Google STADIA? New console/game streaming service.

[EXCellR8]

Anyone reading into this yet? It's more of a service than a tangible product in part, but Google is hoping that it catches on; looks like they've already got a controller prototype in the works.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019...-gaming-with-google-stadia-streaming-service/

Google Stadia will run a selection of existing PC games on Google's centralized servers, taking in controller inputs and sending back video and audio using Google's network of low latency data centers. The company revealed a new Google-produced controller, which includes a "play now" button. Press this, and gameplay will begin "in as quick as five seconds" in a web browser "with no download, no patch, no update, and no install."

Not really sure how I feel about it yet. I'm not totally on board with aaS type products where you pay to access things you don't actually own. That's kind of where we're headed though, and I'm sure there will be much anti-DRM discussion in the coming months in relation to this. It doesn't sound like games will be installed locally at all and I don't think I speak for myself when I say that this was predicted to be the direction of things quite awhile back. On the flip side, not having to wait for games to download huge updates is a plus. Modern games are huge, and if they get updated remotely that would make the experience a bit more streamlined. There will undoubtedly be access downtime, especially with "always online" multiplayer games, but I'm sure Google has plans to minimize this.

I'm actually more interested in hearing about the custom AMD GPU with HBM2... Navi? Maybe?

 

[zinfamous]

It's a subscription service for licensed content.

How is this any different than Netflix (which can also see certain content disappear), which for the average user replaced individual ownership of plastic tapes or discs and no one really complained?

 

[nakedfrog]

I suppose this is what giving away all those copies of Assassin's Creed in exchange for testing was about.

 

[Amol S.]

If it is not free it is not worth it. Paying for stuff like this is like throwing money in the trash bin. Literally just buy a graphics card, and it will last even longer than the amount of time it takes for the subscription service to pay of for. PC goes bad... no problem just buy one with out a graphics card and just swap the Graphics card into the new one.

Believe me that this service would probably not last long and not be that economically successful. On top of which it is going to be online based which is another downside since not all games that use graphics card rendering need online connectivity. This service would only be available to rich countries that have stable internet access. Not every country in the world has internet access yet.

If I were the CEO of google, I would just shelve this plan, and use the money on the Google Station WiFI program, so that people in countries that have scarce internet are able to be better connected and it would benefit the economy in those countries. Instead google is doing the opposite here and wasting their money.

 

[zinfamous]

If it is not free it is not worth it. Paying for stuff like this is like throwing money in the trash bin. Literally just buy a graphics card, and it will last even longer than the amount of time it takes for the subscription service to pay of for. PC goes bad... no problem just buy one with out a graphics card and just swap the Graphics card into the new one.

Believe me that this service would probably not last long and not be that economically successful. On top of which it is going to be online based which is another downside since not all games that use graphics card rendering need online connectivity. This service would only be available to rich countries that have stable internet access. Not every country in the world has internet access yet.

If I were the CEO of google, I would just shelve this plan, and use the money on the Google Station WiFI program, so that people in countries that have scarce internet are able to be better connected and it would benefit the economy in those countries. Instead google is doing the opposite here and wasting their money.

I forget the name of the company, but it was linked to here recently with a demo of them showing some rather bonkers compression that allowed some impressive streaming of, I think, 2k or 4k content from a AAA game with fantastic frames. It was legitimately impressive, and I'm not sure how far along they are so what remains to be seen is if it's a real product and not just a demo. Anyway...it seems possible.

But this again tests the "no bad products, just bad prices" axiom. If this is 5 or 10 bucks a month, it would really take an absurdly long time to justify owning a $1-$2k mid to high end PC. I mean, to the point where it no longer makes sense. It just wouldn't. ...all else being equal of course. If you have access to enough quality content, and it just works, what's the problem with paying a couple of bucks a month and the only thing you ever need to consider replacing is a game pad?

