Yesterday’s reveal of Stadia, the boxless 'future of gaming' from Google, was certainly intriguing. It promises seamless browser-based streaming of AAA games at 4K and 60 frames-per-second to all manner of devices you already own. The proposition is a clear and clean one for people with cluttered houses chock full of tech that’s slowly turning obsolete with every annual hardware revision. Google’s message is strong: everyone, everywhere can join in.
Setting aside the massive hit to office productivity that implies, Stadia has the potential to transform the gaming industry and affect every company working in it. While Google’s presentation itself was formulaic and dry, the content spoke for itself and initial hands-on reports and first impressions signal that the tech appears to perform admirably.
If this turns out to be the case in a ‘real-world’ context, it should give the ‘big three’ players in the console market something to think about, especially as the next hardware generation peeks its head over the horizon. If Stadia’s launch later this year is a success, how is that likely to affect Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft?
Obviously, as a Nintendo site, we’re primarily concerned with the House of Mario, and from what we’ve seen so far, Nintendo should be somewhat insulated thanks to the portable nature of Switch. As toweringly impressive as the Stadia tech may be, WiFi blackspots and disruptions will still scupper your entire game, not just the online portion. Switch’s modest chipset is hardly bleeding edge, but it’s able to deliver incredible gaming experiences without being tied to an internet connection, meaning it’s likely to be the best portable gaming option for a good while yet. You can’t stop Switch by going through a tunnel.
The need for a strong and stable internet connection will always be Stadia’s Achilles’ heel, but homes where that isn’t an issue present more of a worry for the traditional console companies. While Nintendo may well be affected inside the home – where every screen is turned into a more powerful console – the company has some breathing space until 5G (and beyond) really takes off and lightning fast WiFi (with reasonable data plan pricing) is the norm when you’re out and about. The section of the Stadia presentation detailing Stream Connect has the potential to usurp Nintendo as king of couch co-op, but there's a big difference between a tech demo and an actual game. It'll be a while before Switch isn't a fixture at the hip roof-top barbecue parties we throw every weekend.
Nintendo also has its enviable catalogue of IP to bolster its hand. Those video game franchises cultivated for over three and a half decades are hugely valuable and have seen the company through some rocky periods. Content is king for all platforms, and putting aside some colossal hardware misstep, people will continue to go to Nintendo systems for Nintendo content.
One of the most potent weapons Google used in its presentation was the elimination of the update bar, and this should be more of a worry for Sony and Microsoft. Anybody with one of their consoles is all-too-familiar with the process of firing it up for a quick session and facing a barrage of firmware and software updates, often at comically slow download speeds, before you can finally play the damn thing. We had half an hour spare the other day, sat down for a little Forza Horizon 4 and 27 minutes later the game finally booted. It’s okay, we played some Switch while we waited.
The other huge advantage Google has is that ‘boxless’ selling point. Offering a very similar AAA experience to the competition over devices you already have in your house with no £300 hardware purchase is massive. Hardcore gamers may baulk at the latency figures, but Google’s proposition could be hugely disruptive for a more casual audience or for gamers that only really play one game (FIFA, say). Although it may well depend on the type of game you’re playing, spending $400 on a big noisy console and having to wait for installation, update bars and all that bother may well seem like far too much trouble. Stadia removes a very large barrier to entry for a lot of people, and that's good for the industry as a whole.
Microsoft is reportedly lining up its own cloud-based streaming solution – perhaps in a very similar mould; it certainly has the resources to do something similar. Whether Sony is in a position to compete is up for debate, although it's been in the streaming space for a long time already with PS Now, the platform formerly known as Gaikai. Stadia appears to be a significant upgrade to that streaming tech, though, with broad and powerful integration across the web. Whether Sony’s system could be broadened to compete is difficult to know at this stage, but it has more than a foot in the door.
There are still many unknowns and ‘unspokens’ regarding Stadia at present; namely the price. A subscription model would be the obvious choice, although subscription fatigue seems to be setting in already – there must be a limit to the number of services consumers are willing – and are able to – pay for on a monthly basis. Google is likely to offer a suite of options, perhaps billing based on playtime or the number of games you access. Outright ‘purchase’ of games is certainly possible, although that would seem strange seeing as you can only ever 'access' the games rather than download and ‘own’ them.
The total loss of ownership is one thing which may give many gamers pause. While we technically only purchase licences to play digital games on Switch, for example, we can download them, back them up on multiple microSD cards and ‘have’ them indefinitely. Stadia moves away from all this, enabling some impressive integration with YouTube and distilling game states and sharable experiences to a mere hyperlink; a true streaming platform. Thanks to Netflix, Hulu, Spotify and the like, the world is now very comfortable with streaming, although gamers are historically very protective of their physical media.
While Google has always been an online entity, Nintendo’s history with the physical product gives its products a kind of prestige that enthusiasts cherish. For everyone who’s gone digital-only on Switch, there’s someone else who’s willing to pay through the nose for boxed physical copies of games for a number of reasons. Make no mistake, physical media is destined to go the way of the dodo, but many Nintendo fans, young and old, still value it, giving the company another small (and ever-shrinking) cushion for the inevitable, fast-approaching bump when the ephemeral digital option becomes the only option.
This inflection point heralded by Stadia’s arrival could have a startling knock-on effect on game design itself. The technology requires Google to register (and presumably log) every single byte of player input, enabling constant analysis, tweaking and honing. This information will no-doubt influence design choices, with bottlenecks, player trends and choices examined and planned around. ‘Games as a service’ has primed us for this – the product shipped on disc in the beginning may have very little in common with the live game six months down the line – but the elimination of client-side code or calculation means gamers are truly at the mercy of Google and developers.
