Google Stadia launches with 22 games tomorrow

[HEXUS]

Cloud gaming service boosted in last minute - only 12 games were going to be available.

Read more.

[KultiVator]

Bit suspect that Doom is missing from the launch lineup... as several beta-testers found that Doom's fast fluid action wasn't a great fit for Google Stadia, resulting in poor video quality (tonnes of compression artefacts).

So buyer beware that many of the launch titles are of the slower-paced variety and may be hiding some of the limitations of the tech.

[Cypher0]

Still not sure who Google is even aiming this at. Hardcore gamers will already have their PC/Console, plus have played the games already and aren't going to spend full price to buy them again. Casual gamers are going to look at the $70 pad + $10 a month then have to purchase all the games as a major cost issue. Either google need to make the service entirely free with you just purchasing what you want to play or pay single monthly fee to get access to a LARGE catalogue of games (a la Xbox GamePass).

[Spud1]

and.... nobody cares

Google just got this wrong - its expensive, beta testers have shown that the quality is highly variable (particularly with fast moving games) and they totally ignored the subscription/gaming as a service type approach that could have made them a fortune.

The intention is good, and someone is going to making game streaming work as a business model - but I don't think Stadia is the product to do it.

All of that said, very much like with Chromebooks/Chrome OS (which are damn near pointless products in a world where we have iOS, MacOS, Windows & Android) I think Google are playing the long game here. The money for Google isn't in providing the Stadia hwardware, or in margins on very over priced game licences...it's in providing the infrastructure and tooling for someone else to make it work in the future.

If they can sell the idea and the platform, and then you get say EA jumping into it and starting to resell on the subscription side of things (e.g. moving Origin Premier to support streaming)...they could make a fortune.

Dangerous move though, they really do risk alienating the gaming public through a poor quality service, just as OnLive did in the mid 2000s, and killing off the tech for another 5 years. I guess we'll see.

[Skyflier]

This will be interesting to see how it goes. Although i think Google overestimate the quality of peoples internet connections and i think the hardware industry will have something to say in unlikey event it should take off.

[Hoonigan]

and.... nobody cares

You're wrong there. I care. I think this is really interesting and can't wait to see where it goes.

[EvilCycle]

Cypher, that is already how it works. The £10 p/m is to access the games, they will be offering an alternative plan in the future that costs £0 p/m but obviously on that plan games have to be purchased instead. I personally think the pricing is OK if you look at it as an alternative to PS+ or Xbox gold/game pass, far less initial upfront cost for the console and the more expensive subscription cost is covered by not having to purchase titles. What really begs the question however is how well this all works and what kind of game support we will see moving beyond the initial launch and honeymoon period, if fast paced games are a no-go then so is Stadia as a whole.

[Spud1]

Cypher, that is already how it works. The £10 p/m is to access the games, they will be offering an alternative plan in the future that costs £0 p/m but obviously on that plan games have to be purchased instead. I personally think the pricing is OK if you look at it as an alternative to PS+ or Xbox gold/game pass, far less initial upfront cost for the console and the more expensive subscription cost is covered by not having to purchase titles.

Sorry but no, that's not how it works....

Its £10p/m to access the stadia service and what will eventually be a library of "free" (if you pay the sub, so not really free) games.

At launch, that is ONLY Destiny 2, and more will be added "in the future". Most games you will need to buy and pay near enough full price for (that's ALL the games at launch excluding Destiny 2) - pricing has already been confirmed as the same as retail on other platforms, so £40-£60...you will get a discount off that if you subscribe (i've not seen the % confirmed yet). They have also come out and stated that this is not going to be netflxi for games, or like gamepass - its very different.

@Hoonigan - fair enough, I too an interested in a way to see how it goes, but its not something I am even tempted to buy and its certainly not a platform I want to support. We don't need yet another closed loop system selling games on an exclusive basis. They had many potential options to launch it as a new tech platform that would get everyone on board - but their closed, walled garden approach, and the fact you have to buy the games and can only use them on that service is just a huge turn off.

