Google Reveals Stadia, Its Vision Of A Cloud Gaming Future

Boring!
Boring!
Boring!

Eh, it went from an X-box like console with full support from Sega/UbiSoft to this. Not impressed.

I give it two years. It doesn't have the IPs of Nintendo nor the brand recognition of PlayStation.

Looks interesting but I'll wait and see if it's actually worth it. I much prefer physical media and while I like cloud streaming, not everyone has a very fast internet connection

Nah...!
(Back to play my Pokemon 3DS games, ignoring Google Stadia existence)

I'm just not interested in a streaming service. I'm much too paranoid of service outages.

This could be huge

....I wouldn't mind being a steamer for this Stadia.., cause all I have is a swicth and a laptop for school.
A college student streamer (unless I get to busy which will probably happen)
This has an interesting idea, and my ears are open to listen about this. Still a physical gamer, but I bet they will have a way to buy a game and then stream it (think Blu Ray movies with digital download codes)

39:37 love the fact that they felt the need to show us that visual in case we didn't understand how fractions work

Not interested in a (Edit) streaming-only console. I'll pass.

I’m not particularly interested in streaming services but Google have very deep pockets and aren’t afraid take creative risks so I’ll be interested to see how this plays out.

All technology and no soul makes Jack a dull boy.

This could potentially run on the Switch surely? Meaning we could have access to the titles that it can't actually run normally.

Got it. I will look forward to learning more about it.

Looks neat, if it works as advertised. A lot of clever solutions.

But I'm personally not interested in a streaming service.

Supportive of the concept — same with Project XCloud — but I’m not convinced it’s 100% for me. I want to know the minimum upload and download speed I’d need to have virtually lag free gaming.

@GrailUK
This is exactly how I felt about Stadia. The tech seems awesome, but there was no meaningful software support shown, and we still know nothing about stuff like the pricing structure, data caps, ISPs, etc.

Also very curious if I’d be buying a subscription model or I’d have to purchase games at full price

i only care about what they have in store for their own IPs, as for third parties and such. will see.
still i'm gonna continue support physical games and consoles. as there no way they can confess me that this is the future. i would like to see more details about it though.

@Fake-E-Lee
I have read the article about My Time at Portia for consoles. 😀
I will buy the Switch version, but..... after i got 3 Very Rare Pokemon DS games for my upcoming purchase (Soul Silver, Black 2 & White 2) 😅

I'll use it for AAA content. I'd rather not spend £50 on a new game to try and it and not like it. I'd much rather be able to click a button, try it and jump straight in if it's only £15 a month or similar. It will also not require me to spend £350+ on the PS5. And I can game on the go, the sole reason I love the Switch so much. As someone who rarely buys games physically it makes sense from every stand point.

4K, 60 fps, 8K? All they need is "AAA" and it looks like they got all the gaming buzzwords down.

Seriously though, while the cross play aspect is appealing, the streaming only isn't. This thing will need some compelling exclusives otherwise, I can't see how it'll be that attractive to play the same third party games as existing platforms get but with a forced internet connection.

I don't think this is as viable as Google thinks (at least in the States) when you consider that our internet infrastructure is garbage and inconsistent due to it essentially being controlled by the few monopolistic ISP's. Unless there is a massive shift towards proper Net Neutrality and those monopolistic companies are brought into check (ideally they should be broken up), this just doesn't seem viable for large scale. With things the way they are now, ISP's will jump at the chance to nickle and dime the consumer and bleed them dry. Digital only and especially streaming only for gaming is often anti consumer and pro corporation. No thank you, I'm out if ALL gaming eventually goes this way.

I don't think many people are surprised by this announcement. I can't say I'm really interested either. Call me a dinosaur, but I prefer owning my games.

There's not enough here to be worth surrendering control and ownership to one of the most powerful corporations in the world, that already has too much power.

Also, what does this have to do with Nintendo? You cover crap like this and don't even mention that Castle Crashers Remastered was just announced for the Switch...

It’s sad to see Cuthbert and Raymond come out as enemies of gaming, anyone that supports these streaming services where any exclusive content can get pulled in a heartbeat is a threat to this medium and it’s historal significance, it’s worse enough with digital games being pulled but streaming means you’re 100% sol if a exclusive game gets pulled.

To hell with Google, Facebook and the rest of the disrupting leeches of Silicon Valley.

Neat idea.

But not with my internet. This thing is not even on my radar because of that.

Crisis averted. Gamers go back to your normal lives.

Does anyone remember the outcry when Xbox One was supposed to HAVE an online connection to play?

Absolutely depressing.

Can't wait for Skyrim Stadia Edition

What happiness can everything being streaming and digital give? How would we play these games if they are taken down from the Internet?

With the current state of the internet, and the trend coming from ISPs to throttle connections, add paywalls, limit bandwidth when they see fit, and raise prices on top of that, I don't think we're ready to jump onto the cloud gaming bandwagon anytime soon. Well, maybe a select few will be ok with this...

But I'm curious about the requirements for this. I just downagraded my connection from 300mbps to 50mbps (because with everything costing more and more nowadays, and the fact that I have a family to support and I don't have money up the wazoo, I didn't have a choice to cut back on this).

The problem is while technology always advance and allow for awesome things, the current trend shows people actually cutting back on these things because they don't have the means to always buy into what's current.

And what happens when you game over a connection used by the whole family? Can my son and I game at the same time on different devices, while my daughter is watching something on Netflix and my wife is receiving a call over our IP phone line? All this going through the same pipe?

Not gonna happen. At least not in my house. Maybe in a decade or so. And when that happens, I'll revert to retro gaming and actually owning my games instead of paying for glorified indefinite rentals over streaming.

Well, GameStop is likely going the way of Blockbuster

Please, Nintendo Life, just be Nintendo Life again.

Too lazy to type it all again at the moment: http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/03/playstation_could_have_fresh_competition_in_stadia_googles_new_game_streaming_platform#comment4977980

I'm not exactly an expert on this, but around 48:30 when he was talking about the internet, it sounded like he was full of it. You still need an internet connection to play it, so you will still get lag if your internet connection is bad

@cfgk24

Yes because that was pointless. It was purely in Microsoft's interest, not the gamers. At least there's a reason for needing to be online here with the google thing.

Read with interest until I read it will be a streaming box. I'm out thanks. I remember Xbox were trying something along that route with the One and it went down like a lead balloon. Also PS Now.....🙄

As someone who lives somewhere where watching a 1080p 60FPS video is kinda difficult, Stadia obviously isn't form me...

Whatever it is, our Joy-Con are compatible.

This is an actual joke.

