ultimately that dinosaur may be capable of running streaming games at a far better rate than it can run things locally, and it's not going to be able to play the new stuff at all at some point natively.
"You don't want to read my criticism of Game streaming?"
I did read it. It's a bunch of personal opinion that ignores wide ranges of reasons why it's an interesting experiment, along with a good dose of slippery slope fear mongering and excuses for a historical lack of infrastructure investment.
I haven't seen any real argument apart from "I don't personally like/need it" and "US ISP management is so poor that they will collapse if people start utilising their bandwidth for things that have been on the roadmap for years".
The jury's out on whether or not this will work long term (and I honestly think that Stadia isn't likely to be any more than a footnote), but your claims that this is somehow removing options or that there's no benefit to streaming is flat-out false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This was aimed at maybe 5 per cent of gamers that has fast internet, and very large usage cap,s .Its like a bmw or a rolls royce of gaming service its for elite gamers..."
...if this is to be considered a "luxury" then it's more like a wealthy person choosing to purchase a vintage model T for ten times the price they'd spend on a good second-hand Toyota with five times the performance and unmeasurably higher reliability.
Game streaming will suck compared to the alternative because laws of physics. By the time we can beat that equation technology infrastructure will be at a point where I expect warp drives to be a possible part of day-to-day transportation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's *bad* with paid consumer products
Google is a great company with engineering, but they are awful when it comes to selling things to individual consumers. They simply don't have anyone, anywhere in the company, that understands scaling customer service operations. It's not an easy task, and it takes a special skillset to do well. They appear to do it by the seat of their pants, and it's not surprising they suck at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google's *bad* with paid consumer products
My experience is the opposite: you only get any kind of customer service from Google if it's a paid service. I had Google Fi for a while and the customer service was excellent. It's the free services where they have no concept of customer support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google's *bad* with paid consumer products
Yeah, well their Google Stadia is having terrible customer support AFAICT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I were google I would not put a lot of resources into this product.
I will reserve my google bashing for when they actually deserve it but the concept doesn't fit with what I know about gamers. They do not want to be connected to the internet all the time. They do not want someone else to own all or part of the game they bought. They do not want to deal with internet connectivity messing up the service.
I don't think this one is a winner for mass market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really hope they get these issues ironed out. I can't wait to not own copies of my games...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck games as a service
And fuck greedy publishers pushing for this shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google already has plans to shut stadia down in November 2020. Employees have been told in 'private' meetings that they will ramp Stadia up until Mid-March 2020 then begin a quiet and slow rolldown until the service is cancelled.
Waste of money, time and effort. There MUST be some sort of tax scam going on for google to waste this much money? maybe they spend say $1 billion on a system then claim back $5 billion in R&D ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you claiming to be one such employee?
Google makes actual billions in revenue, why would they risk the wrath of the IRS with a tax fraud scheme? And it's not as though one of the most profitable companies in the world can expect to fly under the radar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Google already has plans to shut stadia down in November 2020."
According to whom?
"There MUST be some sort of tax scam going on for google to waste this much money?"
Because a company that's built on R&D that already makes billions in revenue must have to be bailed out by the government to be performing the R&D. Best to shut everything down and not even try to build a new product until 100% profitability can be guaranteed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]