Google Stadia - Streaming Games the future?

[stripeyfox]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47634263

 

The future of the games industry, at least as Google sees it, is in streaming.

It’s a trend that feels inevitable - just ask anyone in the music, TV or film business. Streaming is where it's at, and the possibility for what can be streamed has only ever been bound by the limitations of internet connectivity. 

Google thinks its technology can make streaming games a plausible and possibly even pleasurable reality. One where gamers aren’t driven to insanity by stuttering gameplay and slow-reacting characters. 

For the sake of argument, let’s assume it succeeds. Where might Google - with its track record for upending business models, often with unintended consequences - lead the industry? 

Shifting costs

Games consoles are expensive. The games are (mostly) expensive. 

Google’s Stadia could eliminate both costs, replacing them with a subscription fee. A ballpark figure might be $15-$30 a month - though some predict big name titles might have an additional fee on top, like buying a new movie on Amazon Prime Video. 

Good news? It depends on where you’re coming from. 

For gamers, there are a number of hurdles. Phil Harrison, Google’s man in charge of Stadia, told me his team's tests managed 4K gaming on download speeds of “around 25mbps”. 

For context, Microsoft currently suggests a minimum of just 3mbps to play “traditional” games online. And the difference between getting 3mbps and 25mbps? Hundreds of dollars a year in payments to your internet service provider. 

Or, the difference could be not being able to play at all - 25mbps is more than double the average connection speed across the US, according to research commissioned and part-funded by, er, Google. 

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES Image captionGoogle's immense network infrastructure could see it succeed at games streaming where others have fallen short

Mr Harrison did say he's confident the technology will improve so as to allow play at lower speeds, but that's definitely not a promise.

So - good news games companies, then? History offers a mixed picture. 

The big fear will be in succumbing to what has happened to the music industry. Streaming has meant royalty payments have been squeezed so dramatically, even elite musicians can struggle to make a living through record sales. (It's not the stars worst hit, it's worth noting, but the trumpet players to the stars, and so on) 

In the TV/movie business, the deep pockets of Netflix et al have meant studios seem more flush than ever, but you wonder how long that can continue. The $15bn Netflix is planning to spend on new content this year is considered by most investors to be wholly untenable. 

So that leaves Google, and for Google it is undoubtedly a good move. Without any existing skin in the game of gaming platforms, there is little to lose and everything to gain. Google sees YouTube, where billions of hours of gaming have been uploaded, as just one half of a very lucrative puzzle. Stadia (it hopes) will make up the rest. 

‘Microtransactions inevitable'

A bigger question, though, might be how the games themselves may have to change in order to accommodate a new business model if streaming becomes the dominant way consumers access their games. 

It might leave publishers bereft of a huge income stream, instead scrapping - with the rest of the industry - for a slice of those $15-30-a-months. 

For big publishers, massive reach, and exclusivity deals, might make the numbers just about add up. And for tiny indie developers, with one or two people, that might work well: a huge audience a button click away. 

Media captionWATCH: Google's Phil Harrison on whether people will need to pay for high-speed internet.
 

But to me, the model shows signs it could leave a very exposed middle ground of medium-sized games makers, whose costs are too high to be offset by the amount of players the title will attract. With many of the most creative ideas coming via these nimble-yet-powerful studios, I worry what an even tougher business model might do. 

Now, the wild success and profitability of free-to-play Fortnite, which offers cosmetic upgrades for a fee, shows games makers can make astronomical amounts of money without an upfront cost or overly-intrusive in-game monetisation. But how many Fortnite-esque successes can the market sustain? Two? Three? 

If it does indeed go for a subscription model, Google has some important decisions to make about how will dish money out to publishers. 

On YouTube, one of the stats that determines how much ad revenue creators get is "minutes watched”. In gaming, "minutes played” could lead to some developers introducing gameplay mechanics that are counter-intuitive to a good time, but vital if they are to gain income. 

Or, developers might have to make up the loss of funds by encouraging players to pay for additional items to progress more quickly, in a far more aggressive manner than console gamers are used to today. 

The ad-laden, endorphin-pumping, lootbox-peddling mobile gaming industry might be considered the canary in a very miserable coal-mine, here. Paying for a games console, and its games, may not be such a bad thing after all.

