Google Stadia ***Update: Google shutting down the service***

No, I explained how you failed the simple task of following the discussion. You didn't even comprehend why YouTube was mentioned: "inexplicably."

SMH.

ok, let's try this again since you (insert bullshit here, since you're just being obtuse now).

fact: you mentioned youtube, despite youtube being a website and nothing at all like stadia - which requires hardware and payments.
fact: after arguing with @blaseblah , you then ironically dismissed your own youtube argument by stating the obvious - that it would have failed if it required a subscription.
fact: you then pretended that this wasn't 'followed,' by explaining my one-liner in a needlessly lengthy series of paragraphs

i can't tell if it's just me that makes you pretentiously argumentative/obtuse, or if it's stadia (you did this in the other thread, too... that i linked on page 1)
 
Sure. Microsoft specifically is miles ahead in terms of infrastructure and cloud technology, but Microsoft and Sony's endgame is weaker. Google was implementing a service that ultimately would be able to run whatever games they offered on nearly anything. Chromecasts are just the start. Phones, Smart TVs, Android boxes. Also, as much as I hate how much the the telecommunications industry is hyping 5G, because for 99.9% of the world's phone users it's stupid, Stadia might actually be the one and only consumer product that will utilize it. AAA gaming on the go via wireless broadband. Even the Switch doesn't do that.

Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft have a bit of ice skating uphill to do. If they try to reduce the cost of consoles as I predict, because I think it's logical, that doesn't mean console gamers will accept the monumental shift. Downsides will split the user base. Furthermore, even with a massively reduced cost, you're still just selling a game console with its proprietary OS that runs on nothing else (at least for now, and especially for Sony who doesn't enjoy the bridge to the PC gaming world).

Stadia show a vast advantage in potential on paper. Of course, Communism looks great on paper, too.

That's precisely why I said it was charting the exact same course, but on a delay. Games certainly have caught up with movies in many ways. First, the majority of gaming shifted to internet-based usage. Next, the majority of purchases became digital, and downloaded. Furthermore, console gamers maintain subscriptions just to play online, and presently, the game streaming services are already rolling out.

YouTube was terrible for the first few years, too.

Gaming has a massive problem with cloud based use that doesn't exist with movies though and it's going to be a huge issue. Input delay is going to be a serious, serious problem and unless they can resolve this issue people are never going to be fully happy with the gameplay. Play on a tv with > 100ms input delay and it's noticeable... stadia appears even worse. This makes for awful gameplay and I would never enjoy this experience.
 
Gaming has a massive problem with cloud based use that doesn't exist with movies though and it's going to be a huge issue. Input delay is going to be a serious, serious problem and unless they can resolve this issue people are never going to be fully happy with the gameplay. Play on a tv with > 100ms input delay and it's noticeable... stadia appears even worse. This makes for awful gameplay and I would never enjoy this experience.
Yes, this is the greatest issue, and I wrote about this ironclad, physical hurdle of the universe (the speed of light) before Stadia was even announced about a year and a half ago when Linus made his video on Shadow Gaming. I didn't see how it would be possible for it ever to be viable for competitive online gaming.

Still, serendipitously, today brought an article via 9to5Google that made me realize I'd overlooked something. When we play competitive multiplayer online, we are already being routed through a central server, and waiting on everyone else's inputs to be fed back to us.
Comment: Google Stadia is currently the best and worst place to play multiplayer games
Stadia has no server lag
Multiplayer games usually use one of two methods to connect players together. Some games use a dedicated server that processes each player’s inputs and sends back info to keep every player’s game in sync. Other games will select one player’s console to act as the “server” for everyone else in a particular session.

In either case, the quality of each player’s connection is determined entirely by their ability to connect to the server in a reasonable amount of time. Because of this, anyone who has ever played an online multiplayer game can tell you lag is common. The reasons for lag range from spotty Wi-Fi signal or a bad router configuration to just being physically farther away from the server.

Worse, the results of lag vary from game to game just as much as its causes. Lag in some games will leave you as a sitting duck for other players to stomp, while lag can actually give you an unfair advantage in other games by having your character jump around the map almost unpredictably.

When playing a multiplayer game on Stadia, players are connecting directly via Google’s network infrastructure rather than their home internet connection. That means you’re essentially guaranteed to have a fantastic connection to other players and/or the game’s server.

This benefit is multiplied by the fact that, with the exception of one game, there is currently no way for a Stadia player to play with someone from another console or platform. Therefore, every player you can currently bump into will have the same Google-powered internet connection that you do. Bungie, the developers of Destiny 2, even directly addressed this in the lead-up to the release of Google Stadia.

[…] if you’re playing on Stadia — with Stadia players — you’re all playing on the same cloud together. […] So, like, the additional latency you’re getting from your controller round-trip or whatever is gonna be offset in a positive way playing PvP on Stadia.

