The big corporations have invested in massive facilities to house all of this Hardware as a Service solution. I'm not saying that Google will be the ones to roll it out correctly, but this shit is happening.
Everything is about to change. Tech wise it will be a cool advancement. Business wise prepare for the worst. Remember how in Terms of service, these bastards tell consumers the hardware they just paid for doesn't REALLY belong to them? Welp now it REALLY won't. It will be subscriptions or die.
In addition, as horse power + brains of consumer hardware starts living with the manufacturer as a service, I don't suspect they will be cutting prices much. Gold sickness always wins.
The problem is ISP-like, not data center-like. It doesn't matter if they have $1 billion in hardware in a data center, or for that matter, $1 trillion. What matters is how close that data center is to you. For the overwhelming majority of the world, the answer to that is "not very".
People can claim whatever they want but this is going to be huge. I remember many streaming music products existing, but never really breaking trough, because the quality was not there. Then products like pandora slowly took it to the next step, and while the world was still dazzled by Itunes, suddenly out of nowhere came Spotify and obliberated it's competition.
For movies it was the same. Streaming video was crap, basically. No one believed in it. DVD's where the thing of people that liked video. Blue Ray was the next big thing. And HBO. The quality of streaming was just too poor. Until it wasn't, and Netflix blew away the entire video and TV industry. No one buys Blue Ray's anymore and no one is talking about a succesor to Blue Ray
The same thing will happen to gaming. Once you can play high quality streaming without having to pay 1400 euro on a videocard or 600 for a new console, no one is going to do that. Of course the quality isn't there. Yet. But when it is, it will blow everything away.
Neither music streaming nor video streaming for watching movies is sensitive to latency. That allows far better compression, which is essential to making the streaming services work well. They can download it ahead of time, buffer it up, have time to fix anything that gets delayed or dropped, and just read from the buffer for a moment if your connection has a hiccup.
If people were happy with streaming games by having a delay of a few seconds between what is rendered and what appears on your screen, then they could make this work pretty well. That's fine for watching someone else play a game on Twitch. That's not fine for playing a game yourself.
Streaming audio in real time without adding meaningful latency still isn't entirely a solved problem, at least apart from having a dedicated line, which basically no one does anymore because it's so expensive. You can usually understand the person you're talking to on the phone, but the quality is imperfect. Video for playing a game requires many thousands of times as much bandwidth as audio. And video is also massively more latency sensitive than audio. Adding 100 ms of latency to a phone call is acceptable, but an extra 100 ms of latency for video in a game you're playing would be pushing into "game doesn't work" territory for an awful lot of games.
Latency is the same when you are playing on a streaming plateform like : https://shadow.tech/usen/ even less than playing on your own hardware..You are so wrong and I work as a IT engineer so I am very familiar with RTT and I have been playing online since late 90s and meridian 59...Just test solution like shadow streaming and try some game like APEX or any FPS that is realying on latency and you will notice that you are not suffering from any penalty playing on a streaming plateform on the contrary.
So basically, you're claiming that it takes a negative amount of time to take an image on one video card, compress it, send it over the Internet, decompress it, and send it to another video card? That's the only way that it's possible for game streaming to have lower latency than local rendering on equivalent hardware as you claim.
If Google could do that, they wouldn't be announcing a game streaming platform today. They'd have a time machine, and you could do a lot more with that than just streaming games.
Isn't this the same as what GeForce is working on? if it is they will have competitor and honestly when it comes to games I'd pick GF's side over Google's.
Didn't nvidia all but abandon the shield?
I'm not talking about the shield, but cloud gaming. They've been beta testing for like an year now maybe more?
I assume @Xingbairong will have been talking about NVidia's cloud gaming service rather than their Shield hardware. I remember them launching it talking about worldwide servers etc. to play games that you could buy from their platform etc. Seems to be called Geforce Now these days; currently free whilst still in beta (!) for the 400+ supported UPlay, Steam and Blizzard.battlenet games.
Enough games available, probably, for people to try "gaming over the internet" for themselves. I suspect peoples experience will vary a lot.
Google, I assume, are looking at the worldwide market and - I also suspect - taking a view on the advances in TV hardware. Many of which now use Android which is how - maybe - they plan on introducing controller support using IR maybe ? - TV remotes have certainly got much better / more reliable / less bulky etc. in the last few years.
@Quizzical I'm going to go out on a limb here and put you in the skeptical column
I don't think I have ever seen you this worked up before.