[Innovindil]

People are comparing this to the rise of tv/movie/music streaming, when I think there are fundamental differences. It's a good idea I think, but it will all come down to whether people are willing to commit to a monthly subscription for games, every gamer has had periods where they've not purchased a new game for a few months because they are obsessed with one game or there hasn't been anything appealing released surely?

 

I love netflix, but they've spent billions on original shows to bring to the service, other than that they have to wait ages to bring the higher tier movies/shows to it, are google really going to spend the mass amounts of money needed to get enough premium games on their service to make it worth the money? Netflix started up in a fairly empty market, are google going to be able to go against sony/microsoft/steam and make a dent?

 

Like the article says, it could become a great platform for indie developers, but I'm skeptical that it will become anything more than that, at least for a good few years.

[Beliall]

Too early. the future of gaming, sure. but our internet infrastructure isnt good enough right now and with US data caps its impractical 

[Carl the Llama]

Yep, way too early. My wifi regularly gives up on even loading the comments below youtube videos sometimes.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yep, way too early. My wifi regularly gives up on even loading the comments below youtube videos sometimes.

 

That's because it's read them first.

[danny2997]

Been quite a few attempts at this very thing already, all of which have failed. I'm not sure the gaming scene has evolved enough for this to end up being any different to the other attempts.

[Zear0]

I'm really fascinated to try this as I'm convinced this is the future of more than just gaming

. I think the BBC did a poor job articulating the key points of Stadia as its value isn't the "Netflix-esque" games library, it's the removal of the requirement of hardware from the home.

 

Datacenter based hardware processing is far more efficient as the noise, thermals, size and power issues domestic consoles have to consider are consigned to the bin. Also, when games are released requiring a bit more grunt, gone are the days of updating to a new console for £500 a time. I got to try Oddysey when I was working in American on project stream and its very very smooth to play and given they've stated it'll be improved further, I'm excited. 

 

Also, no more game installs or updates ever again as the software is on the server side! They also explained that hosting these things server side means that the multiplayer aspect of games can be scaled up massively. 1000 player PUBG anyone? Also, no cheating if the games are run on a server and not locally, like good old fashioned MMORPGs. 

 

Microsoft are probably launching this exact same thing in a few weeks so it'll be interesting to see what they can offer that Google can't (ie xbox back catalogue). Whilst it looks flashy, it has to work and I'm hoping it works as promised as this is potentially a massive change in gaming. #PrayItAin'tS**te

[Manwell Pablo]

3 hours ago, Zear0 said:

I'm really fascinated to try this as I'm convinced this is the future of more than just gaming

. I think the BBC did a poor job articulating the key points of Stadia as its value isn't the "Netflix-esque" games library, it's the removal of the requirement of hardware from the home.

 

Datacenter based hardware processing is far more efficient as the noise, thermals, size and power issues domestic consoles have to consider are consigned to the bin. Also, when games are released requiring a bit more grunt, gone are the days of updating to a new console for £500 a time. I got to try Oddysey when I was working in American on project stream and its very very smooth to play and given they've stated it'll be improved further, I'm excited. 

 

Also, no more game installs or updates ever again as the software is on the server side! They also explained that hosting these things server side means that the multiplayer aspect of games can be scaled up massively. 1000 player PUBG anyone? Also, no cheating if the games are run on a server and not locally, like good old fashioned MMORPGs. 

 

Microsoft are probably launching this exact same thing in a few weeks so it'll be interesting to see what they can offer that Google can't (ie xbox back catalogue). Whilst it looks flashy, it has to work and I'm hoping it works as promised as this is potentially a massive change in gaming. #PrayItAin'tS**te

 

This is all good, however a streaming service is only as good as the games in it can provide and that is my major hang up.

 

No PS, Xbox, or Nintendo exclusive games will be available I presume (and with exception of the Xbox this is were some of the very best titles can be found) and I am not convinced a great deal of publishers will be committing games to a subscription service if it costs them money. Especially new ones, not without a fee at least, which makes you ask what's the point in a subscription service if you have to pay for new games.

 

It's like Game Pass in it's current state. It's good for what it is but if I want to play new games it's useless, which I do, so it's redundant bar a few months a year when a decent Xbox exclusive is released.  

Edited 22 March 2019 by Manwell Pablo

[Zear0]

4 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

This is all good, however a streaming service is only as good as the games in it can provide and that is my major hang up.

