Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Everything You Need to Know About Google Stadia Including Baldur's Gate 3 - MMORPG.com News

2»

Comments

  • IlayaIlaya Member UncommonPosts: 661
    Nothing for me. But it is an interesting "Start". Let's see where that leads us in 1/2/3 Years onwards. Interested to see whats the Evolution of that.
    bartoni33Octagon7711
  • HyperpsycrowHyperpsycrow Member RarePosts: 954
    Eso with a joypad..no thx
    Gdemami




  • mmorobommorobo Member UncommonPosts: 126
    Nanfoodle said:
    Sovrath said:
    I'm not interested in any rent to play services. Good luck on the project Google.
    Agreed.


    Unless you own disks, no one owns anything any more. Steam could close down today and all the games bought would be gone.
    G.O.G. solves this problem
    blamo2000[Deleted User]Octagon7711Kyleran
  • DAOWAceDAOWAce Member UncommonPosts: 436
    Rather own my games so I can mod them and improve/fix things the developers didn't bother to.

    Y'know, like 21:9+ support, which I highly doubt any streaming service will support, because the world lives in letter and pillarboxing 16:9.
    Gdemami
  • angerbeaverangerbeaver Member UncommonPosts: 1,272
    Nanfoodle said:
    Sovrath said:
    I'm not interested in any rent to play services. Good luck on the project Google.
    Agreed.


    Unless you own disks, no one owns anything any more. Steam could close down today and all the games bought would be gone.
    gog.com you can download the executable and play outside of their installer. 
  • foppoteefoppotee Member RarePosts: 535
    So is this somewhat similar to that Shadow cloud gaming?
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Stadia, fixed monthly fee to stream games and you still have to buy the games on top of that monthly subscription, i think even if i was interested that would put me off, if you are going to buy the game anyway then i'd rather play it on my own system rather than what will inevitably be a 'lesser' gaming experience that streamed games inevitably suffer from. So thats a hell no from me. :p
    KyleranArskaaa
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Nanfoodle said:
    Sovrath said:
    I'm not interested in any rent to play services. Good luck on the project Google.
    Agreed.


    Unless you own disks, no one owns anything any more. Steam could close down today and all the games bought would be gone.
    gog.com you can download the executable and play outside of their installer. 
    I think if Steam was to suddenly just shut down like that, then something drastic would have happened to gaming in general, so much so that it would likely be the very least of our problems.
    [Deleted User]Gdemami
  • NasaNasa Member UncommonPosts: 749
    So they ignore the F2P games(Fortnite,LoL) as you have to buy them. Could end up being a fatal strategy.
  • RelampagoRelampago Member UncommonPosts: 451

    Margrave said:



    So $10 a month, and I get to buy the games on top of that too.



    So I have to pay monthly to get to play the games I've already bought?! No thank you.



    I don't see that as being better than just buying a system of some kind so that I can play whatever titles I've bought whenever I want with or without being online.





    This is a pass for me now that I see their business model. Just no. Plus they're pushing that controller awfully hard. I'm a keyboard+mouse player. No thank you for controller.








    How much do you pay for video cards and other upgrades over the life of your systems? That is the disruption they are targeting.
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,413
    I have been less and less impressed with Google over the last decade. They use less secure architectures and slower programing languages. They also have an internal political problem that drives away engineering talent. I really don't see Google being capable of offering a good experience when milliseconds matter.
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 9,004
    edited June 2019

    OG_Zorvan said:

    Yeah, perhaps Stadia would have been a thing if Google hadn't got bored with their "Google Fiber will be everywhere!" shtick and gave up on it when the hype died down. All I see is another Google gimmick that will be dead and forgotten within a year.



    Not so much that they got bored but that they underestimated the resistance from the other cable companies that did everything they could to make sure it didn't happen.

    Perhaps big in ISPs with no data cap. Unless they can really optimize their streaming. Would probably be nice to on different types of devices and not need a high end system all the time for decent gameplay.

    While testing the service I had no problems with the quality of the stream.  The game played pretty much like it was installed on my system.  My bandwidth use did jump during the testing and unless they do something it would have probably put me over my cap eventually.  So it's ok if you don't have a cap or don't play a lot on a daily basis.  But the problem would probably be throttling or how the ISPs deal with the service.
    [Deleted User]

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,975
    Also be aware that for 4K Stadia streaming you will use 1 TB of data in about 65 hours. 
    If this were to become really popular, say like Netflix is, wouldn't the internet providers be tempted to throttle at times,  or consider monetizing it?

    I read one US provider is already offer a premium connection to gamers for additional costs.

    I swear at times my current cable provider is throttling me, whether intentionally or due to poor infrastructure. 

    One day I struggled to get Netflix to play, kept giving useless error "program not available right now."  Usually happens after router IP gets reset.

    However on this occasion I flipped over to Prime and it failed as well, however the error was along the lines of "not enough bandwidth available, if you continue you may experience stuttering and other performance issue."