Just because the whole world doesn't have access proper doesn't make it a non-starter. Since when was that ever an argument for any new service or product, anyway? I think you also underestimate the generation that really doesn't care about being online, all the time, because this is simply the state of the world today. Crusty old farts like ourselves can pout and complain about our data being stolen all we want, but we'll be dead sooner.

 

[Amol S.]

I forget the name of the company, but it was linked to here recently with a demo of them showing some rather bonkers compression that allowed some impressive streaming of, I think, 2k or 4k content from a AAA game with fantastic frames. It was legitimately impressive, and I'm not sure how far along they are so what remains to be seen is if it's a real product and not just a demo. Anyway...it seems possible.
But this again tests the "no bad products, just bad prices" axiom. If this is 5 or 10 bucks a month, it would really take an absurdly long time to justify owning a $1-$2k mid to high end PC. I mean, to the point where it no longer makes sense. It just wouldn't. ...all else being equal of course. If you have access to enough quality content, and it just works, what's the problem with paying a couple of bucks a month and the only thing you ever need to consider replacing is a game pad?
Just because the whole world doesn't have access proper doesn't make it a non-starter. Since when was that ever an argument for any new service or product, anyway? I think you also underestimate the generation that really doesn't care about being online, all the time, because this is simply the state of the world today. Crusty old farts like ourselves can pout and complain about our data being stolen all we want, but we'll be dead sooner.

You fail to get the point. The number of people that play games on their computers that require Graphics card rendering everyday, is not the same as the number of people that watch Netflix everyday. Its a waste of money to subscribe to something that you do not use daily, where as buying a graphics card is not. Even if you do not use it you can sell it on e-bay. For example, if you only use Amazon on blackfriday, its a waste of money to subscribe for monthly Amazon Prime. The market that would match this product is of a size that $5-$10 bucks would be a deficit in revenue. Believe me,its going to be around $25-$75 a month. And by the way i'm 23 so basically im not one of the "crusty old farts". To summarize what you said was like using Ultimate 99% octane fuel in a i4 Honda accord where the manufacturer says Regular octane fuel works, thinking that it will increase the miles per gallon. When it reality it does not, and you are wasting more money per gallon.

 

[zinfamous]

You fail to get the point. The number of people that play games on their computers that require Graphics card rendering everyday, is not the same as the number of people that watch Netflix everyday. Its a waste of money to subscribe to something that you do not use daily, where as buying a graphics card is not. Even if you do not use it you can sell it on e-bay. For example, if you only use Amazon on blackfriday, its a waste of money to subscribe for monthly Amazon Prime. The market that would match this product is of a size that $5-$10 bucks would be a deficit in revenue. Believe me,its going to be around $25-$75 a month. And by the way i'm 23 so basically im not one of the "crusty old farts". To summarize what you said was like using Ultimate 99% octane fuel in a i4 Honda accord where the manufacturer says Regular octane fuel works, thinking that it will increase the miles per gallon. When it reality it does not, and you are wasting more money per gallon.

so what I'm getting here is that whatever numbers you are using to calculate Google's hardware costs to run these servers is, on a user-to-user basis, the same cost that an individual would be spending to build a gaming PC every 3 or 5 years? Is that what you're thinking?

Also, we don't even know what kind of games they are talking about here, do we?

 

[Aikouka]

What I think is nifty about the service is that they've tried to think beyond just simple streaming of games. The only unfortunate aspect is that -- given that it's Google -- they seem to have locked the social aspects to YouTube. That's a bit unfortunate given that YouTube streaming for games isn't nearly as popular as it is on Twitch. Although, I could see Google eventually opening it up, but will there be a fee for such a thing? I don't know... I'd imagine that would result in some anti-trust arguments.

The controller simply transitioning between devices is nifty, but do the devices need to be a very distinct distance from each other? Also, what sort of devices are supported? I'd imagine that the 4K60 will require h.265 or Google's VP9, which may limit the devices: VP9 hardware decoders/encoders, h265 hardware decoders/encoders. If I had to guess, Google is going with VP9.