 

No PS, Xbox, or Nintendo exclusive games will be available I presume (and with exception of the Xbox this is were some of the very best titles can be found) and I am not convinced a great deal of publishers will be committing games to a subscription service if it costs them money. Especially new ones, not without a fee at least, which makes you ask what's the point in a subscription service if you have to pay for new games.

 

It's like Game Pass in it's current state. It's good for what it is but if I want to play new games it's useless, which I do, so it's redundant bar a few months a year when a decent Xbox exclusive is released.  

Agreed.  Be interesting to see whether they pitch it as "the console alternative" or a complete package.  Having Odyssey ported shows Ubisoft are at least on board.  During the presentation that id (Bethesda) did, they said they ported over Doom in a matter of weeks so hopefully it's not too much of a burden.  Can't see developers handing over titles to a subscription service, maybe more of an Amazon Prime with a subscription and then additional paid for content.  It's an interesting year ahead regardless.

 

Also it seems to be a service which actually suits most of the big players.  If Microsoft are slowly moving to a similar system, that leaves Sony with a bigger share of the home console market and Nintendo firmly with the portables.  Can see each of the companies being reasonably happy to keep their respective markets.

[Trav Le Bleu]

On 20/03/2019 at 21:04, Innovindil said:

People are comparing this to the rise of tv/movie/music streaming, when I think there are fundamental differences. It's a good idea I think, but it will all come down to whether people are willing to commit to a monthly subscription for games, every gamer has had periods where they've not purchased a new game for a few months because they are obsessed with one game or there hasn't been anything appealing released surely?

 

I love netflix, but they've spent billions on original shows to bring to the service, other than that they have to wait ages to bring the higher tier movies/shows to it, are google really going to spend the mass amounts of money needed to get enough premium games on their service to make it worth the money? Netflix started up in a fairly empty market, are google going to be able to go against sony/microsoft/steam and make a dent?

 

Like the article says, it could become a great platform for indie developers, but I'm skeptical that it will become anything more than that, at least for a good few years.

I think the fundamental difference is tv/movies/music are all passive, you sit back and they happen to you; whereas playing a video game is active and you happen to it and as you say, often for a long period of time. Aside from minor indie games, I can't remember the last time I bought two games in one month. I usually play sprawling open-world games, which as you say, get you involved for 2-3 months, excluding any other games.

[AS78UK]

If I was working at Game, I would seriously start looking for a new job soon. Going to be the next Blockbuster in 5 years time unfortunately. 

 Be interesting to see what Nitendo, Microsoft and Sony do next. 

[somebum]

Will only have very limited success. Sounds like the wet dream of some idealist.

[lcfcrinaldi]

Would be great, but as previously mentioned, there's just not the internet infrastructure there for it to be rolled out to the masses.

Never know, could be a Nintendo Switch in the waiting though.

[Dahnsouff]

Absolutely not - far too early. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

Not quite the same thing, but this video by Accursed Farms makes some very good points, as always. It is long though. TL;DW

 

 

[Zear0]

So it's either 9.99p/m or you buy the games outright. Launch titles look pretty good too. FM2020 seems the ideal game for this where fps doesn't matter.

 

I've got the pre-order as I'm a compulsive buyer, hope it's not s**t! 

 

Launch games

 

Edited formatting

 

 

Edited 7 June 2019 by Zear0

[Uranyl Yellow]

The idea of hardware-independence is attractive - as somebody that plays exclusively on a PC, there are a number of console titles that I wouldn't mind trying out but wouldn't want to buy the hardware just to do so. As to it being too early - I'm not sure I agree. There is a significant percentage of the population that do have the required speeds to support it (though some of those may be capped, or at least throttled), but I think there are enough people to make it viable providing of course the service works as advertised. The concern for me is what happens to those who don't have the connection speed - will there be an offline mode where you have the option of downloading a title to play on your own hardware. If not, then this makes me somewhat uneasy.

[Ricey]

5 hours ago, Zear0 said:

So it's either 9.99p/m or you buy the games outright. Launch titles look pretty good too. FM2020 seems the ideal game for this where fps doesn't matter.

 

I've got the pre-order as I'm a compulsive buyer, hope it's not s**t! 

 

Launch games

 

Edited formatting

 

 

You still need to buy must games outright even if you are on the Pro £8.99 a month package, that just gives you 4k, HDR and exclusive discounts...whatever they are.