In terms of the barebones concept, it’s fine. However, almost no one in the world besides maybe Japan is going to be able to use this without any major issues. I still think it is too early for streaming to be the core of gaming, and on top of it Google doesn’t seem to understand gaming too well themselves, heck, the CEO himself admitted that! They’re attempting to make gaming “accessible” but I don’t see how it is realistic to do so right now at all in the way they are thinking of it.

It all depends on the games. Software is what brings people to platforms, not cool new tricks.

Beyond bored by that presentation. The spec-fetishists seemed most happy. 198K and 1 zillionFPS...but what about the, er, games?

I will never understand the appeal of handing over total autonomy to a company so they can own the entire infrastructure of your hobby.

Why hand so much power to Google and your ISP? As soon as the customer is locked in to this infrastructure, prices may rise, content will shift (as we've seen with Netflix as contracts expire and competitors launch their own services for a piece of the pie) and adopters will be completely dependent on Google to game. Not owning games, reliance on ISP and shoddy connections, the list goes on.

Not to mention privacy/ data-gathering practices, which will no doubt factor into this service.

I still dont understand why consumers chose to abandon physical media. It frees us from eternal dependence on Netflix, Spotify, etc and from what THEY choose to offer or carry (which has so many implications). All for some convenience? Not worth the trade.

Nah, not interested in the slightest.

No thanks My Switch is far better and streaming is not really that up to date yet here in the states

No thanks. No thanks. No thanks (Nintendolife would not let me just post two words, so there you go).

@KryptoniteKrunch The Google CEO literally said during the conference he wasn't big on games, but he was going to bring someone onstage "who knows the difference between RPGs and NPCs." Boy, did I cringe at that.

My internet blows and whenever i play smash it's usually lagging like crazy so I doubt I'll buy into this

The exclusives were great.

There was noticeable input lag in the AssCreed Odyssey footage they showed on stage.

Doom Eternal was playable for attendees and was running in "low latency" mode, but even that still had input lag as well.

No wonder why Google never talked about input lag or latency during the entire conference. Things are far from being sorted out even in a controlled environment where I'm sure the internet quality is amazing. No imagine how things will play out in the average household, especially in countries with less than stellar connection qualities.

Dear Google,
Nope!

Dear google it a no from me too!

This would have to be insanely low to purchase the system itself or it cant succeed, The 3 big guys have the market, they have a tried and trusted base of gamers behind them. Google does not have that.

Nope. This simply can't work due to the input lag. Dependency on an Internet connection is a huge issue as well - what are you supposed to do, for example, on a plane?

The Switch is great because it provides portability and versatility to play high quality games anywhere. That's what we actually need more of in the future.

"The Stadia controller was also shown off, and connects directly to Google’s game servers via WiFi for low-latency input, rather than via a Bluetooth connection which would be subject to delayed input speed."

If you're ping is at 500, there's nothing a Wi-Fi connected controller can do to fix that.

People said that the GameCube would be Nintendo’s last HW console... Then it was to be the Wii... Then it was to be the Wii U...

@shaneoh You know what would decrease the input delay? Having the game actually be in the device you're using

@EasyDaRon doesnt matter how big your platform really. Look at last generation. Xbox was massive the 360 sales were through the roof there was no stopping it. This generation the PS4 still has more sales than Switch and Xbox combined by a fairly large amount. The biggest reason being the exclusives, thats still why the Switch is selling well now. If they have something like that it'll do well.
A lot of people are strongly against an all online system which I'm not but i do understand the concern.

Internet goes down or router does? Nope no more game for you. Even though modern consoles are mostly online most game still work without a connection.

@shaneoh exactly that. Almost all devices have some delay or some lag once in a while when on wifi. Also, not even cable can fix that. I’ve played a ton of world of warcraft in recent years, for instance, and there is always lag every few mins, while connected to a cable.

This service is as strong as the weakest internet link. And when I’m looking at my own connection and am thinking that it might be nice in the future but that it will take a lot of years and investments to make this work.

Wont affect Nintendo in the slightest, may possibly draw some of the more casual xbox or Playstation players but thats about it.

Nintendo gamers may look at it as a side service thats about it.

@westman98 Don't forget this was GDC not a public demo. It's for Devs so we shouldn't expect too much info.

This will be great for data mining for Google.

So much negativity. But didn't expect any less from a Nintendo crowd.

I think it looks very promising. And I am all for a great streaming service with access from all possible platforms ( not like with the conservative PS now).

I also have super high speed fiber internet like most people in my country. So I am definitely among the target audience.

@Spidey-Scrub
Most of northern Europe has excellent high speed internet connections. Just as Japan, South Korea and Singapore. These places are all ready for a game streaming service. So why not start now?

The rest of the world can follow when their ready, including the states.

Boooooooooo!!! Go away google!!!!

YouTube influencers, nothing physical and all streaming.... the future is bleak.

Nintendo.... save us all from this evil plan to ruin everything I like about gaming

@Monkeyofthefunk
I'd think Google would at least talk about the pricing model (subscription, pay as you play, premium, F2P, etc), even if exact prices are given.

This very much looks like a nifty concept for buggering about with but won't deliver a decent gaming experience outside of a lab.

Essentially, if a game ever lags it's rubbish but normally games won't lag if the neighbour starts drilling on the wall near your router.

I could se this as a replacement for hardware, but I would still expect Steam, Origin and the like selling the games you play.
Just with the install be om the google instead of the harddrive

If it works well then I’m impressed by it on a technical level but this worries me greatly on where gaming is going. I have a horrible feeling that this type of gaming will be forced on us all eventually. They always hated the second hand game market as they couldn’t make more money, this will kill all that. As for the presentation it was very sterile to say the least.

@Mallow : I 100% agree with you. I'm not sure if it's a generational shift where consumers are ok with streaming, and relying on tech to access stuff. I still want to own my products because there is a possibility of losing access at some point.

In my country the cloud gaming will be possible around the year 2043.(Even to visit NL to view the news is difficult and expensive as heck with our internet)

@WillQuan I like the way you're thinking.

@Mr_Pepperami for me it's not so much second-hand games as being unable to leave my collection to my children. I've long ago ditched ebooks for the same reason, I do my utmost to prevent my possessions evaporating.

We just don’t need another system

@kingbk it's going to have exclusive ips as stated I bet but even then it's success is still up in the air in my eyes. Google had very bad track record of project that didn't pan out or even literally were doomed on arrival because of structural disorganization that's almost inherent for many of these projects at Google being hyped hard, then left in limbo after two years and formally killed off after five.

Because of this news I just remembered the first episode of Black Mirror. Scary stuff....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Black_Mirror_-_Fifteen_Million_Merits.jpg

The future is latency!