If successful, this has ramifications across all facets of gaming. What will happen to mods, for example? And as exciting as playing on any screen in the house may be, it’s also concerning for game preservationists – if code only ever exists on mainframes at Google’s ominous sounding ‘data centres’, how do you preserve these games for posterity? This is something that video game historians are already struggling with as thousands of iOS and Android titles are taken offline each year and vanish forever.
Hardcore gamers may well be bristling at this relinquishment of ownership and control, let alone the unavoidable lag which will likely keep high-level players of fighting games and twitch-based first-person shooters playing locally. Realistically, it could be another decade or more before the tech reduces lag to the point where it’s indistinguishable to a game running under the TV in a way that will satisfy the hardcore community, but Google isn’t really making a play for hardcore gamers – a difficult-to-please and small (in Google terms) demographic that isn’t worth chasing, at least at this stage. As Nintendo has done in the past with its Blue Ocean strategising, it’s looking to access a wider audience instead, to grow the market in a broader sense through the scalability of its platform and the fact that Chrome is already sitting on millions of devices across the globe.
All this begs the question: Could Switch become one of these ‘screens’ we play Stadia on at some point? It’s not beyond the realms of possibility. It’s conceivable it could work as well on Switch as any other device and as we’ve seen with the Japanese cloud-based experiments with Resident Evil 7 and Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey, there’s plenty of room for improvement over the existing methods companies are employing to get around the limitations of Switch’s silicon. As an aside, it’s curious to note that Stadia isn’t scheduled to launch in Japan this year – a country with an excellent internet infrastructure.
All the possibilities Stadia offers and the direction in which Nintendo and others might head if it’s a success are dizzying, but there’s also a tinge of sadness in the air. Instant access and gratification is a concept that younger gamers today naturally take for granted, and the further elimination of that delicious moment of anticipation puts dinosaurs like us in a melancholy mood. In the presentation, industry veteran Phil Harrison – part of the team that launched the original PlayStation, for crying out loud – highlighted how you could click a button in a YouTube trailer and be playing the game in as little as five seconds. Incredibly impressive, certainly, but for people who used to pore over tiny screenshots in games mags and devour instruction manuals in the car on the way home until we could finally plug our fresh cart into the console, the reality of always-online, always-accessible is bittersweet. As attention spans get ever shorter, we’ve got nostalgia for the old ways (because we’re old) and that anticipation from our youth – something we even occasionally try to emulate now by not tearing directly into a present or new purchase – is now reduced to a click and five short seconds. Oy.
But that’s been the past for a long time already. The future arrived a while ago but if Google can make a success of Stadia, we’re on the cusp of a massive leap towards the console-less future people have been predicting for years. Whatever happens, it’s going to be interesting…
Comments 117
As an option? okay fine. But all of gaming being exclusively streaming? No thanks
Nothing. Cloud gaming has always sounded incredibly unappealing.
Make no mistake, this is the future but it’s a good few years off before it’s really viable. There’s going to be companies doubling down on physical but I could see Microsoft going the way of Atari and Sega before them. Unless Xbox becomes digital only or goes full on streaming, they don’t have the exclusives to get by.
This will probably mean more exclusive games for all platforms.
As a consumer I find it important to regain a fair for both parties amount of control over my purchases. Cloud gaming is unappealing to me for that reason plus it removes the technological fascination I have with gaming. The Neo Geo would never have been so appealing to me had it been a relatively empty box with an ethernet cable on one end and a controller port on the other. It's the hardware under the hood that caused me to want one.
Naff all. It will bomb.
When it comes to leaving traditional consoles, mobile phones will be Nintendo’s future.
It ain't gonna do a darn thing. Streaming games is still such a fickle thing, especially for people who don't have very fast and stable internet
just look at crackdown 3 disaster to see the power of the cloud. google assuming that all gamers live in super fast broadband area have no caps. and no one else in house wants to watch netflix etc etc. and with their track record of abandoning stuff unless its free or dirt dirt cheep your throwing money away.
Given the youth coming through at Nintendo are still making the best games in the industry I don't think they have anything to worry about.
Not a single word about bandwidth cap I have no words here like holy cow “Google’s message is strong: everyone, everywhere can join in.” lol sure whatever you say. This entire article has more lip service than a press release.
I wanted to watch Z Nation on my TV's Netflix app the other night. Netflix disagreed, and in 2 minutes, the buffer only went as high as 26%. Walk away to do something else, and I'm mowing the lawn. When I checked 2 hours later, no hiccup loading. While I was mowing, I was streaming iHeart Radio perfectly on my phone across the 1+ acre property. Later in the evening, I'm downloading the Monster Boy demo, and using Chrome on my phone comes to a crawl.This is with 25gbit internet, and a constant 18 throughput.
What is this going to mean for the future of gaming in my section of the rural southern US? Not much for quite awhile. There's far too many infrastructure issues. But I think this is a neat venue to be further explored.
After reading Digital Foundry's article on it today, I believe it's going to be very succesful and is going to shake up the industry big time.It's the huge improvements it's going to bring to multiplayer gaming that will be the real game changer. I imagine Google are going to go after the Fortnite, Apex Legends audience early on, perhaps with their own new bigger, better Battle Royale. They'll pay off a few popular YouTubers and Twitch streamers to promote the game heavily, with their audience having the ability to just click on a link and within seconds join them in their game. The young ones are going to love that, so it's going to gain millions of subscribers very early on.
