Topic: Google Stadia

Some people don't mind "renting" certain things and may even prefer it. But I'm sure there will still be the option to own things for those like you sunshine

If my latency gets me a picture on screen within 8ms, we can talk.

@Octane That's exactly what happened to TV. It used to be "cable for $200/mo or Netflix for $20 and get it all. Now if you want to see everything you have $300 of streaming services that all overlap except for where you want.

Music is kind of the same, but it's a lot more nuianced. The music services have various gaps in their catalogue but generally aren't restricted from stuff the way video is and games will be, they just signed up different contracts with different publishers so more fringe stuff may be half on one, half on another, and missing from a third.

@redd214 "ownership" like video, where I can "buy" a video from Microsoft store that only plays on Windows and XBox, or Sony store that only plays on PC, Mac, or Playstatoin, or from Vudu that plays everything but may inexplicably be missing season 5 of a 5 season show, or can buy from Google Play, but seasons 3-4 are all in SD only and season 5 is missing (and who knows if they will still offer the videos I bought 10 years from now when they abandon Google Play and make a new service), or I can buy from Amazon where they have it all in HD, but won't let me stream video off any Google device/Chromecast, requiring either an Amazon device or a direct PC connection.

I can't wait to make such purchases in gaming, too! If there was ever an argument for Steam, this is it.

How much we expecting to pay? $15 a month? No way its free.

@NEStalgia no ownership as in physical. Physical isn't going anywhere for another decade I think. You dinosaurs will still be able to get your games just fine. For people that want another OPTION this seems like a good one for some.

And about the TV/subscription thing. If you're paying hundreds of dollars a month to have 10+ different subscriptions so you can be able to "watch everything", you probably watch too much TV and should do something else. Also there isn't enough time to watch everything anyways. We have ps Vue and Netflix, about 60 bucks a month and can watch anything we want. Sports, cartoons, cooking shows, documentaries etc. Trying to match channel for channel to a cable model with subs is foolish.

Edit: also with a roku and a chromecast (both under $50) you'd almost be able to have all of those that you mentioned in one place. There's apps for all of them

@redd214 Haha, hey I'm technically 80% physical now (PS/X1 are all digital, Switch is still 90% physical.) I have fiber that would accommodate Stadia....I don't have patience to accommodate Stadia, however.

I'm not much of a TV person myself....I've never had cable of any sort. I did get Youtube TV which I intended to buy 2-3 months a year or so...but they've since raised the price and I'm grandfathered at the launch price, so I've hated to get rid of it so far....but I rarely ever use it, so I can't imagine keeping it forever. I looked at Vue originally, and actually intended to get that one, but it ended up more expensive at the time for the package that had channels I wanted, and, worse, required a credit card on file at Sony.. Been there, done that, tried to buy hundreds of dollars of WoW characters in Malaysia apparently...not doing that again.

But what you won't be getting is anything Disney. Or probably Fox. Because Disney decided you need their own service for that.

Funny thing is I have a roku on the actual TV, I have a chromecast on the "gaming screens" plugged into the audio setup, but without getting into a nest of wires to have HDMI switchers that feed the HDMI switchers, I can't run both on the same end. So poor Amazon video can't run on the Chromecast end. I actually can run it on the XBox or the PS4, but I'm not fond of using the expensive machines lifespans as mere video players.

I'm perfectly OK with not having every channel known to man at my fingertips at all times. If it's not on Vue or Netflix I'm fine with missing it, not the end of the world. Some sacrifices have to be made mainly like I said because of time, there isn't enough time in the day to even justify paying for hundreds of channels at least to me.

Your setup sounds needlessly confusing but if it works for you than I'm glad. Ah well clear where you stand on this streaming deal and I won't be changing your mind.

@NEStalgia Disney now owns Fox, so there's no reason for the ''or'' nor the ''probably''

As an anecdote; I was driving to work this morning and trying to listen to an interview on the local talk radio FM station. The signal is out of a station not some 20 miles from my house, and has a good 60 mile radius from what I’ve experienced. Somehow, another signal was competing that was playing Guns N Roses. Switching over to AM for the copied station did nothing, because the fog was super heavy this morning. As much as I enjoy “Knocking on Heaven’s Door”, I just wanted to hear what the interview was.

Obviously, terrestrial radio is different from the fiber line my ISP uses and has its own set of challenges. But a mere 5 miles further down my country road, many folks have to rely on satellite for their ISP, and the plans pretty much are a no go for streaming and the upload speeds just aren’t there for online gaming. So it had me thinking; If I’m struggling to consistently pull down a radio station and neighbors struggle with a clear view of the southern sky, how will Stadia ever become as accessible as they think?

I’m not horrendously in the sticks, I’m 45 miles from Savannah, Georgia. I don’t think locations like mine, and especially more remote locales, are going to be benefiting from Stadia within the next decade at least.

@Octane ...yeah. I mean they didn't include that part yet, but I do figure it's inevitable. And most households at least with kids will need the Disney sub along with whatever other TV they want. It won't be optional.

@AlohaPizzaJack The future is now. Enjoy the flaky 1920's technology you know and love, driving the future of tomorrow!

With Google Stadia, you can stream your AAA video games using the power of the cloud, to run your games the way the future demands. Games will run in directly Google's state of the art data centers, equipped with the incredible technology of the future

And stream directly to your home, instantly through the air, through the magic of RADIO! Google has partnered with RCA to bring you the most incredible experience in personal entertainment yet!

Also, for gamers who demand only the best, try the Google Stadia Household Play Room, which brings the futuristic space age technology of our datacenters into your very own home, without even needing to use your radio receiver! (We haven't forgotten our troops, proudly serving in the Pacific without access to radio transmissions. With this kind of technology at your fingertips, the Japanese won't know what hit them!)