I take it that you haven't seen the many previous discussions that we've had about exactly this topic.
Moving data a millimeter within a chip is many orders of magnitude than moving it miles over the public Internet. Moving data over a LAN is also massively cheaper than moving it miles over the public Internet. Until that changes, game streaming will never be anything other than a low end product or a last resort.
Some people say that it will get there and be good eventually. What they're really saying (whether they realize it or not), is that someday, the low end is going to be awfully good. Which could happen, as it has happened to a lot of other computer components.
Can believe how some of you is actually bashing this for some "personal reasons", like "don't trust google" , "I don't like the idea of streaming games" and so on.
Having you guys forgot when companies started to relay more on Downloadable games then on physical ones and how many said the same thing? "I want to own the physical game" , "I don't have the bandwidth to download games on the internet, lololol fail" , etc ?
This is not for skeptical people like you. This is the future and like it or not, those who will grow up with this kind of tech, what do you think they will say about you?
Also, why am I having this idea that most of you just watched this video clip and not all the presentation? Did you not seen how this also impact the developers and how they can make MULTIPLAYER games way bigger then what we have today? I though most people visiting MMORPG.COM wants LARGE worlds filled with VERY LARGE playerbase. Right? Now imagine what Stadia tech can do in this department. The possibilities are HUGE!
I think this is what this industry needed so much. Innovation.
Games in the past 20+ years are all about : create , release , rise and repeat. Tech is the same. With every year, there is better graphics more power, but that's basically it. No real innovation, just .. a straight path to follow. Sure, I won't deny that those things are not playing a big role, but the gaming market has been saturated for quiet a while now, with no evidences that it will change … until today with Google Stadia.
So, whoever sees this is as a bad thing or one which can't evolve because "internet limitation", I say you are wrong. Me and many others, of course. Please google 5G internet speed for exemple, and see what kind of internet speed we will have on our phones ( which I think many will switch from their traditional internet provider, over Mobile Hot Spot connection ). Here, let me add this if you are to lazy : 5G Network 1-10Gbps or higher. Yes, that's Gbps and there are also reports that they achieved in testing even 20Gbps. So .. "internet limitation" or "my wifi can't handle this" will be history soon enough.
I can agree that this will not be an easy road for Google, but .. this is the future. Everything needs to have a starting point, and this year, will be the starting point for Stadia!
The point I'm making is you guys are debating on latency like it matters or will hinder the ultimate goal. The general market will fall in line with some basic marketing shenanigans. Just like how everybody has 4K TVs, and even 4K cable boxes, and 4K streaming services but the majority of the content being fed into the hardware isn't (and actually looks terrible due to up-res).
The #1 concern is taking hardware, and code out of the hands of consumers so they have 100% control over the platform. That way you either accept the service fees, price hikes, ToS, ToS changes, AND latency or f#$% you and everybody who loves you.
Announcements will be coming from Amazon, Microsoft, and others. Platform agnostic consumer solutions has all the biggest corporations (including telecomm giants) holding each others hands in solidarity right now.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Just giving them another way to bend us over and keep people from pirating, trading, or owning copies of games, imo. Sounds great, but we are losing something here like we did with all the online downloading. I doubt most people will care as long as the internet is “affordable.”
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Just giving them another way to bend us over and keep people from pirating, trading, or owning copies of games, imo. Sounds great, but we are losing something here like we did with all the online downloading. I doubt most people will care as long as the internet is “affordable.”
Ease of access and good prices stop or drastically reduce pirating, there’s nothing new there. Trading could still be possible and in fact make them more money if they do it correctly. Will they? Doubt it but who knows. The only game I’ve ever purchased online that I ended up not ever being able to play again was asherons call 2 because the server shut down, and considering most games are services these days that point is moot anyway.
If if it’s not viable people won’t pay and devs will go back to the standard ways.
The basic problem for any service that proposes to stream games over the public Internet is that flops are cheap, but bandwidth is expensive. If you don't believe me, then how much do you spend on computer hardware, and how much do you spend on your ISP? Even if you buy a brand new $2000 PC every three years and throw the old one in the garbage, that's probably still going to be a whole lot less than you spend on bandwidth. Proposing to massively inflate bandwidth requirements (and costs) in order to save a little bit on hardware costs is not going to be a win.
That doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be a market for it. But for the most part, it will be the gaming equivalent of rent-to-own furniture or payday loans. Maybe it lets you get what you want in the short term, but it's not the market you'd like to participate in if you have a choice.