The Youtuber Dreamcastguy said he's already seen some footage of a Stadia game that's made by Sega, he said the graphics are crazy good.
This will have no effect. Sure there’s people who support streaming services for games. There’s plenty of others that support physical, I’m sure there will be more especially when the latency starts slapping ya in the face.
Cloud gaming may be the future, but it's no way the present.
Still years for it to come for it to settle as the best / only option.
Very little if anything
I wholeheartedly believe that streaming is the future of gaming. It happened with music, it happened with movies and TV, and I'm certain that gaming is next to primarily adopt streaming.
However, I'm just not sure if Stadia is the way to go with it. While I'm positive that streaming is the future, I'm not sure that we're ready for it now. Stadia is ambitious, and it could certainly be huge if it works as well as it claims to, but the reveal left way more questions than answers. What's its business model? How much will it cost? Is it a subscription service? Will there really be zero lag? How many developers will support it? What will its first-party support be? And perhaps most importantly, what internet speed is required for it? Until all those questions get answered, I can't say whether Stadia will truly pose a threat to Nintendo and other platform holders.
@OorWullie
I like how you just casually mention Google paying people off, that DF video certainly feels that way but so do a lot of their videos that don’t involve Lineman. Whoa crazy graphics for a game that can be become COMPLETELY unplayable forever at a moments notice sign me up for this glorious future. This can go in the same ditch the original 2013 vision of Xbone was tossed into.
I predicted years ago, service based gaming with specialized controllers to play exclusive games on, this isn't what I wanted for gaming, just figured it'd happen.
I actually do think this will impact Nintendo because Google just became the first company to fully tap into the cloud gaming market. Meaning if this is the future of gaming Nintendo would have to eventually follow suit and compete with Google's servers. But this is something to worry about probably much much much later. But for right now? It's not too big of a deal because it's not a massive market.
I see advertising, interludes, count down timers, banner ads on game menus. I don't see better consumer experiences. Glorified pay-to-win phone business model.
It'll be the future, whether in this form or the next.
I'm one of those gamers that opt for seamless quality experiences, though. So less friction for the access is a bonus, more dependencies on the local infrastructure is a minus.
This is the format of the future, they're just a bit too early for it to be mainstream. But that's the clever part - they have the resources to just play the long haul - so I expect it to stay and expand slowly, over time.
I think the Switch will run its course before it needs to worry about cloud based gaming. It will be more of a threat to Nintendo’s next console. I got to take part in the AC: Odyssey beta test and it did work pretty well but I’m not convinced Stadia is ready to be anyone’s full time video game service/console just yet.
" highlighted how you could click a button in a YouTube trailer and be playing the game in as little as five seconds. "
This part right here could be what results in traditional publishers/studios pushing back. The last thing they want is "information snacking" (Who coined that term, Bezos? Gates? Jobs? Can't remember) for games. EVERY game is a demo that way, and it can harm games the same way publishers feel demos do. If I subscribe, can click a link, and play every game until I get bored, I might click on 30 games, play them all for an hour, and move on. That was their whole per-click funding. They'll have to design games like the ad model - it's about 30 second fun spots to link to and go viral, not 80 hour experiences.
Previously I thought we were going to have EITHER physical game boxes, OR streaming in the future. But if Google's making game startup a linkable drop in drop out affair, they may break that image. It instead could split gaming like mobile did: Games designed for drop in drop out streaming, and games designed to be played whole. More like youtube videos don't actually compete with movie sales.
@ilikeike Streaming is already breaking down for TV though. Disney took their ball and went home, and with it, turned TV streaming into just another cable package of hundreds of monthly dollars to get the bundle. The cord cutters are cutting that too now.
Whatever it is, humans will break it, guaranteed.
@SalvorHardin That's just how it goes though. Games like Apex Legends and Fortnite are a success because popular streamers are paid to promote them. I read an article just the other week about a popular Twitch streamer being paid a million dollars to promote Apex Legends.
As for where this is going, I don't like it either but with the enormous global audience Google has access to, traditional gamers like us represent a tiny minority. The more casual gamer won't worry so much about latency, reduced image quality and never really owning their games.
I want to add that because YouTube is such a huge platform for gaming, companies will want to run their games on Stadia because of the new ability to click on the game from the YouTube video to instantly play the game or purchase it. This means that Nintendo would be at a loss because they can't take advantage of this feature. Maybe Nintendo's demographic would have to be more marketed towards older gamers that prefer the hardware at that point?
I want it to fail hard. Streaming is terrible for gamers
Switch has outsold PS4 and Xbox One in both January and February. The amount of games coming to the system is getting larger and larger, with Nintendo exclusives, a bunch of indie games and an ever increasing number of 3rd party ports. I think Nintendo is in great position for a while. Now Microsoft might be in trouble and eventually PlayStation.
I don't understand why people always say "X will kill Y" whenever new technology X is introduced. It reminds me of when people thought that "mobile gaming will kill console gaming" back in 2012/2013 or that "digital distribution will kill physical media" that is still prevalent today.
The gaming industry is not a zero-sum game and can easily support both traditional and streaming gaming platforms.
Of course, Nintendo is the least likely to be affected by the advent of game streaming since their business model revolves around selling unique hardware via compelling exclusive 1st party content. As long as Nintendo doesn't A) make their games available on other platforms or B) create the next Wii U, they'll be fine.
Microsoft and Sony are more likely to be impacted since their business model revolves around selling living room boxes via 3rd party multiplatform content that will most likely end up coming to Stadia, but even then, I still think they are fine and won't be hurt by a game streaming future.