@redd214 I'm not against it if it's the right price. Music streaming is fantastic (though I still have 3 services because none of them have everything I want.) Video USED to be cool but it's too scattered now, thanks largely to Disney. Gaming COULD be cool, if it's done right, cheap enough, etc. $15/mo to play EVERY game? Sure! Somehow I don't think it will work out that way.

@NEStalgia Dood. I’m glad I was parked for that laugh.
Don’t forget about the latest in data security, brought by Google Navaho

I mean i would trust stadia with slower paced games like AC Odysset but for fast paced shooters and fighters? Heck no.

@WebHead Aim's bow at deer. buffering, please wait..... Not even sure AC is great that way. You could "get by" but it wouldn't be really immersive.

Maybe good for RDR2 where Arthur takes longer than dialup input lag to move a foot after you tilt the stick even when it's running locally...

@AlohaPizzaJack It's true though. The whole data industry is banking on this promise of 5G and future wireless, but there's zero chance it will be what they think it will be. Carriers will be rolling it out for another 6 years. It needs a power hungry refrigerator sized closet every 2 blocks or so because that's the max range of it. What are the odds of blanketing every location with strong signals? Next to nil. Imagine every residental backstreet getting like two dozen transmitters at $50k a piece? No chance. And even if they do building penetration in the ultra-violet spectrum is worthless. You'd need to replace front walls with a big radio clear lens. "5G" is going to mean "5G out doors in major metros (in most areas) and along major roads and highways with spotty areas in between. 4G everywhere else." They're already including DOUBLING the number of 4G antennas to support 5G. There is no "5G everywhere". 5G on "every road" maybe, not 5G "everywhere." Nor will there ever be. 25MBit everywhere by radio is not going to happen. Frankly, ever, because radio isn't limited by technology, it's limited by physics. It's a system of the physical world, not a tech problem to solve. There will be "much better" 4G coverage....so more cell signal in more places....but nothing to stream games on. 5G is kind of gimmicky to the tune of billions of dollars.

A driving force behind it is the US is trying to establish its own tech companies as the global vendor of 5G components and not let China get the contracts and build their version through their own companies to spread as the world standard. China is banking on 5G to run their whole society. But China's setup is rather different. The urban cores are ALL that matter, anyone that matters is there (or dragged there against their will), everything is dense, all internet interaction and local software is run on phones almost entirely, and all of it managed through one universal app. Everyone cast out of the cities is an automatic agrarian underclass who has no right to participate in society at a level that would require internet anyway, therefore they're pretty much cut out.

I feel like big data is missing that aspect of the "5G push" and honestly believes the marketing of what it will bring them. Along with "IoT being enabled by 5G" as though 4G doesn't already enable that.... Google clearly doesn't understand telecom as their own foray into the field was abandoned mid-run. But they're making decisions like Stadia as though they do, and they still intend to use that fake "net neutrality" to use government as their kudgel to "make" telecom build what they want.

@NEStalgia Yup, the advent of technological marvels through 5G is a joke. There’s parts of this county that have absolute deadlines for random 300 foot radius sections. And that’s with current 4G towers

@AlohaPizzaJack 5G sounds like taking everything that was wrong with Clearwire and doubling down on it. I loved Clearwire, it was a great product that was used incorrectly and attempted with insufficient budget, but it was way ahead of its time where it worked. WiMax was a great standard, and parts of Russia was using WiMax 2.0 that actually pushed near 5G levels. But it wasn't meant to be setup like cell towers. It should have been directional with fixed receivers. And more importantly it had much lower spectrum to work with so it had broader coverage, but was considered too high.

5G takes unwanted, unusable UHF violet spectrum and tries to make high bandwidth radio transmission out of them. It's like trying to broadcast Bluetooth to a city. If they could do it all in 800Mhz or such it could be great. But there's far too little bandwidth down there to do it.

I just find it hysterical that a big component of the "transformational" 5G, is building a whole second 4G grid atop the existing one to double it. That doesn't sound like much confidence in 5G if part of it's core is just doubling the old system.

That's like a PS5 upgrade requiring 2 PS4s and some duct tape to put inside the new box to run.

Edit: That's actually part of the problem. WiMax was an Intel/US tech. LTE was a Chinese tech that was set up first, and put into large production first, thus became a standard and had lower costs with a larger world market, so LTE won the major carriers and WiMax died. They want to avoid that this time, but their solution for doing so is fast-tracking a "solution" that has no chance of actually working. One look at a US map tells you a solution that depends on large transceivers with a 600ft range to cover 100% of that map isn't a viable solution.

Meanwhile companies like Verizon stopped rolling out fiber to new areas, because the 5G will be much cheaper than digging wires to every house. Which is silly because it omits that they still have to dig the wires PAST every house, anyway, and the transceivers are much more expensive to install and run than the fiber drop and ONTs.

All the hoopla about this being a console killer reminds me of this:
https://www.polygon.com/2015/5/14/8605313/konami-interview-mo...

@Galarian_Lassie Hey now, I think we've seen plenty of evidence to show that Konami has no idea what it's doing as far as gaming is concerned. Not exactly the best metric. Though, now that you mention mobile, without the standard upfront price models, it's entirely possible that publishers might try to push even harder for microtransactions. Even if Stadia gates off the worst offenders, it's entirely possible it might become another garbage dump the way mobile has been for years now...

Destiny 2 may be Stadia bound!

https://kotaku.com/sources-destiny-2-is-coming-to-google-stad...