And it shows. In the two months I’ve been playing Destiny 2 on Stadia, I have only witnessed one instance of another player visibly lagging. In fact, the occurrence struck me as exceedingly odd, in the clearest example of an “exception that proves the rule.” By eliminating the dread of playing with someone with a bad connection, Google Stadia has become the best possible place to play competitive multiplayer games.
That's at least some serious upside.

Otherwise, for single player gaming, it's really a matter of building enough server centers around the world, and everyone's internet progressing to the point that there are no weak links, as there are none here, in order for the technology to reach a satisfactory level. Go look at what Hitman had to say about PSNow's streaming, lately. That's the word around the web, too. It was awful when they launched the service, but it's already streaming quite reliably (at least for those with strong internet connections, and probably closer to population centers where Sony hosts servers).
 
It was garbage,

Just stop. It was amazing. I was there for the beginning.

You couldn't watch high quality meme videos or music videos on demand anywhere at the time. YouTube provided a platform for people to upload all types of videos and for the public to watch them. There was no superior option to youtube.

Back to Stadia. They are providing more expensive, lower quality games that you can only play online with a much smaller library. There is currently not a good reason to go for that. There are better options. The market isn't there yet.


and Netflix was still nonexistent in the digital space. This was 15 years ago. There were websites around like iFilm and AtomFilms that had been doing a similar thing for longer, and were much better at the time. Google won because their search engine & email services were juggernauts they used to steer people into YouTube, and because of the execution.

You realize YouTube was successful before Google bought it right? It was way more successful than either ifilms or atomfilms at the time of the Google acquisition. Most likely due to how accessible it was. The content creators also played a big part.

The most significant difference here is that you have to pay something upfront. If you had to pay a subscription for YouTube back in the day it wouldn't have won.

Not sure why you are talking about subscriptions. The site didn't create it's own content and still mostly doesn't. The people using the site are the ones creating all the content.
 
Last edited:
The other issue with the market for Stadia is the pricing. With a Netflix and Amazon subscription you can stream any movie in their library for free. Or you can rent a movie for a small price. You are saving a lot of money over buying physical copies. Stadia is asking you to subscribe and pay full price for games. There is no financial incentive to stream games, and many negatives.
 
YouTube was terrible for the first few years, too.

Ummm.. like... NO...

YouTube officially launched on December 15, 2005. By July of 2006 it was receiving 100 million video views per day. It was sold for $1.65 billion dollars in November 2006. Less than a year from its launch. It was hot fire from the start.

No other video sharing platform before or after has ever come close to matching youtube. Easily the Dylan (best rappers of all time) of video sharing platforms.
 
Ummm.. like... NO...

YouTube officially launched on December 15, 2005. By July of 2006 it was receiving 100 million video views per day. It was sold for $1.65 billion dollars in November 2006. Less than a year from its launch. It was hot fire from the start.

No other video sharing platform before or after has ever come close to matching youtube. Easily the Dylan (best rappers of all time) of video sharing platforms.
I'm aware of its success. My point was that video at the time (and earlier) was awful, choppy, lacked uniform standards (which is why you couldn't watch on the iPhone for years), but ultimately none of those hurdles stopped services like Netflix from rising, and becoming the predominant form of consumption today.
You couldn't watch high quality meme videos or music videos on demand anywhere at the time. YouTube provided a platform for people to upload all types of videos and for the public to watch them. There was no superior option to youtube.
That's the point, and no, it was fucking awful.
 
I'm aware of its success. My point was that video at the time (and earlier) was awful, choppy, lacked uniform standards (which is why you couldn't watch on the iPhone for years), but ultimately none of those hurdles stopped services like Netflix from rising, and becoming the predominant form of consumption today.

That's the point, and no, it was fucking awful.

You had to have been there. Clearly you weren't. Since you didn't even know it was huge before Google bought it. I'm sure you were having much more fun over at ifilm <45>
 
You had to have been there. Clearly you weren't. Since you didn't even know it was huge before Google bought it. I'm sure you were having much more fun over at ifilm <45>
I knew you would try to play this card.

Sweetheart, I used everything tech before you thought it was cool. I was there.
 
ultimately none of those hurdles stopped services like Netflix from rising, and becoming the predominant form of consumption today.

YouTube and Netflix don't even have the same type of content. They aren't a threat to each other. No one's going "well I have Netflix, guess I better never visit this free site again that doesn't have any movies or TV shows."
 
I knew you would try to play this card.

Sweetheart, I used everything tech before you thought it was cool. I was there.

You just claimed that it got popular because Google . Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Either you weren't around then or you are misremembering how it was.
 
YouTube and Netflix don't even have the same type of content. They aren't a threat to each other. No one's going "well I have Netflix, guess I better never visit this free site again that doesn't have any movies or TV shows."
Indeed!

