Is streaming the future of video games? Google certainly wants you to think so. Earlier this week, the company revealed its plans for Stadia, a streaming platform that, in theory, allows for the instantaneous streaming of big, AAA, modern video games through any device supported by Google. On paper it's an impressive concept backed by impressive technology, but in practice? Well, we're going to have to wait and see.
But many -- ourselves included -- argue that it isn't time for game streaming to dominate just yet. Google's shown us a glimpse of the future, but it's a future that's probably still a good number of years down the line. Or is it? That's the question that we want you to answer.
Is Stadia the beginning of the end for traditional consoles? Is Google beating PlayStation to the inevitable punch? Is Google right to try and force game streaming so suddenly in 2019? Do you have any interest at all in streaming games to begin with? Let us know in our polls, and then give us an honest opinion in the comments section below.
What do you think of Google Stadia? (1,459 votes)
It's amazing, I can't wait to use it8%
It seems good, I'm interested10%
It's interesting, but I'm not fully convinced yet26%
Hmmm, I'm honestly not sure what to think of it9%
I don't really like it21%
It's a load of absolute rubbish26%
Is streaming the future of video games? (1,258 votes)
Yes, and it begins with Stadia in 20196%
Yeah, streaming is going to be the norm eventually16%
Yep, although I don't think streaming will be the only option for playing games26%
Honestly, I don't know7%
Nah, it'll only ever be a smaller part of video games14%
Nope, because it's never going to work perfectly20%
No, it's a fad that's going to die off11%
Would you be okay with PlayStation becoming a streaming platform like Stadia? (1,251 votes)
Yes, I'd love PlayStation to be a streaming platform6%
Yeah, I think I'd be okay with that5%
I'm not sure, it depends on how well it works21%
I really don't know4%
Nah, I'd rather have PlayStation stick to traditional gaming37%
Robert (or Rob if you're lazy) has been a fan of PlayStation since the 90s, when Tekken 2 introduced him to the incredible world of video games. He still takes his fighting games seriously, but RPGs are his true passion. The Witcher, Persona, Dragon Quest, Mass Effect, Final Fantasy, Trails, Tales — he's played 'em all. A little too much, some might say.
If it's the future, it should be in the far off, distant future rather than the immediate one. I can't get fully behind the idea of solely streaming video games in order to play them unless it's 100% stable, no matter how interesting the concept is. Even then, I'd honestly rather have personal ownership of the games rather than having them as long as a licence exists.
If it has to be there, at least let me purchase a game digitally, rather than having to rely on a network just to play.
longer answer:it will be PART of the future but not THE future.
aslong as the internet is not good enough it will never kick off the way google want's it to.
even the people that do look forward to it may very well not be able to use it because poor internet.
now if this came out 10 years later when the internet might be better suited for it than yes it could have a bigger impact.
but now? not so much. it will just be an option alongside discs and digital. but it won't take over traditional consoles well atleast the consoles that still care about offering non streaming options such as playstation and nintendo.
and as much as streaming movies and music is a huge thing well even that did not kill off cd's,dvd's,and that is far more internet friendly so why would streaming games kill off disc's and digital sales?
aslong as there is a demand for traditional gaming (the big majority wants it to stay) than we will always have our disc's and traditional consoles.
people still have not forgotten MS's attempt at an internet bound console,an idea that almost killed the xbox brand. and the vast majority are still not ready for it,and part of those that actually are simply don't want it.
How strenuous would it be to stream across multiple devices at the same time? I have a hard stop at 1024 GB before overages kick in. And an unlimited plan is an extra $50 a month. Spread that over our current gen and I’d have paid an extra $3,600...without considering the costs to have access to the games.
It really depends of the market. With games steadily (but surely) reaching ridiculous file sizes of 100GB+, I see streaming as a great option to let us play instantly and with better visuals than the system would be able to provide. That said, for it to become mainstream, they'll need to figure out how to deliver a decent quality service even with slower internet connections. Fiber isn't available at every country, so developing an streaming-only device would cut those markets almost entirely. Other thing to consider is the duration of the servers. We know they are not gonna last forever, so buying a game and then having it being unplayable would suck more than having it downloaded to your system. So yeah, for now I believe we could see a mix of both on the next gen.