Latency is the worst thing, that could happen to games.

@Cyberbotv2 I've been trying to describe the generational thing in terms of a rental culture where the younger people don't expect to ever own anything but it's made me a bit too depressed.

@oatmaster yeah agree. You don’t own anything anymore it’s all on loan. Not a fan at all.

I will admit, it is very impressive. But a “no physical” future is something I’m not wanting to be apart of.

@EasyDaRon ...the problem is it all hinge on one big "if" and unless there's a lot of massive magic coding they made to make it run seamlessly even on the (******) connections of many Americans ISPs who go out of their ways to avoid infrastructure improvement because they already have regional monopoly...

Well yeah.

And that's not talking about the issue of a streamed game requiring uninterrupted internet connection.

I already imagine the negative reviews and complaints floods from people because their local network router bugged out and caused their gaming to be interrupted for even just 5 minutes.

At least with a traditional console even games purchased digitally are still stored locally on your console itself.

(You used some not so lovely language - Matthew010)

Well that presentation was awesome
Too bad it's not coming to my country for now
Would love to see the face of hardware elitists if it does succeed

It's odd to me that this has received so much flack. It seems everyone is jumping straight to this being a replacement for traditional games, rather than complimenting them. I was in the project stream test, and it worked great. It was extremely impressive - and I went in fully expecting to hate it, just to get my free copy of ACO.

I'm not even really the target demographic for this. I have always built and will continue to build my own gaming PCs for the foreseeable future, but having the ability to play these games on crappy hardware while traveling, or certain games from my phone, could be appealing. I'm most interested in the pricing and structure of the service, and could see myself subscribing some day for the right price/library of games.

Obviously, there are pitfalls to always online content - but most people don't cry about not being able to stream Netflix or Spotify when the Internet craps out. There are enough other types of content that can be consumed while offline (<3 you Switch) that I can deal with the occasional Internet outage.

Once again another company takes a crack at Streaming games.... I mean look how much of a success they have all been so far! Look at Onlive, truly a gaming marvel unparalleled in it's levels of success.... Seriously though why Google. You don't even have the biggest cloud infrastructure, Amazon does. Even though the internet is better than it was even just a few years ago, Games are much bigger than they were and require more data to be playable. Unless Google has some magical way to give all of their audience better internet, this is pretty much a waste of time. Can you imagine trying to play a fast-paced fighter or shooter via streaming? Just not viable

Need more info but looks promising. Possibly a service for me. If Fifa is on it and it will support cross play then I’m in

@westman98 Not at a dev conference that was streamed. They will talk about it in private. I can imagine a lot of this was discussed behind closed doors though.

@roadrunner343 You find it odd that it's receiving a lot of flack, when you yourself fully expected to hate it before you got to try it first hand?

Oh yeah, Nintendo is totally doomed now. Might as well throw this Switch away, it's completely useless....just, let me finish this one game. Oh yeah, I need to finish this other...

You know what, I'm keeping the Switch.

@ALinkttPresent Yes? Despite fully expecting to hate it - again, I'm a PC guy, so there's nothing replacing that anytime in the near future for me - I can recognize that there are plenty of other people that do not having high end PCs. Or even a game console for that matter. Event before testing, I could see this being a good option for casuals. After testing, I admit, I was far more impressed than I thought it would be, and I'd be will to subscribe if the price & game library are right.

Alot of negativity, itll all depend on how well it works, if say it works fine on regular broadband internet(i.e not end) then this could be a monster. It seems like itll be very easy to port pc games and the idea that you can play top end games just by bringing your controller to your friends house seems very appealing to a casual audience imo

@roadrunner343 Makes sense. But keep in mind most people on this particular webpage already have a Nintendo Switch, which is pretty much the same thing to us as you already having a gaming PC

@ALinkttPresent That's probably the part that gets me the most excited. If Google / Nintendo play nice, I would be far more likely to subscribe to Google's service. How awesome would it be to play games like AC Odyssey, Cyberpunk 2077, etc... on Switch?

@PixelTavern Considering the hardware is purpose built for Stadia, it doesn't really matter how big their existing cloud infrastructure is - they'll be expanding their data centers to support this. Amazon having a larger cloud presence doesn't really matter here, as it's a completely separate business that would require new hardware anyway. Regardless, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, etc... all have massive cloud/data center infrastructure and are very familiar with operating at a huge scale..

However, the network infrastructure to the end user is going to be the critical factor. I don't know how far Google ran with it, but things like Google Fiber have certainly helped Google learn quite a bit. Again, I was very impressed with the Project Stream test, and the service is only going to get better with time. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is finally the streaming service to stick around with a sizable audience, simply due to the accessibility of being able to play in anything with the Chrome browser, given it is priced & supported correctly.

@roadrunner343 Yes, that's what I hope happens too. Although admittedly, I'd probably only use it to play Kingdom Hearts lol. Nintendo and Google have played nice on a number of occasions: Nintendo has their mobile games on Android, they partnered for the Nintendo-published Wii Street U powered by Google game on Wii U eShop, and Nintendo partnered with Google subsidiary Niantic to create Pokemon GO (but Niantic became independent before the game's release).
There's two main reasons I don't see it happening though. One: Nintendo is being very cautious about preventing hacking on the Switch, and I'm worried they will reject anything even remotely related to a web browser. And two: it may discourage developers from making Switch versions of games

Not my cup of tea. And unless Google starts making exclusive videogames for it, this is just going to be another platform to play your multiplats on.

I prefer my console "boxes" thank you very much. Least I can play those offline, for the most part.....

It may work out but there are a host of problems they are not being honest about.
1) Quality of hardware. There are so many variations of hardware including a multitude of graphics chips which will be needed to process the games.
2) Hardware aside, if they are using software to accelerate the games then it is highly dependent on RAM and available swap files . If you base it on past Google software then it will be a memory hog.
3) Bandwidth. This will be a huge issue. A majority of the country do not have fiber at the house they have copper or satellite. Cell phones will need more than 4G, they will need 5G and the data usage will be astronomical.

This type of service has been tried several times and one notable try used all of the participants bandwidth and processing time to share server load. It did not work then and will not work now especially with security concerns.

Consoles are still the best way to standardize the playing experience.

@roadrunner343 Not going to happen. The Wifi is the weakest point of the Switch. On a 100% streaming service, lag will be the worst on the Switch.

@Zidentia Your device does absolutely nothing with the game. It's like streaming a video through Youtube only you can send input to the server.

The server (in Google's datacenter) does ALL the work. The rendering. The assets. Every. Thing.

