RAND0M VIDE0 GAME NEW5

[Gfted1]

Do you guys who are old enough remember being able to rent games from Blockbuster for like $5-8 / 3 days. I wonder how that would translate to the gaming industry, or does it already exist?

[Zoraptor]

They make more money by selling full priced games. The 'rent' equivalent is the actual subscription service which is their selling point, but that won't get all the new release games to encourage people to buy instead. It's the same general theory EA has with Access: you pay a bit per month to get older games, you pay more per month to get newer games and perks, you can still buy the new games; and it's best for EA if you both buy the new games and subscribe since you're double dipping on the costs. But then Origin Access is also very good value, so long as you're sensible, and I doubt Stadia will be for most people.

It's kind of exploitative, but the average tribal gamer moron is pretty much asking to be exploited.

[Azdeus]

11 hours ago, Lexx said:

"I don't know why I would use this platform"

I thought the same about Steam and it's ilk.

[Lexx]

Maybe from a gamer position. I like modding games and even with Steam that is usually possible. Streaming on the other hand will fully rule this out, as you never get access to the important files.

[Azdeus]

Yeah, but people will still gobble it up, the marketing powers behind it are to big, not to mention that everyone using google will have stadia pop up everywhere I reckon. They already filter away results they don't approve of, so why not direct people to their own streaming service aswell.

[Malcador]

 

16 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Do you guys who are old enough remember being able to rent games from Blockbuster for like $5-8 / 3 days. I wonder how that would translate to the gaming industry, or does it already exist?

Redbox is still around, no ?

Maybe there's something to that "ownership is dead" preaching.

[Gfted1]

Oh! I didn't realize Redbox offered games too. Ive never used Redbox because I don't use physical media for anything.

[Tale]

I use Redbox for games I'm interested in, but not sure of. I rented DOOM 2016 from there and I'm sure a couple of other things.

[LittleArmadillo0]

I do think that there is some potential with streaming platforms as more of a way to rent games. I have a lot game in my Steam library that I would have preferred to rent than buy. One of the problems is as Lexx stated you can't really modify the game. The other problem is that most of the deals are pretty ****ty. The only one that looks to be worth while would be Microsoft's the rest of them look like rip offs. The other is just accessibility, not everybody is going to have good internet.

[evilcat]

Some polished subscription for games would be great, just to have opportunity to try new games before spending more. There are games which everyone is crazy about but could be plain and ugly (Skyrim) and then some minimalistic games with provide more fun than anyone would expectl (Rebel Galaxy or Transistor). Everyone has a bit different taste, and spending too much time on research is also suboptimal.

However that could be a lost case, since subscription plans favour short games for novelty, but without much depth, so in long term that could be bad.

Edited June 28, 2019 by evilcat

[Zoraptor]

12 hours ago, Azdeus said:

Yeah, but people will still gobble it up, the marketing powers behind it are to big, not to mention that everyone using google will have stadia pop up everywhere I reckon. They already filter away results they don't approve of, so why not direct people to their own streaming service aswell.

Google+ popping up everywhere didn't save that, Google's list of failed products is pretty extensive; and theoretically at least the EU would kick Google's teeth in for skewing search results to favour themselves. Mostly though it's just plain too early and offers no real advantages for many potential disadvantages. It won't be that cheap, and relies on both a high throughput connection and low latency which most people don't have. It will be like streaming a TV program on a weak connection with no buffering for most people; you either get a stuttery mess at a decent resolution or a low resolution blur that doesn't stutter.

[Azdeus]

54 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Google+ popping up everywhere didn't save that, Google's list of failed products is pretty extensive; and theoretically at least the EU would kick Google's teeth in for skewing search results to favour themselves. Mostly though it's just plain too early and offers no real advantages for many potential disadvantages. It won't be that cheap, and relies on both a high throughput connection and low latency which most people don't have. It will be like streaming a TV program on a weak connection with no buffering for most people; you either get a stuttery mess at a decent resolution or a low resolution blur that doesn't stutter.

I think you are referring to the "cost of doing business", I'm doubtful the EU would be able to make a dent in Googles profit. As it is, they are already or are trying to skew searchresults the way they want them. Also, has Epic changed their rules yet to conform to GDPR?

It might be to early though, yeah. That said, I have to struggle to think of someone except my cheapskate father that doesn't have unlimited 24/Mbit plus connections. Hell, I have it on my workphone that has essentially no need for unlimited transfer.

The cost is something I doubt most people will care about, people buy into "fee-to-pay" games regularly, paying 60$ upfront and then microtransactions ontop of that.

[Zoraptor]

Sweden has one of the best internet infrastructures in the world though, and isn't typical. Stadia's main market would have to be the US, and internet in the US is often surprisingly (or maybe not) bad. There's also the question of theoretical vs practical performance- theoretically my 4g/LTE connection is very fast and more than enough for any practical use (purely theoretically it's "up to 150mbps synchronous" per the ISP's blurbs) but practically it's rare to even get 15mbps download and frequently it's in 100s of kbps; plus ping is far from great.

