That worked, but I was still only able to donate up to the new campaign amount which seemed rather low?
|OT| Stadia Connect (June 6th, 2019) | 28.8 bps modem not required
- Thread starter Jawmuncher
- Start date
yeah, that's the idea
we don't need more than we absolutely have to pay for all the stuff ... it's a community project, none of us are here to make money, lolnope, nothing
Nope.
They basically said we don’t need to buy anything and then tried to sell us things we don’t need to buy.
If you have a modern smartphone or tablet you probably already own Stadia. No need to buy anything.
Not really, just 4k 60fps if you have at least 38mbps. Nothing that really requires processing beyond a top end PC like 1000 player instances etc...
Of course, just don't want to be too frugal during E3 month.yeah, that's the idea
Of course, just don't want to be too frugal during E3 month.
nah ... we should be good on the $20 one
Wonder how many parallel gaming projects Google will make, and how long they'll keep supporting them. They had like 5 different chat apps/services working at the same time, so 3 gaming platforms doesn't sound too crazy for them.
Wait, we aren't?yeah, that's the idea
*runs away*
lol
good news xinek, bobnowhere, Koz, and everyone else - we're already on the higher plan ... the website should work a bit snappier from now on ... and hopefully it won't completely die when we do the next chat 
Part of me is interested in the new tech and wants to dip for the Founder's Pack.
But on the other hand I'd be paying 129€ for controller and name reservation, since the "Stadia Pro" is whole lot of nothing at this moment as you still have to buy the games even if you have Pro.
But on the other hand I'd be paying 129€ for controller and name reservation, since the "Stadia Pro" is whole lot of nothing at this moment as you still have to buy the games even if you have Pro.
Just to clarify, since I don't totally get what I'm reading on other sites:
I have to pay for the streaming service, and then pay to buy a license for the game I want to stream?
Is that really what they showed? Because why the hell would I pay for that? PS Now or Xbox Game Pass sound like a way better deal in comparison.
I have to pay for the streaming service, and then pay to buy a license for the game I want to stream?
Is that really what they showed? Because why the hell would I pay for that? PS Now or Xbox Game Pass sound like a way better deal in comparison.
if you want to stream it at 4k - yes
apparently there will be a "free" version that will only stream at 1080p (but you still have to buy some of those new games)
You buy the games individually and then after that you either use the basic free service to play them with 1080p streaming and nothing else beyond that or pay for the Pro subscription with the given fee and therefor enable 4k streaming and offers like free games and special Pro only discounts a la PSN/XBL.
Makes sense to me, I don't see how anyone expected this to be like Netflix and give access to every game on the service ever, especially if they want to make it a service like a streaming Steam with all the latest and greatest games. I'm sure the Pro subscription will increase its bonuses over time, give away older games that don't sell much individually and what not just like the current subscription services tend to exclude the latest/biggest games outside a few to attract folks with and otherwise largely only offer lesser and older games for the most part. Stadia isn't old enough to have older games, heh.
If it works I could maybe use it during a transitional period before I upgrade my PC for a few specific games. Like if it existed I'd have probably played something like The Witcher 2 through that and stall my upgrade/not suffer through shit performance. Seems like an okay option to me for people to play (tweaked, I imagine console commands and graphics options etc are disabled) PC games without having a gaming PC if they get a good library going.
Of course exclusives would suck, I'd only want this to remain an option rather than lock any games behind it. At least it keeps a semblance of ownership when you buy the games individually and they guarantee you can play them any time forever (well, for as long as the service exists) similar to Steam games (except those that are DRM-free or playable in offline mode which you do keep forever as long as you backed them up, which Stadia can't ever offer, haha).
Last edited:
That is dumb as hell.
Other than the "free" option (I guess), Game Pass and Now still sound like relatively better deals. Plus they have the bonus of not being associated with Google.
Excuse me, what?
With the prevalence of data caps in the USA, this thing would be DOA. I guess Google will just get around it and sweet-talk the ISPs into giving them some kind of special promo deals for Stadia data like Netflix data and such?
Deep down, I want to think this is all a big joke.