The only thing that affects the gameplay from the user side is their Internet connection. Which will result in a bad or worse experience if your internet is less than 200 mbit, at least for 4K60.

If this is the future I hate it. I'd prefer to own my games, not rent them and hope they don't get taken away at the whims of publishers. I'm sure we all remember the P.T. demo on PS4. And it's impossible to buy the original 2006 Prey game because it's been removed from all digital stores.

@sanderev How do you think your device renders graphics? It is not magical and mysterious. You still need either a graphics chip or software rendering to render a Youtube video and gaming will be even harder on a system. There is no free ride on the receiving end.

The one and only reason I like this would be it would slow down the annoying outdated technology wall that consoles face every 5 years, but that's a part of the model that makes consoles successful. If they can pry away that $300 from you every 5 years, they win.

Cloud gaming. Ahh no thanks.

@Zidentia Your device indeed does need to be able to play a 1080p stream. Even a Raspberry Pi does that . This will no doubt work on the Google Chromecast, Android TVs, heck they might even release an Apple TV app. Most devices today are capable of running a 1080p stream and a lot of them even a 4K stream.

@Mallow I understand your point. Though I'm hesitant to put Netflix or Spotify as services your necessarily tied to. There are comparable services out there against both. So they aren't necessarily lacking in competition.

But to the point of why someone would choose streaming over physical media? It's probably different for everyone and some reasons quite understandable. I know for me, when it comes to movies, there aren't many I care to own physically. Most movies I don't tend to watch more than once. So I rather not be on the hook with a movie I don't plan on watching again

There aren't that many countries with a good enough network infrastructure/connection quality to gather costumers from right now.

But, hey, everyone's saying it's the future and Google took the first step. Let's see where it leads... It's not like they'll go bankrupt or anything if Stadia fails hard.

I just hope that as long as there is demand and market for "boxes", Ninti, MS and Sony will keep making them. Technology usually works by killing and replacing what came before and i'll be sad the day that happens to consoles. In the future let them coexist as long as it's viable, even as a niche market if needed be.

@MisterKorman They will. It's Google, they release something and if it fails they stop it really soon.

So, this will either succeed or will be forgotten in 2 years.

watched the entire presentation and I'm very impressed.

lots of interesting solutions and ideas, and while I don't think the world is quite ready for it today, it's kind of inevitable for the next decade – someone will get it right eventually, maybe not Google, but now they have a headstart

Yeah not interested until I learn more about this service first party line up

They are the future. But there are so many things about the future which I don’t like. One of them is Stadia. But we must face the fact that if they offer high quality first party titles, and if 5g become a thing in next 2 years, people eventually adopt the system. Sad but true.

Great Nintendo news!

Hey hey hey. This stadia thing shows a lot of promise just like the hundreds of platforms/services that google has picked up and dropped in the past.

Sounds ok but if all it has is games that you can buy on PS4/Xbox then it’s going to struggle. Might be ok as a secondary system but it won’t substitute PS4/SWITCH/PS5.

The concept itself sounds really intuitive and promising on paper, but the conference was a drag. There were very few moments that got me interested or showed off why the platform was an effective substitute for console/PC gaming. The highlight for me was the demonstration of AC Odyssey being played and the demonstrator quickly switching between multiple devices that were streaming the game. I am interested, but not excited. I'll have to wait and see the games Google has planned for the launch before I consider giving the service a shot.

real gamers wanting to have a future in the gaming industry for customers should BOYCOTT it! why? because it is an ONLY STREAMING device! cometition is ALWAYS good but not in this sense since it will only benefit the companies and NEVER us customers!!

Every man and their dog will be doing cloud gaming. It won't be like Netflix where there is one clear winner... Which probably means their won't be any winners

No issue with this... For the 5% (1%?) Of the world that can support this.

I like the WiFi controller idea... Platform agnostic.

Will it run on Switch? Don't think so
Will it feature Switch/Nintendo games? Def not

Not interested, I will keep my eyes on the developing story. Just can't see myself relying on an internet connection to play games. I understand we rely on internet for updates and patches, I just don't like the way this streaming/cloud gaming future looks. If this is the case I will probably just buy a monster PC for all my gaming needs.

@MisterDevil I don't think it counts as boycotting if you don't want it in the first place

@roadrunner343 very true they will just create hardware for the situation. However other companies have done this and failed, and although Google are big, no one is big enough to avoid failure. I will wait until its available to fully judge, but i can see it now ending up with blurry laggy games that become unplayable as your internet buckles . Fingers crossed its better than previous attempts

@ALinkttPresent uh ofc it is boycotting? just like the rumors about a next Xbox with only streaming... one should boycott it too since streaming a game means never having the game... as I said competition is always good... but an only streaming device is never good for the customers... especially if you have to pay the whole price for the game but never actually get the game

The internet infrastructure is not where it needs to be to support this kind of service yet.

Looks huge to me. No need to develop processing power hardware anymore, even for Nintendo. They can just develop exclusive controllers like the joycons and their games and spread to the world. Like apps running on stadia, a sort of Nintendo store inside Stadia. And the same for Microsoft or anyone else. Seems very convenient to me, for the developers and for the players. I am really excited by Stadia, can't wait to try it wit my ADSL. If I can stream in fullhd and if they can bring games I like ( doom eternal confirmed) I'm in.

We pretty much already have this with PS Now...

@MisterDevil I don't buy oranges, because I think they taste bad. But I don't consider myself to be boycotting oranges

@MisterDevil My opinion is that I want to play the game when and where I want, I don't need to actually get a box, just want to play the game. And Stadia may be great at this. Imho.

@Medic_alert Depends. If 5g ends up as amazing as the news sources tend to think it will be. It could potentially work on a portable as well.

i would not touch that (****) with jade raymonds hands

(You used some not so lovely language - Matthew010)

@Erchitu I think the success (or failure) of this will be determined by the capabilities (and costs) of 5g.

Talking about worrying for nothing!

Yeah...I'm going to stick with my Switch if you dont mind.

That name Stadia is terrible it’ll never sell, I promise you that right now.

Nah, chief. A streaming console? I'm out. I thought it would be somewhat intriguing, but the only thing goin for it is the fact you can join games that you see streamin on YouTube, maybe instant uploads of video clips.

@MisterDevil is Netflix or Spotify bad for consumers? The only way this harms consumers is if you buy something you don't want. Not every product is for every consumer. I play on PC and go physical only for Switch whenever possible, but I can certainly see this service complimenting those sometime in the future. More options are always good for consumers.

"Stadia will offer low-latency gaming that can support 4K, 60fps visuals and will also offer 8K support in the future" - for the 7% of gamers with a fast enough internet connection of course.