The main exception that I see is that letting you skip the download really is a benefit to the people who like to download a game, play it for three minutes, decide that they hate it, and uninstall it after only those three minutes. This will allow them to spend most of their "gaming" time ranting on forums rather than waiting for games to download.
But I am already paying for the bandwidth. I mostly play strategy games and only look at updating the PC for a few new games making them very cost prohibitive. This, if it works, could solve that problem.
@Quizzical I'm going to go out on a limb here and put you in the skeptical column
I don't think I have ever seen you this worked up before.
I take it that you haven't seen the many previous discussions that we've had about exactly this topic.
Moving data a millimeter within a chip is many orders of magnitude than moving it miles over the public Internet. Moving data over a LAN is also massively cheaper than moving it miles over the public Internet. Until that changes, game streaming will never be anything other than a low end product or a last resort.
Some people say that it will get there and be good eventually. What they're really saying (whether they realize it or not), is that someday, the low end is going to be awfully good. Which could happen, as it has happened to a lot of other computer components.
Well, color me intrigued! How awesome to play some of the great RPGs that I've missed because I didn't have a certain console! Horizon Zero Dawn, I'm lookin' at you!
I don't see how this would work for console exclusives Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. If anything thing this would be more of a reason consoles would double down on exclusives to sell consoles.
I can agree that this will not be an easy road for Google, but .. this is the future. Everything needs to have a starting point, and this year, will be the starting point for Stadia!
I feel sure that streaming games will - at some point - become the norm. For some it may already be good enough; some people, some parts of the world have access to internet capabilities that are way better than what others do.
What I wonder, though, is what is Google hoping to achieve? Or put another way: how do they expect to make money? They will have costs to recoup as well.
Only so many way. Maybe I have missed some but a) selling games - some sort of Steam type service b) charging companies for hosting games on their servers - so like Amazon; c) charging users for access to a library of games as well as any they buy - so an XBox / Playstation type service d) maybe running some advertising before people can play or even e) from selling controllers.
I can't see a) taking off - or those that sell games making it easy to break into. Can't see b) taking off - companies are under enough pressure and would only pay if they in turn would make money. Forced adverts - possible - would presumably make something but surely not enough to cover the cost and it would be a turnoff. And making controllers - lots of companies in this space already; so no.
Which leaves providing a service that people will pay for. Paying companies that provide the games. So an XBox or PS One type service.
One big problem. Once the tech is good enough Microsoft and Sony can offer the service as well. And they already have the games.
In fact Microsoft have already announced Project xCloud. (They detail the advantages of having a console vs. not using one; using mobile, tablet etc)
Edit: maybe they will push this as part of a YouTube subscription? Which might drive more advertising. Maybe?
@Quizzical I'm going to go out on a limb here and put you in the skeptical column
I don't think I have ever seen you this worked up before.
I take it that you haven't seen the many previous discussions that we've had about exactly this topic.
Moving data a millimeter within a chip is many orders of magnitude than moving it miles over the public Internet. Moving data over a LAN is also massively cheaper than moving it miles over the public Internet. Until that changes, game streaming will never be anything other than a low end product or a last resort.
Some people say that it will get there and be good eventually. What they're really saying (whether they realize it or not), is that someday, the low end is going to be awfully good. Which could happen, as it has happened to a lot of other computer components.
Oh I totally agree
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I can agree that this will not be an easy road for Google, but .. this is the future. Everything needs to have a starting point, and this year, will be the starting point for Stadia!
I feel sure that streaming games will - at some point - become the norm. For some it may already be good enough; some people, some parts of the world have access to internet capabilities that are way better than what others do.
What I wonder, though, is what is Google hoping to achieve? Or put another way: how do they expect to make money? They will have costs to recoup as well.
Only so many way. Maybe I have missed some but a) selling games - some sort of Steam type service b) charging companies for hosting games on their servers - so like Amazon; c) charging users for access to a library of games as well as any they buy - so an XBox / Playstation type service d) maybe running some advertising before people can play or even e) from selling controllers.
I can't see a) taking off - or those that sell games making it easy to break into. Can't see b) taking off - companies are under enough pressure and would only pay if they in turn would make money. Forced adverts - possible - would presumably make something but surely not enough to cover the cost and it would be a turnoff. And making controllers - lots of companies in this space already; so no.
Which leaves providing a service that people will pay for. Paying companies that provide the games. So an XBox or PS One type service.