The fundamental problem I see with Stadia though is that it's very much an 'exclusionary' product. You start off aiming at the whole gaming sphere, which is extremely lucrative; but then you exclude those who won't go subscription, you exclude those whose internet is bad or think their internet is bad, you exclude those who don't want the games you offer, or already have a console/ pc solution they're happy with etc etc until you're left potentially with a very small target market. And that's without dealing with all the significant potential technical issues that may put off those who would consider it, and competition from others. At this point I simply don't see the streaming model working unless they're willing to suck up a lot of early losses. Which Google traditionally has a spotty record with for products they don't see as core.

[marelooke]

11 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Sweden has one of the best internet infrastructures in the world though, and isn't typical. Stadia's main market would have to be the US, and internet in the US is often surprisingly (or maybe not) bad. There's also the question of theoretical vs practical performance- theoretically my 4g/LTE connection is very fast and more than enough for any practical use (purely theoretically it's "up to 150mbps synchronous" per the ISP's blurbs) but practically it's rare to even get 15mbps download and frequently it's in 100s of kbps; plus ping is far from great.

The fundamental problem I see with Stadia though is that it's very much an 'exclusionary' product. You start off aiming at the whole gaming sphere, which is extremely lucrative; but then you exclude those who won't go subscription, you exclude those whose internet is bad or think their internet is bad, you exclude those who don't want the games you offer, or already have a console/ pc solution they're happy with etc etc until you're left potentially with a very small target market. And that's without dealing with all the significant potential technical issues that may put off those who would consider it, and competition from others. At this point I simply don't see the streaming model working unless they're willing to suck up a lot of early losses. Which Google traditionally has a spotty record with for products they don't see as core.

Not to mention they have a track record of just killing popular products because they themselves don't see the value anymore (Google Reader comes to mind). Since apparently you'll still have the buy the games at full price on top of a subscription I can see that being a risk many won't be willing to take. The argument that Steam might disappear as well doesn't fly here as Steam is Valve's main product, the only realistic way Steam would go away is when Valve goes bankrupt (and if you're worried about that, buy your stuff on Gog and backup your installers).

There's of course the obvious issue that most of those streaming services are extremely fragmented. Want to watch this series? Well better subscribe to Amazon's offering, this other one? Yeah, Netflix. I even regularly run into music I can't get on Spotify (or that the crappy search function can't find so I have to resort to a regular search engine, but I digress...). So are we now going to get the same problem with games? Stadia exclusive games now that Epic has opened the gates to that sphere of hell? So we'll need 3 or so subscriptions to be able to play the games we want?

Anyway, as it stands now I expect Stadia might be competing in the console space, as the latency there is already higher than on a well built PC (so much closer to Stadia) and, depending on the console, they're already used to paying an additional subscription on top of the games' purchase price. From that point of view, if Google maintains a subscription price in the range of the Xbox/PlayStation offerings but with PC pricing on the games they might have a very viable way in.

Edited June 29, 2019 by marelooke
typo

[Zoraptor]

I know it's what is rumoured/ said but I find it very hard to credit that you will really have to buy (most) games on top of having a subscription. I can't see how even the most out of touch Alphabet executive could think that would be a good idea, at least during the launch phase.

[Keyrock]

I can't think of a single person that has expressed enthusiasm for Stadia, outside of people obviously shilling for Google. Heck, I've tried to keep a level head about this and come up with some kind of compelling argument as to why ANYONE would want this. The only thing I can think of is that you don't need to buy any hardware, aside from that fugly controller. I mean, there's the obvious argument of portability, but that argument falls apart because of the aforementioned lack of quality internet in a lot of parts of the world. Plus, if you are going to use Stadia on the go, and where else would you use it, you are probably going to be doing it over wifi, so you are going to incur an extra wifi latency tax in addition to the cloud gaming latency tax that you always have to pay no matter what.

 

[evilcat]

Stadia... what if we have g5 and portable VR? Would that be cool enought? Ar  least youngs could play outside.

Maybe catv/netflix could just bundle with some casual games like sims or animal crossing.

Otherwise... we are looking for niche when ppl are ready to buy subcription, but not box once in 5 years. And they also dont own sufficient phone, or pc to play older/casual stuff.

And we assume that infrastructure could just take it when milions ppl will start downloading different image.

 

[Hurlshort]

I don't think most of us are in the target audience for Stadia. Most kids today are growing up with everything streaming, and so this is a continuation of that. I get it, but it isn't appealing to me. Just like Fortnite and Roblox.

[Keyrock]

1 minute ago, Hurlshot said:

I don't think most of us are in the target audience for Stadia. Most kids today are growing up with everything streaming, and so this is a continuation of that. I get it, but it isn't appealing to me. Just like Fortnite and Roblox.