I will be honest, I want this to fail. Because if it works, console gaming and even gaming PCs will probably be made obsolete and I don't want the industry to go in this direction.

I'm fine with streaming as an option but since this doesn't have the strong exclusives the existing systems have it doesn't interest me at this time.

It's a no from me

I used to enjoy OnLive, they struck up a deal with BT in the UK when it was released over here and we got three months free without any charge for data use. I found it worked quite well and I even continued my subscription after the three months were up.
They had two different ways of paying for the games. The most popular was a monthly subscription which wasn't that expensive and the other was you could buy a game outright and you could stream it whenever providing it was on the servers. When you bought one outright it told you how long the minimum time it would be available so there wasn't any surprises if it dropped off your game list.
If the company behind OnLive had the support of a company like Google it could have been a contender. My past experience has made me feel quite positive about this, although it would be a secondary way of playing for me.

A few issues I have:

• You clearly won't own the games, probably gonna work like netflix. So if they decide to remove a game you like, tough luck.
• The latency. I have tried several games over streaming. Latency is always an issue. My internet is pretty decent for where I live and yet it's a huge problem with streaming games.
• The price? How much will it cost? Probably will be subscription based? Maybe give more info on that?
• Cross-platform will apparently be included? The issue here is both the internet strength and latency issues. How can you play multiplayer with those issues?

Castle Crashers has been announced for Switch! Get on that rather than this tripe.

I've a feeling this will end up being a service Google tries to sell to China. I can't see this succeeding in the West. Gamer culture is very developed and very entrenched here.

Same "meh" 3rd party support as Switch but without the few Nintendo Gems a year you get with their hardware. We going backwards.

Not sure why they keep showing AC: Odyssey - it is $33 - with the season pass that includes AC3 and AC:liberation.

More gaming hardware with zero compelling software 🙄

"Increasingly, games are helping AI solving challenging real world problems."

THIS is the real reason that Google is venture into gaming, not because Google is interested in the industry.

This is the future of gaming, whether you like it or not.

@puddinggirl I think you are partly right. But Google is also an advertising company so this service will also connect to that. But by the same token, Sony got so into the gaming industry for other reasons than to provide great games and that shows in their first party games. The same goes for Microsoft. Of the major platform providers who started out in other industries, Only Nintendo got into it for that reason. And that's because they are a toy company.

As ever it’s all about the games. If all it does is play the latest Assassins Creed, COD, FIFA et all, I’ll be over here playing Animal Crossing thanks very much.

If anything Microsoft should be the ones who are worried not Nintendo, since they are pushing more streaming and cloud gaming. People will still buy Nintendo platforms for the exclusive IPs. That about does it.

sad. Just sad.
That's it.

8k? Maybe that will be impressive as 4k certainly isn't.

@KryptoniteKrunch It will be attractive because the fact that you need to go out and buy a console or a PC to play said games is a significant barrier to entry. Most people do not own a ps4 360 OR Switch, and an increasing number do not own a PC with the popularity of phones.

They do own phones and TVs. They're the target audience - people with a nominal interest in gaming but insufficient desire to spend thousands on games.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo and NVidia were exploring a partnership to compete in cloud gaming.

@Lionyone With no offense to you, the gaming industry even in the West still only represents a small fraction of the number of potential consumers. North America has 579 million people, for example, and among them they have purchase 33 million ps4s. Less than 1 in 20 people have the console. Google is targeting the remaining 19 - people who might want to play but who don't want to badly enough to shelve out thousands of dollars for a dedicated piece of hardware.

If the service is even 70% functional this will be a success. Even as a hardcore gamer, I cannot justify paying $500 plus the price of the game for a game I could have played with poorer graphics for $10 a month.

I swear that the controls are slightly delayed when the guy was using the google slate 34:34

@NotTelevision I have made this point to several people today. Completely agree. Steam is also in for a potential world of hurt.

What does the article mean by the Konami code being on the controller?

Internet slow is the issue for some countries, not everyone will enjoy cloud type services including games.

If Google can launch it in US/Canada/UK/Europe this year, why can't Nintendo bring the Switch/cloud versions of Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Resident Evil 7 overseas?

@sanderev I actually agree that it's quite unlikely to happen, but there are currently streaming services available on Switch that apparently work pretty well. I've never used them, but with as well as project stream worked, I wouldn't be surprised if it was entirely possible. Future revisions of Switch may not have such crappy WiFi either. Also, while I think the Switch's wifi is abysmally slow, I haven't really had too many issues regarding latency. Even as slow as the Switch wireless is, it would be plenty for streaming, as long as you have relatively low latency connection to Google's servers. With 7500+ endpoints, it sounds like they're ensuring that happens. I live in the middle of nowhere rural Pennsylvania, and I didn't have any major issues.

@Heavyarms55 Hoping it fails because you don't like it would just be silly. Like you, this likely isn't for me - at least not for a couple years if/when the library/price/service improves to a point to make me jump on board - but that doesn't mean this succeeding will end video games. There will be tons of people that still want physical devices and games. As long as there is a market for it, some one will fill the demand.

@Agramonte GDC is a developer conference, not a consumer conference. ACO was the game that they used for the public test and proof of concept. It's also one of the largest and most demanding games available, so it makes perfect sense to showcase Stadia. Even if you hate the game and streaming in general, it's nothing short of remarkable it worked as well as it did. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that they keep showing ACO in their promotion materials.

They can keep it, I'm more then happy owning my games thank you.

It will failed just like the other two platforms that tried cloud gaming: Gaikai and OnLive. Even watching Google's conference during the stream was laggy, what makes them think cloud gaming would do well when their own content doesn't even perform well?

@Thesharkfromjaws Same here, the internet speed in the midwestern United States is simply not up to the task of whatever Google and Microsoft are planning.

No price (something as Netflix service?), no minimal internet connection you need, no games libary ... and when internet is slow and there is leg, then what ... no no no it's not for me, i love fysical copy's of games.

And yeah, sorry for my bad English!

@rdm22 Yeah and I don’t see how this is much different than being tied to a console, since you need to be next to a decent WiFi signal at all times. You’ll be a coffee shop with 50 other people tethered to the same router, experiencing lag,missed frames, and resolution dips. You’ll be on a bus fiddling with control options while connected to fluctuating 4G signal.

The only way to get a consistent performance is to be in the comfort of your home, which ruins the whole novelty of the service.

@roadrunner343 I think you gravely under-estimate the effect this will have on the industry if it is successful. This is Google/Alphabet we are talking about. What they do warps the entire industry in that direction when it works. I don't want to see gaming warped in the direction of streaming. You might disagree, but that doesn't convince me not to hope it doesn't happen.