This is where the forest shouldn't be lost for the trees of the analogy. The key difference was-- as you said-- there was nothing better at the time except a few obscure websites like the ones I mentioned you don't appear to have known about. Online video was all terrible. We were used to Flash and *shudders* Silverlight as the best online video formats around the web, but chiefly, YouTube wasn't competing with DVD players because they weren't showing the same content. It was America's Funniest Home Videos via internet on demand.

These are some of the key differences, and yet, the thrust was that online video was terrible in its infancy, too, roundly. It took years before Netflix adopters shifted from the mail-in service to the streaming service for these reasons.

It's the big picture that you and so many others seem to be overlooking. What's the point of this sort of technological delivery? What are its greatest advantages in terms of market leverage? How does it become the dominant form of gaming, and why?

Once you answer those questions, one realizes it doesn't make a ton of sense within the current console model that involves a discrete, powerful piece of (relatively) expensive local hardware. That's when reading the tea leaves becomes hazy.
 
madmick logic: brings up youtube, inexplicably. then states why youtube is irrelevant to this, himself.

<Dylan>

and then tries to insist on relevancy again, while moving his own weird goalposts that never should have been erected in the first place.
 
These are some of the key differences, and yet, the thrust was that online video was terrible in its infancy, too, roundly.

Sure, but we didn't know any better. It really wasn't a factor. Youtube was still the superior option to what little competition it had in those early days. With Stadia on the other hand, we know better. There are better options than what they are offering.

Stadia would be more akin to a shitty video streaming site trying to take on Youtube today.
 
I'm aware of its success. My point was that video at the time (and earlier) was awful, choppy, lacked uniform standards (which is why you couldn't watch on the iPhone for years), but ultimately none of those hurdles stopped services like Netflix from rising, and becoming the predominant form of consumption today.

That's the point, and no, it was fucking awful.

It was the only real game in town. ifilm and whatever other site simply didn't take off and were originally geared towards putting short/indie films on the web. it was repackaged to compete against youtube but it simply didn't catch on.

regardless of how choppy or shitty it's quality was at the time it was awesome because we didn't know any better anyway. it was a free website where you could see almost any videos you wanted. and a lot of those problems stemmed from using adobe flash as plug-in (which was continually getting updated like any other adobe products) and that was buggy as shit hence why they slowly fazed it out. now if they experienced all those problems then yeah it'd be a terrible product but for its time it was great.
 
Sure, but we didn't know any better. It really wasn't a factor. Youtube was still the superior option to what little competition it had in those early days. With Stadia on the other hand, we know better. There are better options than what they are offering.

Stadia would be more akin to a shitty video streaming site trying to take on Youtube today.
It was the only real game in town. ifilm and whatever other site simply didn't take off and were originally geared towards putting short/indie films on the web. it was repackaged to compete against youtube but it simply didn't catch on.

regardless of how choppy or shitty it's quality was at the time it was awesome because we didn't know any better anyway. it was a free website where you could see almost any videos you wanted. and a lot of those problems stemmed from using adobe flash as plug-in (which was continually getting updated like any other adobe products) and that was buggy as shit hence why they slowly fazed it out. now if they experienced all those problems then yeah it'd be a terrible product but for its time it was great.
Precisely. You're both iterating what I just wrote. That's the uphill.
 
Indeed!

This is where the forest shouldn't be lost for the trees of the analogy. The key difference was-- as you said-- there was nothing better at the time except a few obscure websites like the ones I mentioned you don't appear to have known about. Online video was all terrible. We were used to Flash and *shudders* Silverlight as the best online video formats around the web, but chiefly, YouTube wasn't competing with DVD players because they weren't showing the same content. It was America's Funniest Home Videos via internet on demand.

These are some of the key differences, and yet, the thrust was that online video was terrible in its infancy, too, roundly. It took years before Netflix adopters shifted from the mail-in service to the streaming service for these reasons.

It's the big picture that you and so many others seem to be overlooking. What's the point of this sort of technological delivery? What are its greatest advantages in terms of market leverage? How does it become the dominant form of gaming, and why?

Once you answer those questions, one realizes it doesn't make a ton of sense within the current console model that involves a discrete, powerful piece of (relatively) expensive local hardware. That's when reading the tea leaves becomes hazy.

You seem to be arguing that youtube was terrible because video streaming quality wasn't as good as it is now. That's like arguing the NES was terrible. Not a legit argument

Youtube was amazing at the time, regardless of the streaming quality at the time. And it had nothing to do with Google. It was the experience. It being successful was a no brainier.

YouTube has nothing to do with Stadia when you look at what the product offered to it's consumers and how it compared to it's competitors.
 
In @Madmick defense YouTube wasnt profitable until years after Google purchased it. For it was a website founded on piracy.
 
Back
Top