Crossy Road on the TV is a better buy than Zelda Breath of The Wild and Mario Odyssey - Google, 2019
Same as when the so called "Mobile gaming revolution" came (and we all still paying $300 for a Switch)
or when Switch came out as a so called "Hybrid System" (and dedicated home consoles still sell like hotcakes)
Or the Sub $200 true 1080p 60FPS "console killer videocard" came out (yet people still play on a 6 year old PS4 and 520p/25fps Switch at home)
It basically means nothing. More Hardware/Services... show me the release schedule (Highlight was $25 AC: Odyssey 🤣)
"sat down for a little Forza Horizon 4 and 27 minutes later the game finally booted"
Yeah, but after 27 minutes you actually got to play it.
Everyone seems to forget that the "this is the future of gaming" tag line was also applied to the Ouya, N-Gage, Atari Jaguar, and the legendary Gizmondo. We all know how well they were received.
Also, let's not forget 75% of the world barely has fibre optic internet, let alone stable internet connections without data caps. Yeah, It's safe to say Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have nothing to worry about for now.
It's such a tricky thing. For my part I'd rather spend a few hundred and get a flawless experience but the market for people who'd spend fifty for a controller and dongle that gets them nearly flawless for a tenner a month must be huge.
This is the future of gaming. For Nintendo,Sony,Microsoft,google and whoever else decides to join the fold. All you’ll need is a controller, and a cellphone,tv,or tablet as your screen. Click into the app and play the game. If you wann play on the go, your cell phone will be your system. Period. Netflix subscription for games. Nintendo,Sony,Microsoft and google will all have there own user interface and apps with exclusives .
Our entire local area has shocking internet. Most of Scotland and a fair amount of the UK for that matter struggle. It’s not a viable option for a lot of people at all.
Also, call me an old Dino but I like having a physical copy when I buy something and will still buy special editions of blu Ray movies, cds, of something I really like. Never got on the kindle wagon either, I like my books 🤣.
I think streaming will have its place but can’t see it as being people’s only option.
The infrastructure simply isn't there for this to be a success. Maybe larger cities but if you live like me in a rural area you'd be better off trying to sell bottled air than streaming services.
@Mgene15
Then your data bill will be outrageous. The overages and whatnot will eat you alive and you don't have consistent connections everywhere.
It's too soon to implement the streaming of games and even if it is I don't see google getting a hold of the gamer market.
Also that controller looks like pure garbage.
Excited for it. Will be there at launch. I view it as just an OPTION for people that have the infrastructure to get games in different ways. I don't think in the short term (10 years) this kind of thing will be the primary option. Gamers are so quick to get their pitchforks, it's tiresome really.
Yea remember the Phantom and how that went?, I personally like to own my games thank you very much.
And do you really want Google to spy on you even more, Also with the current infrastructure I dont see it happening anytime soon
Google thinks by throwing money at the problem will fix it if they did got into gaming like say in 2006 they would have stand a chance but we live in a console market thats already over saturated.
Fight the future
I can't forget when PS Now launched and there was a 30-day trial so I used that time to play FFXIII coming very close to the ending. And then the game got pulled never to be brought back, so I never finished it. That sucked hard, although some might say I was put out of my misery.
Give me super-fast internet everywhere, including tunnels, and then maybe we'll talk. Not happening anytime soon.
Also, particularly in Japan, this will never work, people there LOVE their physical media, and either way there will always be people in every part of the globe interested in owning them. Market value might decrease but it will still be high enough to be worth producing and selling.
Films and music, which this is being compared to, are fundamentally different: people stream those mostly because they are bite-sized (even then you can still usually download them to watch/listen to later - I wonder why?). With games, though, consumption of which takes a lot more time, and which are interactive, much larger audience will prefer to own those.
For a very long time I do not think we have anything to worry about. The real strength of Sony/Nintendo comes from the content they offer: stories, gameplay, nostalgia. Google have shown us next to none of that.
If kids (ages 3-6) nowadays get expose to this, they will think it is normal. To me, I don't see this as normal gaming to me.
All in all the Switch (and future consoles like it) is best placed to weather the streaming storm - and be an excellent clientfor game streaming itself. I expect to see Microsoft and Sony moving in the Switch direction going forward as streaming gains a foothold in the big screen gaming market.
Realistically the only thing holding this back is internet infrastructure. Many cities already have it, many more probably don't. But that will change. Here in Australia I'm keen to give it a go and try it as a compliment (not a replacement) to the Switch.
That was a fantastic piece of writing!
Lots to process and think about.
Switch gaming will be my number one way to interact with my favorite hobby - at least for the next couple of years.
You don't need (if you're a world player like Google) all or even most gamers to have excellent internet. You only need enough of them (where "enough" is tied to the cost charged per user etc.). Then you can start peeling users away from consoles onto your platform.
I was a confirmed CD buyer ("internet's not reliable enough to stream high quality music"), Blu-ray buyer ("internet's not reliable enough to stream high quality video") who hasn't bought a bluray for a year or a CD for a couple of years. I was on 25Mb internet for five years, now on 300Mb.
IOW, the world keeps on turning, tech improves, and if the right mix of ingredients go in to the stadia then it could stand a chance of disrupting Sony and Microsoft in marginal users' homes. Switch, not as likely. Son/daughter of Switch? Possibly.
Anyone else wonder is AC Odyssey was a test to see how well streaming works for consoles FOR stadia? My connection where I live right now is poor. Half an hour download and I reach a single gig. This is no good for more rural areas but I guess they're less populated so they don't care... Anyway, chances are by the time this really kicks in I'll have a gigantic backlog and no need for anything new! It's already fairly extensive
@redd214 Enjoy not having any consumer rights!