“It won’t work”

It works if you have unlimited money to throw at it and an aware “normie” base of many millions. Google commands both. Latency not so much of an issue anymore.

Sheer numbers and even “okay” quality could make a Google the dominant game platform. Back to boutique status with Nintendo hardware and physical game carts

@Aeleron0X people I know who tried it in beta when Google was giving away assassin's Creed origins with it said it was running butter smooth low latency at with only a 40mbps over WiFi. Plus multiple other sources have tried it has said similar things. So it definitely works but we won't know for sure once it hits mass market

@WillQuan as long as the switch gets chrome support.thays all it really needs

I travel a lot on my work. im actually only one month a year at my house. Thats why I love the switch and 3ds so much right now. Where will i suppose to play this new cloud crap? in some hotels where I can barely check my email and its impossible to load a youtube ?? No thanks.

Google is one of the most powerful companies in the world. They're scary much like Disney is today in the entertainment industry. Once they get everyone they need on board with this and has a monopoly to wield it then the abuse of power will come eventually.

Looks interesting. Can't wait for the Aussie release! Oh wait, it's not going to happen because our government is wasting billions on pointless stadium destruction instead of giving us better internet. Right.

streaming games is still too soon.
Our internet wiring isn't fast enough. It takes a few milliseconds to send data to another location so there will always be lag input.
This is only perfect for games like assasins creed but not for fast action first person shooters.

Was a good presentation with a large amount of innovation. I look forward ro the future here, this might be my new "console" as my ps4 and xbox one are old now!!!

Gamings future may not be a box, but the best of gaming is!
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090111045143/metalgear/images/5/5d/SSBBCardboardbox.jpg

Looks good, depends on price/games

@ALinkttPresent that made me chuckle.

No doubt plenty of people will buy into this. Because Google!! And the general populace, once entered into a bound contract will realise they cant play the games they want because they are either taken down or their internet is sh#@$ will be upset.

Unfortunately I highly doubt they will let you exit early without a major fee (much like phones etc) so they'll already have your money.

The best thing to do as gamers is spread the word of how uttor tosh this is (unless you happen to be the % who loves streaming and has a very decent internet connection. I'm sure you're all for it!)

Well, I like that they went with no hardware. Because I’m not interested in that.
I could be interested in trying their game stream service, I would like being able to play games I usually play on my iMac on portable devices, like an iPad or iPhone. But I’m really picky with games. They better bring good ones. I’m not a fan of typical mobile games.

Game streaming seems to be a perpetual "future technology" but now that phones and tablets are nearly as powerful as some consoles (or is it the other way around?) and network service is better maybe it is a better time for it.

Also given that Google is behind it maybe it will be more successful than OnLive, Gaikai, and PlayStation Now. PlayStation Now isn't terrible but I think it should be a cheaper all-you-can-eat service. Still I'd rather play the real game on a real console rather than streaming it on PS Now - the latency is annoying.

And they decided to copy THE bad controller. You know the one. It hasn't changed a bit since the very first console they made apart from slapping 2 extra joysticks.

Exclusives are a big deal for platforms; but PS Now has God of War, Ratchet & Clank, Last of Us, Uncharted, etc. and still hasn't seen much uptake as far as I can tell.

@Rhaoulos Regarding the controller, I actually prefer symmetrical analog sticks, as seen on Nintendo's Classic Controller Pro and the Wii U Pro controller. For PlayStation controllers... I think the DualShock 3 may be my favorite, since it is reasonably comfortable for me to hold and has good battery life (vs. the abysmal battery life on the DS4. I also rarely use the DS4 touchpad, and when I do it's usually by mistake.) I note the shock-less version of the DS3, aka the "we took out rumble due to a lawsuit" SixAxis had amazing battery life and was also lighter and interestingly translucent, so you could see where the missing rumble mechanism was supposed to go.

@Phle For some stupid reason Apple banned Steam Link for iOS, even though it is a remote screen app that works just like Sony's Remote Play app, which Apple approved. It makes no sense.

@nhSnork You could have copy pasted your own comment lmao

The part that makes me super sad...

This is where I think gaming is going in the future, all this streaming balls.
No more physical games and special editions, game boxes, discs or carts etc

Sad day for true gamers and collectors.

What happens if and when the net cocks up eh?

@blecch

PS-now is a joke. The content and the lack of supported devices makes it useless for most people.

PS-now is bound to PS4 and Windows PC! Platforms that already have plenty of high end games. There is really no big need for streaming of games on these platforms.

A streaming service should be accessible from any kind of device. That's the whole point of such a service, and were it really makes sense. Google and MS seems to understand that.

I want to play theses games on my Smart TV, Tablet, Phone, Mac, Linux and Chromebook, PS Vita, Switch. Everywhere!

The content isn't very good on PS-now either.
As a customer I want access to all my digital content I have previously bought on PS-store. Why not? And why isn't there any PS1 games, and only a handful of PS2 games on the service?

PS-now is a joke, and Sony needs to step up to make it worthwhile. It has a lot of potential.

The reason for the success of Netflix and Spotify, is to be accessible from any kind of device, and to over deliver on content for a reasonably price. Sony needs to do the same with PS-now, before it can be a success. People need to get so much more for their money than they expect, and what the currently are getting from their traditional gaming platforms.

As a solo Nintendo man I suppose I can look forward to a dumbed down version of this is about 5 years. Good!!

Sadly this is the future... I'm so worried about Nintendo =(

@Heavyarms55 Google is hugely influential, sure - but they certainly do not have the power to single handedly shape the industry if a project is successful. Again, I'm with you - I don't want a streaming only future - but the only way that ever happens is if consumers want it. Even with music and video, where streaming is far more prevalent, it's still not hard to get physical media if you want it. Even vinyl is making a comeback. Having the technology available for some scenarios (Traveling, hotels, casual gamers, low powered devices, etc...) won't destroy what we've already got.

There's also been a number of successful Google projects that haven't overtaken their respective industries. Google Fi hasn't killed traditional wireless carriers, nor did the Pixel/Chromebook lines take over cell phone/laptop sales, nor did Google music kill off streaming music, just to name a few. Again, consumers will need to demand it for Stadia to actually kill off traditional gaming. I do see demand for this type of service growing, and I think we'll see Microsoft and Sony both pushing streaming services more in the near future (Particularly Microsoft) but they will live alongside traditional services for the foreseeable future.

EDIT: And as Nintendo fans, we have nothing to worry about =) Nintendo loves their hardware to complement the software experience far too much to drop that anytime to soon. Especially on the portable front.

@Yasume big text chunks can actually be more tedious to highlight and copy with Android's quirks at play. Don't underestimate my laziness. XD

@ALinkttPresent what is your definition of boycotting then?