I tried Project Stream with Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, and I didn't have any issue using it. Well, I did dislike the way it completely takes over the input stream for your PC. It kind of sat there for a while after I launched it, and I thought it made my PC freeze up until the game finally showed up.

 

[EXCellR8]

I feel like unless you aren't already paying a premium for rock solid high speed internet from your ISP then this isn't the way to go. I mean sure, what it boils down to is network packets and high performance data servers on the other end, but I think of how much data is already being transferred around everywhere every millisecond and I begin to grow weary. Sure, the infrastructure is there for a lot of people but to stream an entire game at low latency from potentially hundreds of miles away? I'm no network engineer, not by a long shot, but that's going to require some seriously powerful networking hardware, especially if we start take security/encryption into consideration.

 

[quikah]

good luck to them. Right now there are no games, so it is DOA until they get something concrete. I don't really care about the rest of the stuff they were talking about.

 

[JujuFish]

I played a couple hours of Project Stream, both where I live and in another state where I stayed for a week, and I was actually rather impressed by the responsiveness of the games. I thought the lag would be way more obvious (and it still might be with a different type of game, Project Stream was just AC: Odyssey).

 

[Aikouka]

good luck to them. Right now there are no games, so it is DOA until they get something concrete. I don't really care about the rest of the stuff they were talking about.

I can't remember exactly what they said, but I think it was that they'll be announcing games in the summer.

 

[purbeast0]

I have absolutely NO interest in something like this. Hell I don't even like purchasing digital games because I want something tangible. Not a chance in hell I'd ever pay to not only not own the game, but to stream it where latency will 100% be an issue.

 

[EXCellR8]

good luck to them. Right now there are no games, so it is DOA until they get something concrete. I don't really care about the rest of the stuff they were talking about.

I think it's still more of a concept at this point... in order for something to be DOA it has to be non-functioning at the time of consumption; it's not even available to use yet.

I have absolutely NO interest in something like this. Hell I don't even like purchasing digital games because I want something tangible. Not a chance in hell I'd ever pay to not only not own the game, but to stream it where latency will 100% be an issue.

This is sort of how I feel about anything subscription-based, where you have to set up an account and pay to access digital media. However, buying a physical copy of a game is a lot different today than in the past. While I can certainly understand wanting physical media, most of which just sits around on shelves, today's games rely heavily on big local installations and updates. I feel like most of the time all the physical media does is go in the console and spins up to initialize the data that's already on the HDD. If that's enough for you to want to keep buying tangible media that's totally fine, and I'm kind of on the same page, but physical media copies just aren't the same today anyway. Games don't come with full color manuals, and in some cases there's no disc at all--just a case with an access code.

I'm not totally against having a quick and easy way to access games tied to my account, but performance would be paramount for me vs. having a local console that I can manage.

 

[purbeast0]

Well physical media has a lot more benefits than just owning something physical.

- You can take it to a friends house.
- You can let friends borrow games.
- You can sell it whenever you want, if you want.
- You can play the game anywhere you can power up the console, regardless of the network connection.
- You don't have to worry about HDD space filling up (at least with Switch, and I've never had an issue on PS4 or X1 (or prior consoles)).

I just prefer to have control of what I purchase and own, which you don't when you purchase digital content.

I'd also never EVER buy a physical copy that came with a DLC code. I've never seen that before and have only ever heard of that Fallout game doing that for the SE.

I do buy some digital games, but it's only games that can ONLY be purchased that way, like a lot of PSVR games, and some indie Switch games.

Also, on Switch there is none of that installation time you are talking about. You put the game in and you play immediately.

 

[TheELF]

I feel like unless you aren't already paying a premium for rock solid high speed internet from your ISP then this isn't the way to go. I mean sure, what it boils down to is network packets and high performance data servers on the other end, but I think of how much data is already being transferred around everywhere every millisecond and I begin to grow weary. Sure, the infrastructure is there for a lot of people but to stream an entire game at low latency from potentially hundreds of miles away? I'm no network engineer, not by a long shot, but that's going to require some seriously powerful networking hardware, especially if we start take security/encryption into consideration.