I mean, I'd love it if Steam offered the same ability some day, if streaming takes off they could try to keep up. Stream all your games on any device rather than download them specifically on your gaming PC (or only stream locally from one device to another like you already can). As long as it was another delivery option rather than the only way to play. Suddenly my brother would be able to play all my games with family sharing, not just those his crappy laptop can handle. And I'd be able to do the same even if I wasn't home but using some shitty notebook during a trip. Such a service is not a joke and seems like something that would be rad to have in the future as long as it doesn't mean your games are locked behind an internet service. But it's not inherently bad that google is doing it online only either, it's only what's natural for google to do and is not for most here but there are use case scenarios. I don't get the hate. We'll see.
Last edited:
I think they missed the right target to launch the service, they should have gone the Wii way, casual first and then expand it to the hardcore crowd. Launching Stadia with the hardcore gaming audience in mind is a big bet I’m pretty sure they’ll lose.
We know games will have to be purchased and, since they didn’t boast about cheap prices, I assume they’ll be full price so, a person who usually buys games, is historically hardware-based and knows how to move in the market will have these choices in front of them: cheaper games through key resellers on Steam, presumably cheaper console games through physical releases, chance of DRM-Free version on GOG, possibly GamePass and full price 60 bucks game on Stadia streaming service. This without even considering the possibility that the MS cloud service might include both streaming and digital Xbox/win local copy for every game you buy when it launches, which is something Microsoft can and probably will do in order the gain traction and push people to try the service without having to choose.
I have a hard time believing that, after the initial tinkering just to see how this new supposedly big thing works, the aforementioned experienced user will ditch all other more convenient and familiar stuff for Stadia. And knowing Google, they might ditch everything if they don’t like the first year or so.
If they went for the casual crowd first, which isn’t familiar with hardware, storefronts or gaming in general, they might actually have supported the idea and made Stadia an actual big player in the gaming market, for later expansion towards the hardcore audience.
We know games will have to be purchased and, since they didn’t boast about cheap prices, I assume they’ll be full price so, a person who usually buys games, is historically hardware-based and knows how to move in the market will have these choices in front of them: cheaper games through key resellers on Steam, presumably cheaper console games through physical releases, chance of DRM-Free version on GOG, possibly GamePass and full price 60 bucks game on Stadia streaming service. This without even considering the possibility that the MS cloud service might include both streaming and digital Xbox/win local copy for every game you buy when it launches, which is something Microsoft can and probably will do in order the gain traction and push people to try the service without having to choose.
I have a hard time believing that, after the initial tinkering just to see how this new supposedly big thing works, the aforementioned experienced user will ditch all other more convenient and familiar stuff for Stadia. And knowing Google, they might ditch everything if they don’t like the first year or so.
If they went for the casual crowd first, which isn’t familiar with hardware, storefronts or gaming in general, they might actually have supported the idea and made Stadia an actual big player in the gaming market, for later expansion towards the hardcore audience.
It could have worked as a Netflix like streaming service and not fucking OnLive 2.
There is no target demographic for this it's completely awful. We allrdy have better services with Game Pass, Origin Access even PSNow which allows downloading of games now on PS4 (and offers much more content as a streaming service) Stadia can't even begin to compete with them. Nvidia's streaming service is much better as well since i can play whatever i want on it.
There is no target demographic for this it's completely awful. We allrdy have better services with Game Pass, Origin Access even PSNow which allows downloading of games now on PS4 (and offers much more content as a streaming service) Stadia can't even begin to compete with them. Nvidia's streaming service is much better as well since i can play whatever i want on it.
I'm kind of interested in how this will pan out, but I'm not interested in using it. Even if my internet weren't too shit for it, I'd still prefer having the games on my machine to mod and customize and speed-hack and etc.
I don't think that's true at all.
In a years time you're going to see Stadia boxes for, what, $100 (regular chromecast + controller) going head to head with a, what, $500? PS5 and neXtBox with basically all the same games outside of exclusives, and with no crappy 'pay us more to play online' subscription on top of that.
The games won't look any worse than they do on the much more expensive boxes.