@HammerKirby lol, thanks friend
Funny thing is, I don’t think most of us are against streaming. I remember quite a few people wanting the option to stream RE7 and AC: Odyssey like was offered in Japan. I think most just don’t want an all streaming or even all digital future. There plenty of instances, even years down the line, that would make streaming only impractical for a variety of reasons. Nintendo has survived a ton of changes and challengers in the gaming landscape over the last 30+ years. I have no reason to think this time it would be any different.
Stadia depends on a good internet connection first and foremost. Not only fast, but steady/reliable. And it won't be available everywhere, despite Google bragging about its worldwide data center web. I'd like to give it a try nonetheless.
It means nowt. No one cares about this. Even those that just buy FIFA or CoD every year don't care, they'll stick to their existing ecosystems with their existing friends lists.
Stadia will shamble it's way to a miserable and quiet death about 14 months after release.
Stadia = Nothing
(Back to play Nintendo games again)
@Jayofmaya That’s exactly what the AC: Odyssey was. They have already admitted that. It was basically a stress test/info grab to see. I got one of the codes and play AC: Odyssey on my wife’s Mac. It was alright. If it’s cheap enough, I’d use it as a secondary option but nothing more (at least not for a long time)
Nintendo always does its own thing and has easily the best exclusive franchises in the business, so it really need not worry about competition. I think Stadia will be successful though and I will certainly try it out. Not like it's going to cost me much.
I wonder if Google really cares about gaming. They just want to grow and this is just another way to gather user information.
Google is in the business of data mining, and this is another avenue for that. Games will be secondary. Whenever MBAs get in control of something, watch out.
@lmello also I bet areas with mobile data cap(to not mention the ISPs who literally put data caps on even home internet) and how badly this might affect this kind of experience.
@Quarth ding ding ding. This guy gets it. Alphabet made 84% of its revenue off ads last year. Do you really think they care about gaming? Do you think they care if this loses money? The license Android for free. It’s all about ad revenue. Why do you think they love this idea of driving people to YouTube and being able to watch an ad & “within 5 seconds” be playing the game? They are going to make money hand over fist because of that.
I’m not 100% against streaming (eventually) but it sure as hell won’t be through any Google service.
@Supadav03 Yeah, money from ads + user info and trends, which = even more money and growth. They are dipping their toes everywhere and it's kinda scary.
I don't say other companies aren't in it for the money, but Google are very keen to be everywhere. In some areas, like in the field of AI, they might help the evolution of the technology, but at the same time it's a frightening thought of a huge company being a part of almost every level of society.
My opinion is that, if we remember like Netflix, a digital service of stream of movies and TV series, defeat stores like Blockbuster and it is "forcing" television companies to drastically change their services or do something similar to Netflix or join Netflix ; then, the future of video games will be similar; the platforms in smartphones (Android / Google and Apple) that are also digital only services are having a better performance than Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft together, especially for the device (the smartphone and its practical) itself, but yes, emphasizing this last , on the device, why?, why have a "huge" and expensive PC or a no cheap console that looks like a Beta video player, if with a simple small smartphone with connectivity to a Smart TV you already have "Everything", games, videos, movies, series; really this last one attracts more to the people who look for "practicality", "speed" and "all in one place".
However, another point is, and I "mentioned" the last paragraph, WE, yes, We are the ones who decide this, and do not fool ourselves, just we see comments here we realize how little by little more people say yes to the digital / stream only because of a main reasons, No longer occupy space in the house, there we see in the comments, and adding: it is supposed to be cheaper than the physical format, it does not deal with huge devices, and if we do not need it anymore, it is easy to eliminate it.
That if, many still prefer the classic, the physical format for many obvious reasons: we have it all the time if we take care of it of course, we can use it whenever we want, either today or several years later, etc., but we must accept, little little by little, we are less what we want the classic to the digital / stream only
Now, what do we see in the case of Switch?, Nintendo bet very well on a console not large, not expensive, portable, but at home at the same time, simple, does not require many things to play, and even for novices in the games, adding that it has the most brilliant and famous franchises in the video game industry and Nintendo has bet on improving its practices so that consumers and Third Parties will call attention to it and there will be even more games on the way; However, still has a way for what I mentions, that really catches the attention of people who do not want to have something other than the Smartphone for the costs; even though Nintendo has a good plan with being making games for those platforms and attracting more consumers, it is not easy, if the Smartphone has many things that the switch does not have and I do not mean entertainment only, it is necessary to clarify, if remember, mention "all in one", and that includes software for work and industry, but well, I do not want to extend this anymore; but I clarify, this goes in theme, because Smartphones are digital only devices in games and the switch still uses the physical format in games.
My last words, I also hope that the physical format will last longer, that it will be permanent, but it only remains to see and wait; with Netflix, the TV industry were the first to suffer, even though, if we remember, the Music, the newspaper, the books have also been suffering from the internet and the digital.
Nintendo has the least to worry about. Their portability, their lack of focus on bleeding edge graphics, and their extensive exclusive IPs will shield them from most competition of this type.
If anyone should worry, it's Microsoft.
Gamers have shown that they don't care much about consumer rights so I expect that streaming will be the future whether Google succeeds or not.
Given the parasitical nature of most of the tech giants I suppose this was to be expected. Become the de-facto distributer of all content in a chosen area and then skim off your cut from every transaction without adding anything creatively. Luckily for us the flaw in that strategy is Nintendo will always keep its triple A stuff on only its own platforms. Google can therefore take a running jump!