@Erchitu well if you are ready to give up up your right to own for whatever you have paid for even for a full price... well you can do that then. Just don't complain afterwards about the consequences :/

@roadrunner343 netflix or spotify is not the same. Why? Because there you pay a monthly amount for ALL movies/games! Here you pay for each game for a full price but can't own it? C'mon it is not comparable... you don't pay for each movie or serie on netflix and you don't need to pay for it again if you want to watch the movie after a year or so. You pay very cheap for EVERYTHING on their server and can watch it as much as you want to as long as you pay for their services. It would not be the same if the new google device is functioning like Netflix which will never be the case.

@MisterDevil You just completely made that up with absolutely no backing evidence whatsoever. There's been absolutely nothing stated on price or subscription model. If you truly did have to pay full price, per game (Never going to happen, by the way) then of course this would and should fail. There's not a chance that even Google could get away with such a stupid plan - especially not in the face of other subscription based services like PSNow and Game Pass. By all accounts, Microsoft is going to push streaming even more next gen, so it's not like Google's service will be going uncontested.

@roadrunner343 judging by their Android playstore system... Alphabet is a greedy company, much more than Sony or even Microsoft. PS and Xbox as well as Nintendo got the Internet locked behind a paywall... do you think Google would do the same? I doubt it in that regard especially with only streaming. Ofc I got no evidence to back my statement that we have to pay for every single gme but it is highly. How would you get triple A publishers to get on board if you promise them less revenue than on Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo's devices?

@MisterDevil You're blatantly lying and fear mongering. You're stating your conjecture as if it is fact. Stating it doesn't compare to netflix/spotify because there you get access to the full library, but here you have to pay full price per game. That's intentionally misleading and dishonest at best. It doesn't matter how greedy anyone is - all of these companies are in it for profits. You don't make money by delivering a product that nobody wants. Considering there are already other options available, there is absolutely no change, no is there any evidence to support the idea, that Google's streaming service would require full price purchase of each game individually.

As for how you can make revenue from streaming, just look at music and video streaming services. How on earth could they be profitable when I can stream a movie for pennies rather than paying $20-$30 to own it physically? Or how about Google, Microsoft, & Amazon's cloud platforms? Do you have to purchase your server infrastructure up front at full price? That's simply not how subscription or cloud models work. Your argument is nonsensical and has no basis in reality. Again, Google will not be entering this market uncontested - other services will keep Google in check. Even if there were no other competitors in the streaming market, there's just absolutely no chance Google would have any hope for success if they made you purchase full priced games for streaming only.

Look guys! Its the Ouya deluxe, now without kickstarter!

@Mince Yea, and one day a meteorite will fall and destroy my whole town and I cannot play Doom or anything for a while... Just kidding I can live one dai without games if service falls for some reason. After all even a console can be damaged so I can't see the problem and anyway I am full of phisical consoles with plenty of games, and even a good gaming notebook just in case. And I never sell my games after it finish them, so no problem for me. I only see potential here, freedom to create for developers and no need to upgrade console/hardware for users, and that's good enough for me.

@NotoriousWhiz I hope it will be good with my adsl. After all if I can get fullhd gaming I am more than satisfied. I have no 4k TV and I don't think I will buy in the near future, just today I am installing the Sharp Aquos fullhd TV in my dining room and I hope it will last for a while. So if the adsl is good enough I can be satisfied

I'll stick with my Nintendo console.

@MisterDevil Which will be the "consequences"? I play what I pay, I use it even if I am not touching the box... It's just fine. I have to use it, I don'have to eat or put it on the shelf. When I need it it's ready, I don't see any bad consequence or lose of any right onestly.

@Pres_Shinra It won't be if it kept on failing.

If this current generation is it for physical and digital downloads then I'm not buying anymore game console/devices. Cool news for those who want it though..

@roadrunner343 wtf dude do you even read?? I even clearly said that I have nothing based it on but judged by myself (a hypothese?!!!) on their Android google Play system. I'm out if you can't get the difference between a fact and a hypothese. Ofc every company want to get profit, we are living good or bad in a capitalistic world. Do you think a gaming company won't like to make more money?

And your example with movies. How many movies companies/conglomates are out there compared to games? Or music? One should notice that music is not as costly as movies or games. On top how many series on Netflix are made by Netflix themselves? Why is Disney making their own streaming site now and moving away Netflix? Because they earn more with their own streaming site. Everything is as you said about money and making a profit. I said that if you want to get gaming companies coming over you have to promise them good profits. Look Epic store... and if you can't keep on having a neutral conversation with me without getting judgmental and attacking me, I will be out. If not I will gladly keep on this convo.

@Erchitu well that is good for you. If you think that your money or the product you borrow is worth that much so be it

@MisterDevil You said that well after making your absurd statements multiple times as fact. Post #213 was based entirely on conjecture, yet presented as fact. You made direct comparisons to how Netflix and Spotify do things to how Google "does" things, as if that was how Google was actually currently doing things. Once again, very best case, that's extremely dishonest and misleading. So perhaps you should re-read the posts in the order they were posted.

You comment on the cost of Music vs. Movies vs. Games has no real bearing on the conversation. They are all different industries, of different sizes, with multiple competitors in the streaming space. If anything, that proves that the behavior is consistent across industries. Even basing your guess off the play store has no relevance, as once again, they are essentially just mimicking what other storefront have done, primarily Apple. A streaming video game service is completely unrelated to taking a percentage cut of sales from a digital storefront.

There's absolutely no evidence to support even the hypothesis that Google would attempt to sell streaming only versions of a game at full retail price. Again, they're not alone in this space - both Microsoft and Sony have competing products, and the competition is only going to get stronger. Even if they were to attempt to do that, I think everyone would agree it won't be around for long, as it would be one of the biggest, fastest failures in recent memory.

@sanderev Honestly, it sounds like you do not understand how any system works with graphical files and especially the problems facing gaming. Here is an article expressing many of the same points I raised and some I purposely left out:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-03-20-roundtable-google-stadias-gdc-showing-failed-to-address-its-biggest-obstacles

@MisterDevil yes obviously, Stadia looks very very good to me, but in fact I have to try and see if it's worth the money, especially for the games and the quality of the connection... Until then the Switch is my first ( and basically only) choice

@Erchitu yeah true seeing the actual product and hearing it from a presentation by themselves is different I'm happy with my Switch and an only streaming gaming device is not meant for me. But I can understand why some people are hyped for this

Switch is my only and first 'home' console. I normally played/play on my DS or PC

@MisterDevil I usually play with all my retroconsole, I have all the Nintendo consoles with a lot of games, I even play with my Dreamcast and with the pc. My favourite games of all time are Xenoblade ones... When I saw the potential of Stadia I image what a Xenoblade game would be if the developers don't have processing power limits. Do not misunderstand me, Xenoblade 2 is fantastic, the game world is amazing, there's nothing I will change probably, I am at 70 hours more or less. But it would be great if Nintendo could develop the next one without power limits... Since than I will still play it on traditional console no matter what. Stadia won't take me away from Nintendo becouse I love all of their games and controllers. Anyway Stadia could be a really bright future imho, even for Nintendo. Maybe especially for Nintendo, becouse I think that their games are great, and I really love how they change the way to interact with the game... I am really curious to see what the future will show.