Yeah, the games are digital only and online only, but they're also "click to buy -> instantly play".
None of this preloading bollocks, or download, install, patch is available restart this game, quit, download, install cycle nonsense modern consoles have.
You're also not looking at any 'yeah, thats great you own a console already, but now buy CONSOLE PLUS to play your games like they're meant to be played!" 2-3 years down the line bullshit; all the games they provide are going to be maxed out settings on whatever their VM is scaled to support, and as they periodically upgrade their data centres, every game you own gets a 'free HD upgrade!' without you needing to do anything, or pay anything.
I mean, if you think average joe shmoe thinks the PS4 / X1 console generation is a big thumbsup "This is how gaming should be!" with all its worst things about PC gaming and almost none of the good things, then maybe you don't see how there's an audience for a box that actually fulfills the original console promise of a box you plug in a TV, and it just f'ing works, you select a game and you're instantly playing it, and it has really nice graphics for how cheap it is.
Last edited:
You don't know that and that's not what ppl who actually tried the service reported, it's impressive for streaming yes but it can't really compete with the same game running locally on pc/consoles. Some people seem to expect miracles from this and it won't happen.
Its a compromised box that offers cheapness + convenience as a selling point to offset the disadvantages.
Guess what? Thats what consoles are.
that gif is some fanboy wishful thinking tbh
Guess what? Thats what consoles are.
that gif is some fanboy wishful thinking tbh
I considered doing the founder thing, since trying out the service and getting the hardware seems like a decent deal for the price. However, with my Comcrap data cap, there's pretty much no way streaming at 4k is going to be realistic. I'm already halfway to the cap every month. I hope Google and other companies that want to promote game streaming are planning to pressure ISPs to shitcan those idiotic caps for good.
I have like 500gb of data each month with rollover. However, I don’t hit the 35mbps. I’m paying for 25 and have no desire to pay more.
I’m impressed with the WiFi controller. Maybe someone will hack it so it works on LAN. Imagine using Steam Link across several devices and not having to pair the controller each time?
But streaming sucks other than that. Google wants to have a Big Data solution to video games, but I always remember what Gabe Newell said about streaming services being a victim of their own success, and if Stadia takes off I think this’ll ring true.
Imagine having to wait in a queue to play a game because peak hours have surpassed the capacity Google is willing to spend on servers?
Streaming, to me, feels like a feature and not a platform.
But streaming sucks other than that. Google wants to have a Big Data solution to video games, but I always remember what Gabe Newell said about streaming services being a victim of their own success, and if Stadia takes off I think this’ll ring true.
Imagine having to wait in a queue to play a game because peak hours have surpassed the capacity Google is willing to spend on servers?
Streaming, to me, feels like a feature and not a platform.
The only mitigating thing about Google's servers is that they (along with Microsoft) are trying to push the tech forward in environmentally friendly and sustainable ways (i.e., underwater and seawater cooled data centers). Which means, theoretically, if they polish the tech up, their servers should be pretty hugely scalable.
I mean, this is where Google are somewhat uniquely placed to be able to offer this; they have elements of their business that benefit from both GPUs and CPUs, and Stadia servers are using standard PC server architectures (in contrast to MSs offering, which are using actual Xbox hardware server blades, and are never going to be any good at doing anything an Xbox cannot do). If they have redundant GPU time on servers, those can be used for hardware accelerated Youtube upload converting, or image processing machine learning tasks. If they have redundant CPU time on servers that can be used for their traditional server tasks.
A company setting up to provide a game streaming service and only a game streaming service, is definitely going to hit capacity and scalability problems much sooner than a company that has a necessity for lots of servers all of the time anyway, and scales accordingly.
Thats not to say that that pro sub might not end up being a priority user queue skip pass if oversubscription occurs; I just don't think Google of all people are going to be using 'Just in time' scaling for fears of having redundant server capacity going unused; there's plenty of stuff they run that can always make use of any servers not actively hosting games.
They lost all the good will when people realized that the graphical settings werent better than a current console. People were expecting 2080 TI, 4K, 60 fps to make this worthwhile despite the inherent lag.
