Google just announced Stadia, its new streaming platform for playing video games. In a lot of ways, this could be our first real look at a next-gen console -- except it's not actually a console. The gist of it is that with Stadia, you'll be able to play full games, like Assassin's Creed Odyssey, immediately through the power of streaming, on any Google-supported device at any time, as long as you have an internet connection. It's pretty much what a lot of people were expecting, but make no mistake: Stadia could end up being a direct PlayStation competitor.
It's been a long, long time since a company anywhere near as big as Google entered the video games market in such a way. Microsoft was the last to do it successfully with the original Xbox, and with Stadia set to launch this year, we're looking at an exciting time for the industry as a whole.
Google's showing was impressive, there's no doubt about that, but much of it felt hypothetical. The company certainly talked the talk, but right now, in 2019, it's difficult to say whether Stadia will meet the high standards presented on stage. Google went on and on about high resolutions, frame rates, and the limitless power of the cloud (where have we heard that one before?), but ultimately, streaming is streaming. A lot of Stadia's success is going to rely upon stable, fast internet connections, and that's something that a lot of people still don't have access to.
Sony will be taking a long, hard look at Stadia. If Google can pull it off, its introduction and potential evolution could change the gaming sphere as we know it, but at the moment, especially without any pricing details, that's a big if.
Game changers if it works, and what I mean if it works is, if the models works for everyone, like:
1. Consumers, will it be subs permonth like netflix or buy pergame like on console.
2. Developers, what types of games can devs makes if consumers pays the service with subs vs bought the games.
3. Tech, can normal internet play stadia like in the google demo (which I'm sure demoed with google fiber).
4. ISP, how many GB of data does streaming 100+ hours 4k & 60 fps high graphics games like assassin creed used vs downloading and playing the game forever offline, people with data cap can't use stadia.
5. Value, does it worth paying for more expensive data plan permonth to play 4k & 60 fps games vs buying console every 3 years.
6. Support, I think this is the big one, will game devs support this platform, or will google abandon this project the first time there's problem with it. I'm 99,9% sure if google makes playstation, it will abandon it on ps3 era lol.
7. The (exclusive) games, if psnow, xcloud, and stadia all have 3rd party games like assassin creed, why choose one over the others? The answer is to play 1st party games, sony has the likes of tlou, god of war, and spider-man, microsoft has halo, gear, and forza, what does google have?
8. Google stance on gaming culture, I remember google ban youtuber because he punch npc woman on red dead 2 (google reversed the ban later), if the game is on stadia, will google remove the game too?
Also bonus link: https://killedbygoogle.com/
Excited for the future, but worried about poor UX due to unstable internet connection.
This ain’t it chief.
@wiiware Yup, that too. Google is not shy to killing projects when they don't provide fast return.
I thought it seemed more in direct competition with xbox than playstation at the moment since I have a feeling that Stadias livestream was basically the same as what Microsofts E3 is going to be like.
Since I know my internet with suck, my interest at this time is pretty low.
Ive Said it before Give people The opition to Use Physical Games and media on this and you might have a chance
This is the future, I think. They’ve got a helluva lot to prove before we get there, though.
The bullet point pitch is brilliant, however. I’m obsessed with this idea that you could link to a full game.
@Areus It’s not a console, so it’s not for physical media. It’s a new delivery mechanism — in very, very basic terms, AAA games in your web browser.
We’re still a decade away from having good enough internet for steaming games in a competitive setting.
@get2sammyb And it for that Very reason that most people won't Care For this
There is a lot of good ideas in this but most of it I really don’t care about. I’m just impressed with technology.
As for streaming only , I can barely watch Netflix so it’s a no from me. The option for downloading or physically owning a game is a must for me and always will be. I’ll be gutted if that ever ends.
Yeah, I don't think I'll ever have good enough internet to be able to stream a game in full 4k HDR with 60 fps.
Yea it's probably good stuff for streamers. I do like the controller but not those silly ABY buttons.
The day you need good Internet 24/7 to play single player games in not so cool though.
Oh and it's a silly name too
@Areus We’re probably a decade off, but just remember people said the same about Netflix and Spotify. Things change very quickly.
As long as you have the hardware to run the game itself, the concept of streaming sounds really silly.