Curious why people feel Microsoft has the most to worry about? They have WAY more money than Sony ($37 billion vs $750 billion) and are already working towards their version of Stadia. They have an all-digital Xbox one coming and have been touting their Azure cloud gaming infrastructure. From all reports, streaming/cloud will be central to their next gen console as well. They have 140 countries already with access to their Azure infrastructure. I know they are getting their butts kicked this gen but let’s not forget how long Sony was in the red & bleeding money. I’d be far more concerned about Sony than Microsoft ($ & infrastructure) or Nintendo (1st party IPs), especially if this is the way the industry is going.
Footnote: I am not a Microsoft guy. Have nevered owned their consoles or computers so I hope I’m wrong. Sony, along with Nintendo & Apple, are among the few companies that I don’t mind paying a premium for.
Talking Point: What Does Google's Stadia Mean For Nintendo And The Future Of Gaming? Nothing. Next?
Forget about all the tech specs and all the fancy little features and all that. If history showed us one thing, it's that it's not technological innovation that sells, it's convenience. People don't care about getting "the best". They care about getting what works for them.
So there are equally good reasons why this could take off, than there are about it bombing hard.
When it'll work, it may work well. So for all those people with lotsa money to pay for hyper super fast and reliable internet (something Google weirdly think the masses have access to at reasonable prices), it may work very well. For those with less reliable connections, if this only affect image quality, most people won't care. Streaming services like Netflix and the likes all have lower quality than physical medias and that hasn't prevented them from taking over.
But... that being said...
It isn't all about speed. The problem with this is that even if you have a super fast gigabit internet connection, if you have crap pings, you're going to get some insane input lag. And what about unreliable connection speed? Many people say their speed is often inconsistent at various times during the day. Add to that those living in houses where multiple people use the internet at the same time... like in most families... This is going to plainly provide the most inconsistent gaming experience you've ever played.
Now, I haven't tried Stadia. But other services like the one from Nvidia, I tried. And this led me to the same conclusion. Inconsistent experience. I had a 300mbps connection at the time, and even with that, the graphics quality shifted a lot, and compression artifacts reduced the sharpness of the image enough to be noticeable and bug me. Sometimes, input lag was almost non-existent, and then, out of the blue, unplayable for no reason. THIS my friends, is the world Google is trying to sell us on.
Also... I'm pretty sure Google will gather all sort of additionnal stats on every one of us. I mean, COME ON. It's Google. Now they'll track everything we do in our daily lives, and every action we do in games as well and add that to those packages of data they sell to third parties. Wow. Sign me up.
It’s funny that people keep pointing to Netflix as proof this will succeed. What was one of he most requested features of Netflix mobile app? Hit: it’s currently the #1 requested feature for Hulu’s mobile app? The ability to download video for offline viewing. I wonder why?
what did i think?
nothing really excited me for this cloud service. only thing that peek's my interest was the exclusives that they are working (weather or not they will be good, remains to be seen). some the ideas are good and interesting, but there was nothing there that made me wanna buy this. Switch and PC are still my way to play gaming.
It's a nice option to have. As someone who was able to try out their project stream it blew all my expectations out the water it really does work at least for me it did. I think it all depends on pricing & how well it works once everyone has a chance to use it & test out their server capabilities but I don't see it replacing physical just yet or anytime soon really
I dont think that a streaming service will be much of a threat to Nintendo. People buy the Switch either for the 1st party games or the portability; neither of which can be achieved by streaming. If anything if these services are offered on the Switch then it could be an even more appealing platform as it would have the great Nintendo exclusives and be able to stream the big 3rd party games.
Microsoft and Sony could be in more trouble, although Microsoft have already been touting XBL and Gamepass which will likely be in a streaming form.
I'm not sure if the question is right. It should be "What does streaming mean to gaming." To me, Google Stadia is not that impressive overall because we could predict that the industry would fully go in this direction or at least attempt to fully go in it long ago. Video games have always been digital (or electronic) so I think the digital vs. physical debate is not a real debate. The so-called physical version of the game is just a means to transport the digital contents.. unlike books or other truly physical media.
The debate is about control. Streaming completely takes away control of access of the goods from the consumer in place of convenience of access. The level of convenience is so great though that I think most people will be willing to relinquish control.
The question of when streaming will be viable, though is unsettled and I don't think Google's interests lie in providing great gaming experiences, which is a huge disadvantage.
It will probably be a huge loss that will be subsidized by US taxpayers.
@Supadav03 Ahhh, didn't know they had stated so already. I'm wondering if Nintendo knew about it? I'm sure they couldn't share everything otherwise, though... Other than it worked well enough.
I don't know why every site is riding the google stadia, calling it the killer of traditional games and talking about it as if it was new. Cloud gaming is NOT new and will never replace local gaming rigs.
The only places you get good enough internet connections are 1 world major cities and even there it's barelly doable. Any form of competitive gaming will not be possible thanks to the input delay and lag.
This is cool, but I like the portability of my Switch. Also, my Switch works if the power goes out, or in places that have no internet connection.
"Google is the only company with the infrastructure to do this."
Well, besides Sony (PlayStation Now) and Microsoft (xCloud). And Amazon, of course.
The speed of light thing is a problem though with interactive games that are latency sensitive (such as fighting games.) The usual way to fix it is to move closer to the player, and it's hard to beat being in the same room or at arm's length.
@Jayofmaya sorry, I many have been confused. Did you mean the streaming of AC: Odyssey on Switch in Japan? I thought you were referring to the Google’s Project Stream where they provided codes for a bunch of people to stream AC via chrome on any device. That’s what I was referring to.