    This is on an alledgedly 400/100 connection with no other usage other than me playing POE.


    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • ArskaaaArskaaa Member RarePosts: 1,265
    now u can play Farming simulator 19 with monthly fee :o
  • M0nk3ytal3M0nk3ytal3 Newbie CommonPosts: 8
    Phry said:
    Stadia, fixed monthly fee to stream games and you still have to buy the games on top of that monthly subscription, i think even if i was interested that would put me off, if you are going to buy the game anyway then i'd rather play it on my own system rather than what will inevitably be a 'lesser' gaming experience that streamed games inevitably suffer from. So thats a hell no from me. :p
    But $10 a month pays for a system after what 5 or 6 years? Assuming you never pause the service and were only going to have 1 system. 

    The real issue is latency, will have to wait and see.

    I think it will be great for kids to have during their school breaks or great gaming seasons mich like how I got HBO for GoT then dumped it even though Chernobyl is popular. I plan on getting it back for new season of West World. This way if the next Assassins Creed is shit I didn't buy a new PC build for 8k to use as a heater.
  • AethaerynAethaeryn Member RarePosts: 3,150
    Phry said:
    Stadia, fixed monthly fee to stream games and you still have to buy the games on top of that monthly subscription, i think even if i was interested that would put me off, if you are going to buy the game anyway then i'd rather play it on my own system rather than what will inevitably be a 'lesser' gaming experience that streamed games inevitably suffer from. So thats a hell no from me. :p
    But $10 a month pays for a system after what 5 or 6 years? Assuming you never pause the service and were only going to have 1 system. 

    The real issue is latency, will have to wait and see.

    I think it will be great for kids to have during their school breaks or great gaming seasons mich like how I got HBO for GoT then dumped it even though Chernobyl is popular. I plan on getting it back for new season of West World. This way if the next Assassins Creed is shit I didn't buy a new PC build for 8k to use as a heater.
    I plan on using the free  version at 1080p and buying games.  My PC is due for an upgrade and also it gives me portability.  I already have chrome and a controller. 

    I can see the argument that a console would be the same after a certain amount of time.  But then I don't have a piece of hardware sitting around. . I still have a 360 collecting dust. . I would rather have all my games in one spot when i want and not deal with hardware issues, red ring of death etc.

    Have to wait and see.  a Netflix style would have suited me better.  I would have actually paid $20 to have to not deal with hardware, downloads and less portability and have a library of games I can just play, especially when playing on a TV with my son.   GamePass might actually work better with a cheap xbox. . . will wait and see what Microsoft does with whatever it is they are working on. 

    I was excited about this but it isn't what I thought.  It will come down to pricing on games for me really.

    Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,483
    Kyleran said:
    Also be aware that for 4K Stadia streaming you will use 1 TB of data in about 65 hours. 
    If this were to become really popular, say like Netflix is, wouldn't the internet providers be tempted to throttle at times,  or consider monetizing it?
    Game streaming would be really easy to selectively throttle.  If someone is using a ton of bandwidth, just pause the connection entirely for a second or so, once per minute.  No need to inspect what the person is doing or what he's connecting to.  You can even compensate the person by offering 2% more bandwidth otherwise.  Normal gaming wouldn't trigger this apart from initial downloads.  When downloading a game or watching videos or whatever (whether Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, or anything else), the video gets buffered far enough ahead of time that you'd never notice.  But that sort of selective pausing would be death to game streaming.
  • BobVaBobVa Member UncommonPosts: 125
    Margrave said:

    So $10 a month, and I get to buy the games on top of that too.

    So I have to pay monthly to get to play the games I've already bought?! No thank you.

    I don't see that as being better than just buying a system of some kind so that I can play whatever titles I've bought whenever I want with or without being online.

    This is a pass for me now that I see their business model. Just no. Plus they're pushing that controller awfully hard. I'm a keyboard+mouse player. No thank you for controller.


    There is the free version which goes up to 1080p, which from my point of view is very OK. Sure, if you want 4K ( and you already have a 4K monitor ) and you don't want to pay $10 a month for the service, you can always go ahead and pay few thousands $ to be able to play games in 4K , on your very own computer. 

    In 5 years, you'll be paying $600 for the service, while building a computer to play games @4K60 FPS for 5 years, well .. you will need the 2080TI as a first, which is around 1k. Not counting the rest of the components.

    Sure, this is a matter of .."tastes". If you can afford paying $K's once every 3-5 years to build your computer and play the latest games maxed out, then that's fine, but .. Stadia isn't really build for this kind of people.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,483
    BobVa said:
    Margrave said:

    So $10 a month, and I get to buy the games on top of that too.

    So I have to pay monthly to get to play the games I've already bought?! No thank you.

    I don't see that as being better than just buying a system of some kind so that I can play whatever titles I've bought whenever I want with or without being online.