Streaming also opens up the way to subscription models. Look at Netflix, 9 out of 10 things they produce is absolutely rubbish. If you have a fixed income revenue, it seems like high quality suddenly doesn't really matter anymore. I've even seen comments about games like Sea of Thieves and Crackdown 3 that were along the lines of; ''It's not that great, but for a Game Pass game it's pretty cool''. I have to wonder how this all is going to impact quality in the long term.
Anyway, as long as there's still the option to play it the ''old school'' way by just buying a game; preferably physical, I won't lose any sleep over this.
Now where did I leave my walking stick..?
Certainly sounds an ambitious project for future gaming. It'll be incredible if they can make it work and, most importantly, support it properly during the early years as I think this is going to be something that will take several years to develop into what they envisage. Sadly it’s not for me though, I’d much rather own (or more realistically long term rent in the case of digital downloads) a full complete game that I can play whenever I want and that will work even if no internet connection. I hope PlayStation will continue to put out high quality single player offline games for gaming dinosaurs like me! 🦖
Google will want to make profit, Paying for a streaming service could cost as much as buying a console + games over time. Dev's will want to make Profit. Even with out buying a console I don't think this will be a money saver. Will this be older games vs New $59.99 games? I will not give this a second thought unless it saves a lot money and has more games. I really don't care for old games and streaming. I want my console and new physical games. What would you need to pay for 10 new titles a year $599.90?
Im really worried about this. If streaming is the future of gaming what happens when my Internet drops? I still have issues with streaming Netflix never mind AAA quality online games. And i have no intention of paying for super fast broadband speeds every single month. I dont mind streaming games as AN option but not my ONLY option. Download needs to be available because the Internet can drop.
@get2sammyb And Netflix Still Offers Physical Media For those that want it
Right now all Google have is concepts and buzzwords with very little substance. Millions of people will still prefer physical or native media and if Google isn't going to provide that then they better deliver right out the gate.
@Shepherd_Tallon I think I'm on the same page. Is streaming the future? Yes. Is it the whole future? I'm not so sure.
I honestly think that by offering both traditional console hardware and viable streaming, a company like Sony could have a huge say next-gen, or next-next-gen. It may get to a point where people place huge value on just having the option of a more traditional console experience, especially those who don't have the means to stream games reliably.
Idk. I'm not sure it's good for devs either. It depends on how they sell I guess? Is it on play time? Also I feel the quality would be impacted.
Eeeeeeyup. Google might as well have premiered Stadia at Tokyo Game Show or something. In the west... streaming games at 4K? On a smartphone among other things? "Is this some kind of rich joke I'm too peasant to understand?"
It was especially hilarious as one article commented on the smartphone option as Nintendo Switch competitor except for "constant internet connection". Yes, that's the only difference between a Switch and a button-allergic device relying on bulky external gamepads and better being already equipped with a case that can prop the screen at some angle. 😂
It's like "4K" is the only Pavlovian stimulus media associate with video games now and the only one they need to hear about when you present a way to play.
The seemless change between phone and tv looks great. Might need to upgrade the old wifi. Key thing is content, I think that's were Sony and Nintendo will stay strong. No bad thing to have some extra competition in the market though.
Looks like a sleek and fast user experience so far, but I’d much rather see genuine footage instead of PR talk and controlled demos.
Would also be interested in what is actually required for their 4K 60 streaming. Seems like something you’d only be able to pull off in city areas, rather than rural (like down here..... in Cornwall). 25mb was for their 1080/60 streaming in the Project Cloud test, and although i doubt it scales linearly, the most obvious assumption is to put it at 4X those requirements (for 4K vs 1080p).
I ain’t getting anything close to 100mb for a while to say the least 😂
And that’s without mentioning input lag.
Can't say I'm super excited for a purely streaming platform so soon. It seems like an ok idea in theory, but it's gonna need a lot of work put into it.
Ask your doctor about Stadia. Side effects may include constipation, diarrhea, bloating, migraine headaches, suicidal thoughts and suicidal tendencies.
Yeah but can it play audio CDs though
I just did a speed check and I'm currently getting 7.01mb/s. I pay £15.99 and have no intention of paying more if i can help it. Don't see this being an option with my Internet speeds any time in the near future.
To stream full 4k for 1 hr is roughly 12-14 gigs of data streamed. Just some food for thought. Streaming only (in the states especially) wont be viable for a decade or more. If we were all Germany sized it would be different...
I really don't see this taking off. I could see Google killing it off, once the next-gen consoles come out smashing all kinds of records.