One big problem. Once the tech is good enough Microsoft and Sony can offer the service as well. And they already have the games.
In fact Microsoft have already announced Project xCloud. (They detail the advantages of having a console vs. not using one; using mobile, tablet etc)
Edit: maybe they will push this as part of a YouTube subscription? Which might drive more advertising. Maybe?
The fact that they have gone this far ( releasing this year ) , including making a special division to create games for Stadia, I think is safe to say that they have done their home-work.
Saying things like "some parts of the world not having good internet access" isn't something to back up ..against Stadia. We have today, people with good internet access but with bellow average computers in order to play some games, so .. let's leave it like that.
I think a monthly subscription fee will be required in order to play with Stadia, but also .. a Steam like service is pretty good too.
That "one big problem" . I .. don't see it as a problem at all. In fact I see it as a beneficial ..thing. 3 giants fighting for supremacy on this .. "thing"? Lovely! However, I think Google infrastructure, beats the one at Microsoft and Sony together, so .. from my point of view, Google is in an advantage here.
Nevertheless , this move from Google should be seen as something (very)good for the industry. In fact, I don't really care which company will succeed, as long as it will make it happen.
As a side note, the "internet limitation" thing is very wrong. You do not need large bandwidth to play on Stadia for exemple. The cloud is receiving information based on your mouse/keyboard/etc activities which means low sending and receiving data. If right now you have a spike in your internet connection then you will also have lag in playing the game ( online ). Sure, for single player games, that might be a small problem ( now ) , but on the online thing .. I think we will be very fine.
Many big companies in the gaming industry are pushing hard for this. Even if googles fails, eventually someone will succeed, I have no doubt that this is the future and i don't like it.
Cloud gaming will be the last bullet to bring down physical games for good...
I feel mixed about this. I've tried PS NOW for example and I think it's a great way to play older PS2-PS3 titles that I wasn't able to play. However, as far as playing "current" titles, I am bothered by the fact that I don't "own" them and would need to continuously maintain an online subscription in order to play them.
I also can't imagine Google Stadia getting the latest games on release, there would be some decent delays for any recent games to be released on their service. Publishers and Developers would make far too little money making their games available over Stadia then they would selling the full game for $60-80. It'd probably mostly be only F2P titles and games that are a few years old that are not generating any major sales.
On a side note, much like PS NOW, I'd really be interested in a streaming service that allowed me a way to legally play older generation games, whether they are PlayStation 1-4, NES to Gamecube, etc. That would be a service I'd be more inclined to pay for, as owning the physical copies and/or platforms to play them on may prove too difficult or unnecessarily expensive. If not streaming, then at least a Steam-like platform.
I am sure it will work, under the correct circumstances with the correct games. People who report positive experiences most like live in a place with full fiber with the data center located nearby like "same city". Moving past that the experience is horrid hell I can barely tolerate playing a shooter game, or say even league with a 60 ping and the advantage provided by ping is gigantic even going from 12ms to 60 is massive. So no sorry there is alot of people this wont work for but a growing number it will.
Get ready for a scary world when these types of things come to pass, oh you typed something they didnt like? Your banned no more gaming for you. Thought police is already bad enough but its about to get draconian, let alone the economics part of it. Won;t be long for a real peoples revolution occurs again give it 100 years tops. Feel truly sad for the future people of this planet.
Having you guys forgot when companies started to relay more on Downloadable games then on physical ones and how many said the same thing? "I want to own the physical game" , "I don't have the bandwidth to download games on the internet, lololol fail" , etc ?
This is not for skeptical people like you. This is the future and like it or not, those who will grow up with this kind of tech, what do you think they will say about you?
20 years ago, a lot of people wanted to have an option to buy a physical copy in addition to having a download option. The main source of people who wanted downloading not to be an option was developers trying to kill piracy. Eventually, they'd tack on some online portion so that they could add loot boxes that you couldn't pirate.
The reason that the demand for having physical media largely went away is that game sizes didn't grow nearly as fast as storage capacities or Internet bandwidth. If it had, then people would still want a physical media option today to avoid the 10 TB download necessary to try a new game.
So, whoever sees this is as a bad thing or one which can't evolve because "internet limitation", I say you are wrong. Me and many others, of course. Please google 5G internet speed for exemple, and see what kind of internet speed we will have on our phones ( which I think many will switch from their traditional internet provider, over Mobile Hot Spot connection ). Here, let me add this if you are to lazy : 5G Network 1-10Gbps or higher. Yes, that's Gbps and there are also reports that they achieved in testing even 20Gbps. So .. "internet limitation" or "my wifi can't handle this" will be history soon enough.