    This is a pass for me now that I see their business model. Just no. Plus they're pushing that controller awfully hard. I'm a keyboard+mouse player. No thank you for controller.


    There is the free version which goes up to 1080p, which from my point of view is very OK. Sure, if you want 4K ( and you already have a 4K monitor ) and you don't want to pay $10 a month for the service, you can always go ahead and pay few thousands $ to be able to play games in 4K , on your very own computer. 

    In 5 years, you'll be paying $600 for the service, while building a computer to play games @4K60 FPS for 5 years, well .. you will need the 2080TI as a first, which is around 1k. Not counting the rest of the components.

    Sure, this is a matter of .."tastes". If you can afford paying $K's once every 3-5 years to build your computer and play the latest games maxed out, then that's fine, but .. Stadia isn't really build for this kind of people.
    I played games at a higher than 4K resolution and higher than 60 frames per second for years on a Radeon R9 Fury X.  And without the added latency or compression artifacts of game streaming.  That's a slower card than a Radeon RX Vega 56 that you could buy new for $270 today.  It's all about how willing you are to turn down graphical settings when necessary.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,262
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,483
    Quizzical said:
    BobVa said:
    Margrave said:

    So $10 a month, and I get to buy the games on top of that too.

    So I have to pay monthly to get to play the games I've already bought?! No thank you.

    I don't see that as being better than just buying a system of some kind so that I can play whatever titles I've bought whenever I want with or without being online.

    This is a pass for me now that I see their business model. Just no. Plus they're pushing that controller awfully hard. I'm a keyboard+mouse player. No thank you for controller.


    There is the free version which goes up to 1080p, which from my point of view is very OK. Sure, if you want 4K ( and you already have a 4K monitor ) and you don't want to pay $10 a month for the service, you can always go ahead and pay few thousands $ to be able to play games in 4K , on your very own computer. 

    In 5 years, you'll be paying $600 for the service, while building a computer to play games @4K60 FPS for 5 years, well .. you will need the 2080TI as a first, which is around 1k. Not counting the rest of the components.

    Sure, this is a matter of .."tastes". If you can afford paying $K's once every 3-5 years to build your computer and play the latest games maxed out, then that's fine, but .. Stadia isn't really build for this kind of people.
    I played games at a higher than 4K resolution and higher than 60 frames per second for years on a Radeon R9 Fury X.  And without the added latency or compression artifacts of game streaming.  That's a slower card than a Radeon RX Vega 56 that you could buy new for $270 today.  It's all about how willing you are to turn down graphical settings when necessary.
    Turn down settings lol that’s funny......oh you were serious…
    I thought people doing that was a myth. 
    I customarily turn off any settings that hurt performance but don't make the game look better to me.  I think that the people who don't do that are ridiculous.  Maybe that's why they need $1200 GPUs.
  • TheDarkrayneTheDarkrayne Member EpicPosts: 5,297
    Quizzical said:
    Quizzical said:
    BobVa said:
    Margrave said:

    So $10 a month, and I get to buy the games on top of that too.

    So I have to pay monthly to get to play the games I've already bought?! No thank you.

    I don't see that as being better than just buying a system of some kind so that I can play whatever titles I've bought whenever I want with or without being online.

    This is a pass for me now that I see their business model. Just no. Plus they're pushing that controller awfully hard. I'm a keyboard+mouse player. No thank you for controller.


    There is the free version which goes up to 1080p, which from my point of view is very OK. Sure, if you want 4K ( and you already have a 4K monitor ) and you don't want to pay $10 a month for the service, you can always go ahead and pay few thousands $ to be able to play games in 4K , on your very own computer. 

    In 5 years, you'll be paying $600 for the service, while building a computer to play games @4K60 FPS for 5 years, well .. you will need the 2080TI as a first, which is around 1k. Not counting the rest of the components.

    Sure, this is a matter of .."tastes". If you can afford paying $K's once every 3-5 years to build your computer and play the latest games maxed out, then that's fine, but .. Stadia isn't really build for this kind of people.
    I played games at a higher than 4K resolution and higher than 60 frames per second for years on a Radeon R9 Fury X.  And without the added latency or compression artifacts of game streaming.  That's a slower card than a Radeon RX Vega 56 that you could buy new for $270 today.  It's all about how willing you are to turn down graphical settings when necessary.
    Turn down settings lol that’s funny......oh you were serious…
    I thought people doing that was a myth. 
    I customarily turn off any settings that hurt performance but don't make the game look better to me.  I think that the people who don't do that are ridiculous.  Maybe that's why they need $1200 GPUs.
    I'm with you.

    I always turn off DoF, Bloom, motion blur, other post processing things that look crap like chromatic abberation or lens flare (eyes are not a camera lens). I tend to turn shadows down as well because I think pencil line shadows are unrealistic.. real shadows have some dissipation around them.

    I don't need to but I do it for the visuals. 
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.