Better Yet Will you be able To play the Last of Us Part 2 and Death Stranding on this
Whilst it maybe OK for Single Player games, they really will need to drastically improve for competitive MP. There is too much latency and input lag currently...
I am NOT interested on a future of gaming in this way - even if they do manage to improve latency and lag - as well as the stable and high speed internet connection too...
Meh streaming sucks. Games run bad and with poor graphics and lag. And if servers are down you can't play too. It can never take place of playing offline joy of games ever. Google is stupid. Sony should shut down their garbage PS Now streaming service and focus on making more exclusives.
despite i don't have good internet also this is for specific country at first so it will take a while until it's available in my country, heck ps now and xbox game pass it's not available despite there here for many years now
and where is the games ??
only two or three games and all the talk about developer, ok how about the gamer , the real consumer who will make the money for you there no talk about this at all
so until all things is clear i will just watch
also what if i don't have internet connection for any reason that's mean no gaming at all and that's is awfully mistake to rely only on streaming
like wiiware said,why buy this thing for multiplat games that also come out on proper and proven gaming systems with better ways to play the game?
the answer would be exclusives but what company will risk making a game for only an unproven system,a system that can only stream games which is a very controversial concept among the gaming world? those exclusives could all be flops because of that.
this thing will get it's customers sure,but it will never be a sony rival in atleast the next generation.
the best case for this system would be that yes it has it customers and therefore keeps on existing in the sidelines behind sony,MS and nintendo but will slowly fade away like google plus.
the worst case is that this will flop from the start.
this could have been a success if it was done around 10 years from now and by either sony,MS or nintendo.
but now,it's too early to make a system that only streams games with no other way of playing them.
just a novelty system for a niche crowd.
Sounds like they will have a 1st party developer. If they produce something that interests me I might buy it but I’m certainly not going to be getting anything I could play locally.
Did they say stream or Steam? Sounded about the same. If I have the internet horsepower to play 60fps at 4K, then I'm guessing a Steam download would take mere minutes to accomplish. And then when all the neighbors are online after work surfing, streaming, and whatever else they do, I still have the game downloaded.
Onlive 2.0 no thanks roll on the PS5
@get2sammyb - the passive nature of netflix or spotify is very different from the requirements to play videogames this way. plus you can download from netflix and spotify to play videos/songs offline. it doesn't matter how big your bandwidth is, if your latency is >100ms to whatever the nearest datacentre is, the lag will make it practically unplayable, or at best a poor substitute for a local hardware/client. i had an on-live console (they gave away a boatload of them free at eurogamer 7 or 8 years ago) and the experience was just horrid - and that was with the datacentre located in luxembourg, which is about 30-40ms ping for me.
I really believe this will take off in a couple years time, if not sooner.
'Stadia' is a terrible name, though.
Horrible, horrible name.
A quick look at what they are offering suggests 1080p for most gamers with a 25mps connection which clearly isn't going to compete with PS4 PRO and Xbox One X not to mention that it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the next gen versions will be targeting 4K 60fps gaming anyway. It's an interesting time for gaming but I'm pretty certain I'll still be buying another console before using this, oh and how exactly do I even get this on my TV in the first place? I don't own a laptop or PC
Everyone got their panties on fire because they wanna play with MatPat. For me, it was a pretty uneventful keynote and so far I'm not impressed at all. We're a long way from having decent internet connection to everybody so gaming through streaming can be feasible and even if that wasn't an issue, I like owning my sh*t, the idea of a subscription-based future only sounds terrifying
This isn't 'new'. This is streaming games. PS Now does it. Shadow Blade does it. OnLive did it, and look what happened there.
Much as I like Google as a company, and even with my pretty good internet, I'm just not interested. As with any other service, there's too much going on in between them and you to affect performance, no matter how many GPU teraflops they have.
@ILoveVideoGames As per community rules
Do not use profanity; Use of unsavoury language including profanity and swearing is not acceptable, please remember that this website has users of all ages.
So let's watch the language please
Thanks for understanding
Subscription based services are getting expensive...at least for tv watching anyway. It could happen with gaming too. At first streaming was a nice way to get away from the cost of cable/dish. But now there are so many subscription based services with different content that it’ll cost a lot if you get everything. Disney, CBS access, netflex, Hulu, sling...
Interesting stuff here. I guess we see how this goes.
I'd suggest anyone interested watch the Digital Foundry video.
This really is very promising if it comes off; hardware already ahead of next gen consoles, the whole thing sits on top of YouTube and the controller conects to the server via WiFi, not the device doing the streaming.