I for one welcome our new streaming overlords
Nintendo has unique ips and unique hardware, and will have some appeal for a while though
Game streaming, even for those interested, is not in a viable state for anyone that doesn't live near one of their data centers. Even then, they'd need some beefy internet to really take advantage of it. This would potentially be more expensive, for most of us, than just accepting the frontloaded cost of a PC/console and buying/downloading the game outright. Especially if you only play a few games thrpughout a year.
On a personal note, technical issues aside. I also don't like how much power this gives publishers. This is basically the ultimate DRM, which will stop most pirating dead in its tracks. But it will also give them complete control over how, when, and if we can access a game. For this reason, as soon as it's even somewhat viable, I see big publishers not bothering with retail, or even digital, at all. Which means it will be stuck to whatever streaming platform.
This would be a nightmare for game preservation, and it means that they can take away access for specific games at anytime for any reason. It also means that, like video streaming, I'd have to subscribe to multiple different services to play all the games I want. Which could defeat the whole pricepoint argument entirely.
/rant
TL;DR- I know it's the future, but I don't have to like it.
If streaming as a service is AN option? I'm fine with it. That way those who want it can have it. (And be the Guinea Pigs. ) But if it becomes THE option? It'll have to do a lot of evolving before I jump on board. As streaming technology and my internet are now, it's not gonna happen. I'm curious to see how everything will play out from a technical standpoint - I like trying out new things - but don't think I'll be jumping on board at this time.
What concerns me is today’s trend of convenience over ownership. Ie.. we are paying to access content we will never own.
What good is a brand new first party Stadia title that has zero possibility of being preserved and enjoyed as a ‘retro’ title 10 to 20 years down the track?
I feel being able to revisit a title that is a culmination of many people’s hard work is important.
It also means you can’t game without the internet which is another disappointment.
I see the merits this has for companies but as the consumer, we lose.
Really starting to detest Google; it’s fast becoming the Orwellian/Huxlian nightmare we’ve been warned about...
I don't really think it will compete with the next-gen consoles and Switch. Like how many are saying, I prefer to think of this as an alternative to the more traditional consoles, similar to the blue ocean strategy of the Wii and DS.
Personally, I prefer the advantages of actually owning a game and playing it on the console you have like a "proud" owner. And even if it takes off, I believe there still will be space for traditional consoles.
and the one thing google never mention is how they will sell all the info they get from your gaming on stadia cause you know they will....
This is nothing but Onlive 2.0
The idea of paying a premium price for a game I don't physically own or at the very least can download to my console and play offline is super unappealing. A consistent Internet connection does not exist for large parts of the world. Even some US states rely on satellite internet in rural areas
Personally, I only want psyhical crap.
Hug your retro consoles, hug them tight! (And replace those capacitors )
One can wonder if Google have finally been able to develop AGI and this project is them testing the AGI doing everything, from producing the service to developing new games and promoting all of it? 😛
It will not really compete with the Switch as it a mobil device that is not internet dependent.
And if you add the the fact the number of exclusive games that Nintendo has.
No threat.
It could compete with Xbox and Playstation if it has the game library and it really works well.
But to be honest, Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo as always battle with the games on the platform and not the console.
And then we have the PC gaming, a platform that has competition within it self. Origin vs Steam. Blizzard doing is own stuff.
Not to mention all the others.
No. Google will not threaten PC gaming for some time.
But what if Google didn't want to compete in these ways?
Maybe we will start to see games that are bought on Origin, Steam and the like start of have a "Stadia supported" just like we get PC, Mac and SteamOS support if we buy a game on steam?
Now game developers would really love that as they can sell directly on the own storefront, instead of sharing with the different platforms.
And players would feel safe, because they would have a "classic" gaming option if Stadia did not works. As you still we have the PC, Steam... whatever platform to play on this way
I don’t think this will be the one, but the type of thing is the future, and I don’t know why people are so resistant to the idea. I’ve always found gamer’s attachment to hardware a little weird. You don’t see movie buffs fighting over models of blu-Ray players or streaming services. Consoles are just there to play our games.
People are also obsessed with ownership. Live in the moment. I bet 99% of people never go back and ever replay the games they make such a fuss over ‘owning’.
@Quarth There is a conspiracy theory that cryptocurrency was created by AI as a way to trick humans into giving it more power. As it is just now, no one knows where Bitcoin came from.
No thanks. Unless they make internet a free thing and at very high speed all over the world if they want to make it happen. We are forced to play by streaming (which we don't like) so we need constant internet. Who's going to pay for that huh? Some internet companies are forcing you with data limit. How do you want to cover that up. This thing is way too soon or like I said.. FREE INTERNET!
@Peach64 That's because you don't have to go online to play a game. Not all of us likes internet gaming. First of all when you can't buy a game it doesn't feel good. How many games are actually left online at E-shop? and other online shops? They are taken down due license issues. At least when it's not cloud there is still option to play a game in offline mode since you do have it on a DVD disc. Cloud is no go! Stop supporting BS
@OorWullie LOL.
Don't want to buy into conspiracy stuff, but I'm convinced we'll one day have AGI and by then we better be prepared. Hopefully FLI and other organizations have convinced the AI community that ethics and moral needs to be prioritized when developing strong AI.
It means a D pad shaped the same as the ones on clone Game Boys and not much else. Some will use it, some won't just like everythign else that exists. Nintendo cannot even get their online inline. This isn't even in their universe.
Yes Stadia could be big but people seem to be forgetting PS Now exists now and has done for years. It works and I don’t see how Stadia is a big upgrade to that. Now’s not exactly setting the world on fire... yet at least...