Wireless will never offer more bandwidth or more reliably than wired. There will always be physical advantages to just running a wire (or possibly several wires), and the only question is just how large that advantage will be.
5G will be a major advance over 4G as wireless Internet connections go. But if the problem is that wired isn't good enough, either, then 5G isn't going to help you.
Also, it's important to be aware that bandwidth available is per base station, not per user. You can get a lot of bandwidth if you only have one person connecting to a base station, but that's not going to be the typical use case. That would be far too expensive. And as more 5G infrastructure gets built out and you start getting more interference from neighboring base stations, the amount of bandwidth available per base station is likely to go down as compared to what you can do in pristine lab conditions.
Also, why am I having this idea that most of you just watched this video clip and not all the presentation? Did you not seen how this also impact the developers and how they can make MULTIPLAYER games way bigger then what we have today? I though most people visiting MMORPG.COM wants LARGE worlds filled with VERY LARGE playerbase. Right? Now imagine what Stadia tech can do in this department. The possibilities are HUGE!
I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. If the problem is that modest amount of network communications to tell players what other players are doing is too hard, then requiring massive amounts of network communications to stream the entire completed frames is not going to help. That's going to hurt, and badly.
If the hope is that all inter-player communications can be within a data center so that streaming the games scales with linearly with the number of players in a small area rather than quadratically, then you're going to need ridiculous numbers of people in a very small area before that's a net gain. Maybe it would make it a little bit easier to have 100k person battles, if all 100k of those people live in the same city in real life. But no game has ever had the size of playerbase to be able to do that.
Comments
If Google could do that, they wouldn't be announcing a game streaming platform today. They'd have a time machine, and you could do a lot more with that than just streaming games.
I don't think I have ever seen you this worked up before.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Enough games available, probably, for people to try "gaming over the internet" for themselves. I suspect peoples experience will vary a lot.
Google, I assume, are looking at the worldwide market and - I also suspect - taking a view on the advances in TV hardware. Many of which now use Android which is how - maybe - they plan on introducing controller support using IR maybe ? - TV remotes have certainly got much better / more reliable / less bulky etc. in the last few years.
Moving data a millimeter within a chip is many orders of magnitude than moving it miles over the public Internet. Moving data over a LAN is also massively cheaper than moving it miles over the public Internet. Until that changes, game streaming will never be anything other than a low end product or a last resort.
Some people say that it will get there and be good eventually. What they're really saying (whether they realize it or not), is that someday, the low end is going to be awfully good. Which could happen, as it has happened to a lot of other computer components.
Having you guys forgot when companies started to relay more on Downloadable games then on physical ones and how many said the same thing? "I want to own the physical game" , "I don't have the bandwidth to download games on the internet, lololol fail" , etc ?
This is not for skeptical people like you. This is the future and like it or not, those who will grow up with this kind of tech, what do you think they will say about you?
Also, why am I having this idea that most of you just watched this video clip and not all the presentation? Did you not seen how this also impact the developers and how they can make MULTIPLAYER games way bigger then what we have today? I though most people visiting MMORPG.COM wants LARGE worlds filled with VERY LARGE playerbase. Right? Now imagine what Stadia tech can do in this department. The possibilities are HUGE!
I think this is what this industry needed so much. Innovation.
Games in the past 20+ years are all about : create , release , rise and repeat. Tech is the same. With every year, there is better graphics more power, but that's basically it. No real innovation, just .. a straight path to follow. Sure, I won't deny that those things are not playing a big role, but the gaming market has been saturated for quiet a while now, with no evidences that it will change … until today with Google Stadia.
So, whoever sees this is as a bad thing or one which can't evolve because "internet limitation", I say you are wrong. Me and many others, of course. Please google 5G internet speed for exemple, and see what kind of internet speed we will have on our phones ( which I think many will switch from their traditional internet provider, over Mobile Hot Spot connection ). Here, let me add this if you are to lazy : 5G Network 1-10Gbps or higher. Yes, that's Gbps and there are also reports that they achieved in testing even 20Gbps. So .. "internet limitation" or "my wifi can't handle this" will be history soon enough.