[Ttaskmaster]

Yeah, but they have an excvlusive, so are probably just another evil Epic in Google clothing.

[KultiVator]

I don't get all the 'Epic are evil' rhetoric... sure they've started a store and have some exclusives which some people feel butt-hurt about.

But for many years (at least as far back as 1999's superb "Unreal Tournament"), Epic have championed free updates, free map-packs and extending the life of their most popular games, all without charging their fans a penny.

They don't strike me as being the most cash-grabby of companies and even their big cash-cow, Fortnite, doesn't milk players for cash.

[Hicks12]

Sorry but no, that's not how it works....

Its £10p/m to access the stadia service and what will eventually be a library of "free" (if you pay the sub, so not really free) games.

At launch, that is ONLY Destiny 2, and more will be added "in the future". Most games you will need to buy and pay near enough full price for (that's ALL the games at launch excluding Destiny 2) - pricing has already been confirmed as the same as retail on other platforms, so £40-£60...you will get a discount off that if you subscribe (i've not seen the % confirmed yet). They have also come out and stated that this is not going to be netflxi for games, or like gamepass - its very different.

@Hoonigan - fair enough, I too an interested in a way to see how it goes, but its not something I am even tempted to buy and its certainly not a platform I want to support. We don't need yet another closed loop system selling games on an exclusive basis. They had many potential options to launch it as a new tech platform that would get everyone on board - but their closed, walled garden approach, and the fact you have to buy the games and can only use them on that service is just a huge turn off.

Its free per month for 1080p 60fps, the fee is for the 4k version with HDR I believe, the free tier is definitely solid from a technical stand point!

Its not that huge for me but guys in work are all getting it and they arent PC gamers so in a way its huge for PC as it means more games use Vulkan and work on linux and there are more 'pc' players so we get more people and better optimised games, win win really.

[Spud1]

It's only going to be "free" for access to the service - not the library of games (which is currently just Destiny 2...). You'd still need to buy the games at full price (not even a discount in that case..)

I don't get all the 'Epic are evil' rhetoric... sure they've started a store and have some exclusives which some people feel butt-hurt about.

But for many years (at least as far back as 1999's superb "Unreal Tournament"), Epic have championed free updates, free map-packs and extending the life of their most popular games, all without charging their fans a penny.

They don't strike me as being the most cash-grabby of companies and even their big cash-cow, Fortnite, doesn't milk players for cash.

Really simple:

Epic are buying up exclusives that were previously announced as being available on other platforms
This restricts consumer choice, and reduces competition in the marketplace (you now only have one shop to buy your game from if you want to play it)
This also keeps prices artificially high, as without competition, there is zero incentive for epic to offer good prices to consumers
This then also fragments the marketplace - you now have yet another "silo" of games that can only be played from a single storefront
There are also serious questions about Epic's security practices and the sheer lack of functionality & benefit they offer.

What they are doing is bad for the industry, bad for gamers, but good for them as they make more money.

Like you, I had a really good opinion of Epic games previously - really enjoyed their early games and how bought in they seemed to be to the lack of F2P and lack of DLC....but that has changed significantly. Around the time that a certain predatory company (tencent) who is well known for highly problematic practices decided to buy up 40% of the company. Not that i'd want to imply any relationship.

edit: also "fortnite doesn't milk players for cash" <-really? It's setup to milk every player for as much as they can get. All credit to them for that though they did a good job getting kids hooked on it

[Scryder]

Wow, this is a service I see having a long and bright future ahead.

The fact that I have a relatively decent internet connection, but still get lag every once in a while when streaming at videos at HD, I don't see this being viable for gaming personally. Plus the launch lineup is mediocre at best (just my opinion!). This video pretty much sums up my thoughts on Stadia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgF3BuKZWAI

I personally don't see streaming as the future of gaming... but I've been wrong before.