[Ricey]

I haven't used it yet, but from speaking to people who have I've only heard good things about the performance and frame rate.

[Adster]

On 07/06/2019 at 14:29, Ricey said:

You still need to buy must games outright even if you are on the Pro £8.99 a month package, that just gives you 4k, HDR and exclusive discounts...whatever they are.

It's completely stupid that some games are  included in the subscription and some aren't. Completely defies the point of a subscription model. 

[stripeyfox]

On 07/06/2019 at 12:30, Ricey said:

I haven't used it yet, but from speaking to people who have I've only heard good things about the performance and frame rate.

I see that FM2020 is going to be on Stadia which is what has caught my attention Ricey. 

 

Presume this means that I could log in from any machine and pick up my game, as well as the performance enhancements being a given?

 

[Ricey]

3 hours ago, stripeyfox said:

I see that FM2020 is going to be on Stadia which is what has caught my attention Ricey. 

 

Presume this means that I could log in from any machine and pick up my game, as well as the performance enhancements being a given?

 

Correct 🙂

[HankMarvin]

6 hours ago, stripeyfox said:

I see that FM2020 is going to be on Stadia which is what has caught my attention Ricey. 

 

Presume this means that I could log in from any machine and pick up my game, as well as the performance enhancements being a given?

 

No modding kits and badges etc though

[stripeyfox]

9 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

No modding kits and badges etc though

Yeah, that would be a shame but I could probably live with it. It would be better imo if I had to live withough badges, logos and facepacks etc that the skin didn't include the made up ones or blanks. If the club badge wasn't there at all, I wouldn't miss it but having the "made up" one makes you miss the real one more!
 

[Zear0]

I saw there was a new thread on this, but seemed to recall we had one going already, hopefully we can get a merge!

 

So being a bit sick in the head, and obsessed with all things tech I got this immediately just out of curiosity.  Got my code through email a few hours ago and have been mucking about and have some early impressions.

 

The first thing I did was jump into Destiny 2 which is "free" with Stadia Pro.  I play this game loads on PC so it seemed like a perfect comparison.  It was pretty impressive to just pick a game and play immediately with no installations, but the load times between missions is about the same as on PC.  Picture quality is fine if not spectacular,  I play on a 1440p 165Hz monitor, but the picture i'm seeing is worse with regards to resolution than on my gaming PC.  Noting this is meant to be 4k, i'd expect the resolution to be equivalent to my gaming PC so this is slightly disappointing.  Graphics quality on Stadia is lower than what i'm used to, but I don't feel I can offer a fair comparison as I run a 2080ti/9900k which is significantly better than what they promised.  As for the input lag, I have to say I am impressed.  Whilst there is some input lag I can't say it's noticeable or detracting from the gaming experience.  I had Destiny 2 on Xbox when it was released and the 60Hz gaming on PC is better than the 30Hz gaming experience on consoles.  I've been playing PVP as I thought this the best test for it and as I've already mentioned, this is definitely playable.  The Stadia controller gets delivered tomorrow and this is, allegedly, going to reduce input lag further still so i'm curious to test further.  They've also throttled the non-Chromecast version so hopefully the 4K HDR picture addresses my earlier gripe regarding picture quality as i'm playing through Chrome atm.  Also, out of boredom, I signed into this at work and it worked absolutely fine.  Not that I condone such things, but it was a functional test :).  Also, Football Manager 2020 on this was a bit of a draw noting I work away from home a lot, playing it through the browser on a tablet is pretty decent.

 

Is this equivalent to my experience on a gaming PC, f**k no, but it's acceptable.  Whilst to the hardcore and committed gamer this is a lesser experience, given the amount of people who play Fortnite and PUBG on mobiles there is a market (and a big one) for this.  This won't replace my PC gaming as it's a poorer product, but I am impressed at the tech.  There is however, clearly significant room for improvement.  The in-store prices are equivalent to the xbox marketplace/PS store which are about 20 quid more than on Amazon which is an utter joke.  That really needs to be sorted as for people like myself, that price is a significant detraction and is a significant issue.

 

I'm under no illusion, this is a paid beta test.  Later next year they're putting the free service up which is the only model that makes sense to me with a product hat on.  Curious to see if any other bored people got this as an experiment?  I'll feedback more once I've dabbled further.