I can agree that this will not be an easy road for Google, but .. this is the future. Everything needs to have a starting point, and this year, will be the starting point for Stadia!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
If if it’s not viable people won’t pay and devs will go back to the standard ways.
You got the wrong wikipedia for this case. This is the correct one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego
No no @Nasa, i don't mean the definition of "id". I mean the "id" in the name id Software, the developers. It basically stands for in demand software.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
I don't see how this would work for console exclusives Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. If anything thing this would be more of a reason consoles would double down on exclusives to sell consoles.
What I wonder, though, is what is Google hoping to achieve? Or put another way: how do they expect to make money? They will have costs to recoup as well.
Only so many way. Maybe I have missed some but a) selling games - some sort of Steam type service b) charging companies for hosting games on their servers - so like Amazon; c) charging users for access to a library of games as well as any they buy - so an XBox / Playstation type service d) maybe running some advertising before people can play or even e) from selling controllers.
I can't see a) taking off - or those that sell games making it easy to break into. Can't see b) taking off - companies are under enough pressure and would only pay if they in turn would make money. Forced adverts - possible - would presumably make something but surely not enough to cover the cost and it would be a turnoff. And making controllers - lots of companies in this space already; so no.
Which leaves providing a service that people will pay for. Paying companies that provide the games. So an XBox or PS One type service.
One big problem. Once the tech is good enough Microsoft and Sony can offer the service as well. And they already have the games.
In fact Microsoft have already announced Project xCloud. (They detail the advantages of having a console vs. not using one; using mobile, tablet etc)
Edit: maybe they will push this as part of a YouTube subscription? Which might drive more advertising. Maybe?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Wait and see...
New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
Saying things like "some parts of the world not having good internet access" isn't something to back up ..against Stadia. We have today, people with good internet access but with bellow average computers in order to play some games, so .. let's leave it like that.
I think a monthly subscription fee will be required in order to play with Stadia, but also .. a Steam like service is pretty good too.
That "one big problem" . I .. don't see it as a problem at all. In fact I see it as a beneficial ..thing. 3 giants fighting for supremacy on this .. "thing"? Lovely! However, I think Google infrastructure, beats the one at Microsoft and Sony together, so .. from my point of view, Google is in an advantage here.
Nevertheless , this move from Google should be seen as something (very)good for the industry. In fact, I don't really care which company will succeed, as long as it will make it happen.
As a side note, the "internet limitation" thing is very wrong. You do not need large bandwidth to play on Stadia for exemple. The cloud is receiving information based on your mouse/keyboard/etc activities which means low sending and receiving data. If right now you have a spike in your internet connection then you will also have lag in playing the game ( online ). Sure, for single player games, that might be a small problem ( now ) , but on the online thing .. I think we will be very fine.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I also can't imagine Google Stadia getting the latest games on release, there would be some decent delays for any recent games to be released on their service. Publishers and Developers would make far too little money making their games available over Stadia then they would selling the full game for $60-80. It'd probably mostly be only F2P titles and games that are a few years old that are not generating any major sales.
On a side note, much like PS NOW, I'd really be interested in a streaming service that allowed me a way to legally play older generation games, whether they are PlayStation 1-4, NES to Gamecube, etc. That would be a service I'd be more inclined to pay for, as owning the physical copies and/or platforms to play them on may prove too difficult or unnecessarily expensive. If not streaming, then at least a Steam-like platform.
This is going to be huge and I am really looking forward to it.
Ready Player One
The reason that the demand for having physical media largely went away is that game sizes didn't grow nearly as fast as storage capacities or Internet bandwidth. If it had, then people would still want a physical media option today to avoid the 10 TB download necessary to try a new game.
5G will be a major advance over 4G as wireless Internet connections go. But if the problem is that wired isn't good enough, either, then 5G isn't going to help you.
Also, it's important to be aware that bandwidth available is per base station, not per user. You can get a lot of bandwidth if you only have one person connecting to a base station, but that's not going to be the typical use case. That would be far too expensive. And as more 5G infrastructure gets built out and you start getting more interference from neighboring base stations, the amount of bandwidth available per base station is likely to go down as compared to what you can do in pristine lab conditions.
If the hope is that all inter-player communications can be within a data center so that streaming the games scales with linearly with the number of players in a small area rather than quadratically, then you're going to need ridiculous numbers of people in a very small area before that's a net gain. Maybe it would make it a little bit easier to have 100k person battles, if all 100k of those people live in the same city in real life. But no game has ever had the size of playerbase to be able to do that.