Also personally I don’t want more subscriptions in my life, would prefer to outright pay for something and own it.
@OorWullie what do you mean? Didn’t Satoshi Nakamoto create bitcoin?
Physical books sales are up despite eBooks “destroying” that market. Re Stadia (bad and forgettable name imo) I know people say this is the future, but not my future. Physical will exist for another decade at least in some form or another. “News just in, Next Splatfest, Physical vs Streaming”. I know my team.
I mean, could be cool, but depends on games and price
@datamonkey Satoshi Nakamoto is just the name used by the anonymous person or group that invented Bitcoin. Nobody actually knows who he/she or they are. The Japanese guy you see when searching the name is not really him. It's thought the person or group may not even be Japanese.
I'll use it for AAA games if the subscription is no more than £15 a month. I can't stand spending £50 on a new title for it to be lacklustre and only getting £30 back for it in trade in value. At least with this I'll be able to try and play as many top games as I want until I enjoy one, and as long as I play one decent game a month then that's my money's worth. As long as the Switch doesn't get abandoned as the indie machine and the top indie devs don't switch their focus to Stadia then I'm happy with both platforms
Stadia will only work well when we enter the "entire computer streaming age"(keyboard screen and a account only needed when using a computer), Maybe then Nintendo will release a extremely portable console without CPU GPU, and it only have screen and control buttons for streaming play __in! Zalem! city!__
I'm not afraid Nintendo stops making consoles. As long as they keep making incredible first-party games, there will always be room for Nintendo.
What I'm afraid is this kind of gaming becomes mainstream some day. And I think and fear it will. After overcoming the big problem here, Internet connection speed, which isn't great in most houses. But I'm afraid of this future because gaming like this hasn't got any soul.
@Quarth Yeah, I don't really buy that one either but with the way the Block chain works it's an interesting theory. As for a lid being kept on AI and morals and ethics being prioritised, I'm not so sure. Elon Musk said, for years he tried to get the people creating the technology to slow down but no one really listened. There are some higher ups who are excited at the prospect of the rise of AGI and humans merging with the technology. The people in charge of running our countries are too caught up in their own petty squabbles, by the time they realise it's all meaningless and AI is what we should really be worried about, it'll be too late. They can try to regulate it but the tech companies will fight it, it'll go through the courts, there will be appeals and eventually legislation will be passed but these things take many years. By that time, the genie will already be out the bottle and it ain't going back in. Last year, tech bosses signed a pledge never to develop killer robots and autonomous weapons but does anyone really believe them. Even if Silicone Valley don't, other countries will.
I love the portability and the option to play offline with my Switch for whenever I am not at home and booting up the full system. This means nothing to me. Lag, control input lag, dependency on internet etc... nah, I'll likely pass for a decade or so at least on game streaming.
Just my usual unwanted ramblings here.
I love physical, I do think there's a place for digital and I know everything will turn digital eventually much to my dismay.
However digital games and games that basically have constant DRM is another thing.
I'm sure plenty of people are fine with that but there's also a lot that aren't.
Everyone remember SimCity's contant connection woes?
Why I love GOG for PC goodness. It's not as good as physical but at least there's still options to play when and where and how you want!
@OorWullie Yeah, it's hard to know who to trust. Swedish-American physicist Max Tegmark, who works at MIT, is one of the founders of FLI and says they are working hard to put ethics and moral high on the agenda, but he also says that the surrounding society needs to understand that this is the most important conversation of our time.
I'm pretty shure Stadia works perfectly in the Google sandbox. In open field it will struggle with things like Pings like some here already stated.
As some said: Google is all about Data Mining.
I see this project as a big beta test for Google. It's about
a) testing the acceptance in the gaming community
b) mining data of the internet structure worldwide (not only in terms of speed but also in terms of stability and reliability)
c) testing business models like the one-click-away from the gaming influencers (streamers)
Things like that. It's NOT about gaming - it's about data mining (at this point at least). They're not stupid. They know that today the internet infrastructure isn't ready. They arm for the future - it will be at some day. And they have the time and the money to invest to be prepared for this day. To be ahead of their competitors.
And even then they make their money with data mining. The gamers world is the frame around it.
You can earn a lot more money with data/advertising then with games. And nobody is better in it then Google.
@OorWullie ah ok thanks for the info. Maybe I should look deeper into this!
A concept! Other than that, nothing. It's literally anything but a switch competitor.
I formally invite the "everyone, everywhere" people to try out our public wifi, if they manage to find a working hotspot. I suggest the one across the street that took my laptop about a minute to load Google, and my phone doesn't connect to it at all. Mind you I was sitting on my balcony, so there was one less wall in the way. Also mind you that we supposedly have awesome internet here.
If they can still believably claim consistent streaming with minimal interruptions works everywhere in the world, I might be willing to consider that it could be viable in the future.
Wow.
I'm impressed how much people actually have to say about this.
@Manah They don't even have to do that. Just go to some homes that aren't inside of a major city. I live in the DC 'burbs, have FIOS, and still experience internet slowdown. Like, unless Google can convince all ISPs to upgrade everyone to fiber and NOT slow things down when people use a lot of bandwidth... I don't see how this is supposed to work.
For those in rural areas, this won't be feasible. WiFi has a tendancy to drop out at will, people have data caps and from what i've heard, this will eat up data.
It'll be a viable option, but it won't take over the way we play games. And won't be until data caps are non-existent, and WiFi stops dropping out at will.
The article fails to mention Google Stadia's biggest problem: Nobody wants it. That is why it will fail.
Tap here to load 117 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...