Google Stadia is going to fail.

Google says that one of the benefits of Stadia will be that no PC or game console will be required to play games. But this isn’t an actual benefit. Gamers actually like owning their own hardware.

The mistake being made here is a common one in that Google is seeing video games as being about technology when they are actually about entertainment. If you look at the history of gaming (which few people seem to do), you will constantly find technologically superior game consoles losing out to “inferior” competition.

The entire computer game industry was disrupted by the technologically inferior Nintendo Entertainment System (NES). The technologically superior Nintendo 64 lost to the first Playstation. The technologically superior Nintendo Gamecube lost to the Playstation 2. And the technologically superior Playstation 3 lost to the Nintendo Wii.

Why did these “inferior” games consoles win out? Because they had better games. It’s as simple as that. Consumers don’t buy a game console based on its technology. They buy it based on its entertainment value. It’s all about the games. It’s always about the games.

If Google thinks that Stadia’s technology will be enough to sell it, it is making a huge mistake. For Stadia to have any chance at success, Google needs to create a “killer app”, an exclusive game that is so amazing that people will buy their system just to get it.

The killer app of the NES was Super Mario Brothers. The killer app of the Sega Genesis was Sonic the Hedgehog. The killer app of the Playstation 2 was Grand Theft Auto III. And the killer app of the Nintendo Wii was Wii Sports. These games caused these consoles to rocket into the stratosphere.

But does anyone think that Google is capable of creating a killer app for Stadia? I doubt Google knows anything about making games. It probably assumes its deep pockets will be enough to overcome any obstacles, but if so it should talk to Microsoft (whose Xbox franchise has blown up billions of dollars).

Google is also touting the idea that you can watch someone playing a game live and then jump in and join them. It sounds like this will be a subscription-based service (although I’m sure you will still have to buy most of the games in order to play them). The problem with this is that gamers traditionally don’t like subscription services because most people play games sporadically rather than on a daily basis.

Cloud gaming is also problematic because not everyone has a great internet connection. If you are watching Netflix and the movie buffers once or twice, you may be able to live with that. But not so much if you are playing on the Cloud, get kicked out of the game and lose all your progress. Also, the Cloud is susceptible to hacking which only makes it even less attractive for playing games when you could potentially lose all of your player data.

Google Stadia seems to be a solution in search of a problem. It incorrectly assumes that the barrier to gaming is the hardware. It's not. It is actually disinterest.

Even worse, Google’s promise of eliminating the hardware isn’t really even true, because you are still going to need a game controller. Google has created a wireless game controller for Stadia, but these controllers usually sell for $50 or more. Want to stream the game to your big screen TV? This will require a Roku-like device which could cost as much as $100. Does Google really expect gamers to shell out $100 or more for this equipment and then $10 or $15 a month for a subscription service? Wouldn’t it be cheaper in the long run to just buy your own game console?

And many of the best games out there are console exclusives. Does anyone think that Nintendo is going to allow Mario Kart or Super Smash Brothers or any of its top games to show up on Stadia? Bottom line, if you want to play Nintendo's best games, you are going to have to buy a Nintendo console. Stadia will most likely get non-exclusive games that are already available on every other console. So if you already own a Nintendo Switch or Xbox One or Playstation 4, why in the world would you need to use Stadia?

And the absence of physical games won’t be seen as a plus. Gamers prefer physical games like cartridges and discs because they offer a form of insurance. If you don’t like the game, you can resell it to recoup at least some of your money. Also, gamers like to collect games in the same way that comic book fans collect comic books. But they prefer collecting physical games.

Many gamers are going to be hostile to Stadia because they are going to see it, correctly, as a loss of control. With Stadia, you’ll have to buy the games, but you won’t be able to actually own them, won’t be able to lend them to your friends, and won’t be able to resell them if you don’t like them. Where’s the benefit in that?

Even more amazing, what Stadia is attempting to do has been tried before. Ten years ago, a company called OnLive tried to sell a streaming-only gaming service. Just like Stadia, there was no hardware required. In less than two years, OnLive when bankrupt. It never had more than 1300 monthly subscribers.

Google Stadia is going to be a complete disaster. And you don’t need to be super smart to know this. All you have to do is ask, “What does the consumer want?” And Google Stadia is offering the exact opposite of what the consumer wants. So it is guaranteed to fail.

So many business disasters could be prevented by simply asking the following two questions:

What job does the consumer want my product/service to perform?

Does my product/service perform the job that the customer wants and does it do so better than the competition?

If your answer to the second question is no, then you can be certain you will not succeed. And whenever you hear a new product or service being touted based on its “technology” and nothing else, that should immediately send up a red flag.

Well this should prove interesting for a bit.

@Erchitu true true my dad had a sega Genesis ans SNES but sadly he throw (!!!!) both away! My Gameboy saw no actions since years now when I got a DSi XL and a 2DS afterwards which saw almost no actions after I got my Switch...

True I play Xenoblade a lot too (the 2nd since I never got a WiiU) and it is absolutely gorgeous even with those hardware limitations! got 220 hours in and still go back to play some hours now and then. And as you said imgaine that world in 4K or even 8K would be mindblowing! But I like to have and own my games (I buy digital too since I still kinda 'own' it in i way with downloading) to still going back to play later even after years. As you said that you like to play Retrogames, I like my Gameboy and playing Pokemon Red or the Original Advance Wars etc is still a joy. I don't wanna having this freedom been taken away because games go streaming and you have to pay monthly or per game for xxx time or that when the servers get shut down/games get taken down I lose my opportunity to play it after xxx years... :/ that's why I wanna boycott it would be nice that even with the streaming services, we still get an option to download it even if the hardware is too weak to play it. Since technology is advancing fast, we could just play it on a future device no matter what happens to the servers. Then I would be on board too ^^

@MisterDevil absolutely, it would be great. I am waiting to see what is going to happen in the future.

@Erchitu yeah let's see how friendly Google will be