I get that, I use Netflix and Pandora myself, and I could see the appeal if it was just a subscription service. Pay $15 a month and you have access to 1000 games, or whatever. I'm still not sure if it would be for me, but I could see the selling point. But if I gotta pay $60 a pop to be able to stream games, I fail to see the appeal. If I have to pay a monthly subscription AND pay $60 a pop on top of that... (that rumor can't be true, can it?) I mean, I know there are some stupid people out there, but damn.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, the Stadia model as rumoured is like Netflix starting out as a subscription service that mailed out DVDs to people, but you still had to buy the DVDs as well. How would or could that compete with Blockbuster or just ordering what DVDs you wanted to buy off Amazon? The point of difference Netflix had which caused its explosive growth was when they moved into subscription streaming which undercut cable and the like and offered non schedule bound viewing; if you had to buy Friends or whatever at DVD prices as well as pay the sub it would not have worked, even iTunes purchase model is near dead (or is it actually dead?) now. Stadia's rumoured structure reminds me of all the pie in the sky early internet ideas from the early 2000s- and to be fair, some of those worked spectacularly well including original Google, but most didn't.

I guess there is some sort of generational divide between me and the young whippersnappers with their 'i' this and their 'e' that wandering across my metaphorical lawn but I can't see how, say, someone hooked on Fortnite or Minecraft ends up thinking that having to buy the game and pay for a subscription for it as well is a good idea. I don't play Fortnite and the like due to my gammy knee and rheumatism but I believe they can be played on a phone, and that most young fellows and fellasses have phones, don't they?

[the_dog_days]

 

[Azdeus]

5 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Yeah, the Stadia model as rumoured is like Netflix starting out as a subscription service that mailed out DVDs to people, but you still had to buy the DVDs as well. How would or could that compete with Blockbuster or just ordering what DVDs you wanted to buy off Amazon? The point of difference Netflix had which caused its explosive growth was when they moved into subscription streaming which undercut cable and the like and offered non schedule bound viewing; if you had to buy Friends or whatever at DVD prices as well as pay the sub it would not have worked, even iTunes purchase model is near dead (or is it actually dead?) now. Stadia's rumoured structure reminds me of all the pie in the sky early internet ideas from the early 2000s- and to be fair, some of those worked spectacularly well including original Google, but most didn't.

I guess there is some sort of generational divide between me and the young whippersnappers with their 'i' this and their 'e' that wandering across my metaphorical lawn but I can't see how, say, someone hooked on Fortnite or Minecraft ends up thinking that having to buy the game and pay for a subscription for it as well is a good idea. I don't play Fortnite and the like due to my gammy knee and rheumatism but I believe they can be played on a phone, and that most young fellows and fellasses have phones, don't they?

The point would be that, sure, you can buy the DVD's from Blockbuster and Amazon, but Stadia somehow managed to get your DVD to be able to work on your ol' rotary, your cassette, tape and LP aswell as your TV. You're paying the sub to be able to use all your old stuff, but you still have to pay for the content itself.

 

Atleast that is what I seem to remember what stadia was for mainly, I might be mixing it up with some other service...

[marelooke]

7 hours ago, Azdeus said:

The point would be that, sure, you can buy the DVD's from Blockbuster and Amazon, but Stadia somehow managed to get your DVD to be able to work on your ol' rotary, your cassette, tape and LP aswell as your TV. You're paying the sub to be able to use all your old stuff, but you still have to pay for the content itself.

 

Atleast that is what I seem to remember what stadia was for mainly, I might be mixing it up with some other service...

Which is weird because most modern devices stop being usable once they are due for replacement (according to the manufacturer, aka the second your warranty is up), many get suspiciously slow all of a sudden (even if you reinstall them) or start suddenly wearing out quickly (proving it is another matter, of course). Not to mention that running anything unsupported that's connected to the internet is rather irresponsible in the first place as unpatched Androids, for example, are about as secure as going online with Windows 98 (probably even less secure as no sensible person that didn't just drop out of a time capsule is still looking for Win 98 systems to hack).

Honestly legislation really needs to catch up when it comes to manufacturers' responsibilities security patching their devices in the long run. Guess we'll need a botnet of ancient consoles, fridges, light bulbs and other smart home junk to DDOS the Pentagon or something before stuff will happen though. But I digress.

But yeah, if they're aiming at "old devices" then unless those are old PCs (and PCs haven't been going "old" at anywhere near the rate of a decade ago, a well built 7 year old PC can still run current gen games at good quality with some updates, notably the graphics card) I have no idea who realistically is their target audience, especially given that areas with the networking to support Stadia aren't exactly the "poorer" places in the world, so keeping old stuff around is only really done by people like yours truly who object to this consumption/throwaway culture on principle and still expect the stuff they buy to last.

[MrBrown]

16 hours ago, the_dog_days said:

 

Somehow, I don't think the other companies will allow you to subvert their launchers so easily...

[Lexx]

Well, it seems to work in the beta?