Nah,this will be just like watching a movie what network requirements are concerned.
If you can watch 1080 or 4k videos from youtube you will be able to use this service.
I for once have pretty basic internet but this is not a problem.

 

[purbeast0]

Nah,this will be just like watching a movie what network requirements are concerned.
If you can watch 1080 or 4k videos from youtube you will be able to use this service.
I for once have pretty basic internet but this is not a problem.

Except the whole concept of latency doesn't matter when streaming video since there is no input from the user.

 

[TheELF]

I have absolutely NO interest in something like this. Hell I don't even like purchasing digital games because I want something tangible. Not a chance in hell I'd ever pay to not only not own the game, but to stream it where latency will 100% be an issue.

It all depends on how expensive it will be and how many/what games it will provide.
A single game nowadays is around $60 and most of them you play through once and then forget about them, they are not worth a replay so if this service has a good number of those that would be renewed every now and then it would be perfect.
For beloved games that people pour thousands of hours into it might be different and they might prefer to have them "for real" but in general people don't have enough space to keep stacks of dvd cases laying around,also google is the first company to try this that actually already has the infrastructure and really has a chance to pull this off in a manner that would appeal to people.

 

[purbeast0]

It all depends on how expensive it will be and how many/what games it will provide.
A single game nowadays is around $60 and most of them you play through once and then forget about them, they are not worth a replay so if this service has a good number of those that would be renewed every now and then it would be perfect.
For beloved games that people pour thousands of hours into it might be different and they might prefer to have them "for real" but in general people don't have enough space to keep stacks of dvd cases laying around,also google is the first company to try this that actually already has the infrastructure and really has a chance to pull this off in a manner that would appeal to people.

Good luck finding developers who will be making these games that they won't be getting $60/pop for.

 

[TheELF]

Except the whole concept of latency doesn't matter when streaming video since there is no input from the user.

Yeah run a torrent client at full speed while trying to watch a movie and come back to us.
You have to constantly demand the stream to keep playing.
Sure the latency requirements for watching videos are much lower but come on you are sending controller button pushes that's like nothing in data form.

Anyway latency for this type of things is how fast the server can render the frame you ask for and send it to you and not how long it takes your input to reach them.

 

[TheELF]

Good luck finding developers who will be making these games that they won't be getting $60/pop for.

Good luck to google on this,I'm sure they can look around and find a bit of spare cash they aren't the richest company on the planet after all but hey maybe they catch a break.

 

[purbeast0]

Yeah run a torrent client at full speed while trying to watch a movie and come back to us.
You have to constantly demand the stream to keep playing.
Sure the latency requirements for watching videos are much lower but come on you are sending controller button pushes that's like nothing in data form.

I'm talking about input latency. There is none while streaming video because there is no input while watching video.

 

[TheELF]

I'm talking about input latency. There is none while streaming video because there is no input while watching video.

Sure there is but it's not from the user it's from the OS that has to constantly tell the server to keep playing,otherwise it stops.

Also you never pressed space or left right while watching a video?!How long did that take to impact the video?!Did you notice any input lag there?!

 

[purbeast0]

Sure there is but it's not from the user it's from the OS that has to constantly tell the server to keep playing,otherwise it stops.

Also you never pressed space or left right while watching a video?!How long did that take to impact the video?!Did you notice any input lag there?!

Clearly there is no point to keep discussing this with you.

 

[quikah]

I think it's still more of a concept at this point... in order for something to be DOA it has to be non-functioning at the time of consumption; it's not even available to use yet.

Sure, but they need devs to support it. They haven't really announced anything concrete besides Doom and AC:O.

One thing that is a big hurdle is it seems like the game needs to be built for stadia platform (not entirely clear how much needs to be done)? So now devs need to think about building a game for PC, Xbox, PS, Switch, and Stadia? Something is going to suffer here. One advantage of PS Now and the coming Xbox streaming service is it doesn't require game modification, they are just running the game on a console and streaming that.