It's ridiculously clever, but will probably need a 200mbs connection to be really good. Depending on pricing, it could be worth the hardware/software cost tradeoff.
Even Stadia will have exclusives, then Xbox is the only platform without exclusives lol.
Google is 10 teraflops.that means ps5 and xbox 2 whatever 😒.is at least 12 14 teraflops.word up son
I love this idea as I don't keep games, I play then sell them. But as i said the techs not ready. 1)youtube and Netflix work because they buffer while you watch and it still can have bad days and pauses. But in general you don't see how inconsistent streaming is because of the large buffer. You can't buffer a game. 2) with net neutrality gone you may live in an area that is paid to promote another service over Google so that will make it worse.
I’ll always take a real console. This sounds terrible personally. Don’t also has a lot of exclusive power to keep people on their consoles. Google will take a decade to even hope to catch up there.
@playstation1995 DF confirmed that the hardware is already beyond what the next gen consoles will have on board.
@Gumbopudding I think you're underestimating Google's infrastructure.
Also, net neutrality is pretty much a non issue. Without access to Google's framework (which essentially props up most of the Internet, online applications and pretty much every decent consumer location based service in the world), most ISPs would be out of business. They could try and pull it, but it wouldn't take much for Google to decide to charge them for every bit of backend code that they rely on, or worse - pull it from public domain and bring their businesses to their knees.
I mean its at this point in time when I seriously consider going 4k with the ps5. This looks like going back to minimalist performance etc since its all eaten up by the internet reliability.
Its obviously for a different market. The same one Ms is after.
Definitely not for me. For one, I like to purchase and own my games rather than getting sucked into a subscription model. I also am not interested in the input lag you will get from a streaming service. For anyone with a monthly data cap, there's a reason Google didn't mention how much data it will use up trying to constantly stream a AAA game at 4K 60 fps.
At the end of the day though, it comes down to exclusive games. As long as Sony owns their studios and has my favorite franchises, I don't see myself ever jumping ship.
@ShogunRok @Shepherd_Tallon price is everything though. Netflix made streaming mainstream because it was cheap for unlimited watching. how much do you think your data is worth though?
Assume you log into the service with your google account, and they correlate all your web data with your gaming habits - which games you play, when you play, how good you are at playing, what makes you buy micro transactions, what makes you continue playing and what makes you ragequit. Suddenly looking at a store page for a game will make that game appear on every page you visit on all your devices.
So all that yummy data, how much value can they derive from it to subsidize the games? Can they offer unlimited AAA games for slightly more than PS+? If they do that, they’ll win hands down.
@KALofKRYPTON. If Google's infrastructure was so good youtube would be flawless, but it's far from that.
Good point and true and while google may not be hurt by net neutrality, by how you describe it they could destroy the competition by threat. Which is bad as well.
I wonder if this will push Sony to integrate psnow into psplus
I'm gonna copy myself here:
"Stadia will offer low-latency gaming that can support 4K, 60fps visuals and will also offer 8K support in the future" - for the 7% of gamers with a fast enough internet connection of course.
I will be honest, I want this to fail. Because if it works, console gaming and even gaming PCs will probably be made obsolete and I don't want the industry to go in this direction.
Seems like a grand service for those "play once and move on" games.
@Gumbopudding I have very little doubt that YouTube could be flawless, I really don't think they're pouring the same resources in to it as the tech that's going to be used for Stadia.
They don't have to destroy them, just let them know that trying to throttle their service will hurt them in the long run. Which is a good thing.
I think I know 😄
So it's Onlive but with google?
Well, google can spend a lot of money on it but I doubt it'll get big and that's a small problem I have with this. Google sucks at maintaining things that don't earn them a lot of money :/
@Octane well, you do have a good point here, I never thought like this before, thank you.
I am currently signed up to shadow tech which is cloud pc gaming on any device. Service is outstanding no need to ever upgrade my pc and can game on anything with a screen. Its reasonable on £27 a month. So I would assume google service would come in around that price. You only need a connection of 15mb. I can not imagine google would need anything faster than that.This is the future can not wait for mass market adoption.
you will not need any where near that. Cloud pc gaming is provided by a number of companies already it varies between 15-25mb connection
Could is the operative word
@hotukdeals at 4k60fps with no noticable lag? Doubt it.
This is DoA. Google has far more projects that they give up on that never sell then successes.
Tap here to load 70 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...