It is too soon. It is somewhat strange to have to rely on the internet connection for gaming and we have no idea how much such services will cost. That said I am tired of patches, updates, hdd costs and having to spend hundrends of euros every few years on new consoles. You cannot preserve modern games anyway in the traditional sense. I am open to the idea but it is way too soon. I would much prefer a new console with BC than a streaming service that could also have older games.
It's the future... For casual gaming. That's what theyr after anyway.
Idk why people always want to see a yes/no situation. Dark/light. Etc
We all know it's Google, amazon, Snapchat. Fb etc etc going for mass casual gaming. Some more traditional gaming companies want a slice.
I see things going more like games with gold, Netflix style service were you have a library of games you pay monthly for and if you wanna stream the games or download them you can, streaming for instance just to trail a game then download if you like it, just a thought
not in my Future & I won't be using Stadia if it ever did it really rubs me the wrong way that they think they can turn up out of nowhere & tell us the console is dead piss off Google!
they have not earned a seat at the table yet let alone dictating the future of gaming! & a Netflix only way of playing games would be awful & step backward for gaming IMO.
Stadia (agree s**t name) looks good for what it is but there’s still a massive market of people like me that like a traditional setup as is evident by the success of PS4, switch and Xbone...
I won’t say I never use it if it’s the only way to play something but I want to play I certainly will. Particularly since it has no set up cost. But to be more than a small part of the market it would have to be better than the existing technology and for single player games I don’t see that happening.
I see it making more inroads into the casual market of people playing on devices that weren’t designed for gaming but who have decent Internet for another purpose.
Fo sure, it is the future just not the near future. I think some are a being a bit over defensive in being dismissive of streaming. I don't think we will see streaming totally replace physical media in video games , they will live happily with each other just like in other media.
It is interesting that at the same time 4K is replacing 1080p that a future of streaming is a big topic. While off my PS4 hard drive i still rarely have 60fps at 1080p. Some games even struggle at 30fps.
However new tech can change it all, if. If i get lag free 1080p or higher at 60 fps and no loud whine noises. Now add pc standard options like fov, dof, and motion blur options, and do all that streaming. Well i could then become real interested in streaming.
@JJ2 do you think doom eternal is for casuals? And even more do you think it will run steadily in the stadium. Cause if it does its surely is something to worry about already they saw lag in assassins and no one is playing
sadly, yes, streaming is the future. that said, i think we have another 5-10 years before streaming becomes mainstream. keep in mind that 60% of all ps4 games sold were physical as of last year. even if stadia turns out to be a hit, it will only cater to a subsect of players who live in areas with a good connection. also, and this is the most important factor to consider, stadia will sink or swim entirely dependent on publisher support for the platform. as it stands now, it is severely lacking in this regard. should publishers refuse to sign up, the transition to streaming will be much slower.
@lixei32 I mean casual players can play the same games as more dedicated gamers. Nothing wrong with that. This type of platform seems very convenient to hop from one game to another without getting too involved.
@JJ2 I mean if you don't get in olved in doom you won't last 15 min. Moreover doom by this move has gone cheap. I bet they recieved funding from Google to put this thing on.
I think streaming will definitely be a mainline thing in the future. Internet speeds are only getting better and physical media is on the decline. However right now or even in the next 10 years I do not think it'll be mainstream. Still not everyone has fast enough internet, which is probably why lots of people are voting against it because it's the worry of quality. I too am worried about Stadia working well and everything of course, but I can see it not being an issue in the future, similar to what happened to movies.
The thing is though, can streaming quality even be equalized? These services will have to focus on countries, or consumers, who have the latest and best "internet quality", as well as the supporting hardware. The technology is not static however, it's an evolving thing, where a few countries will always be ahead and most will play catch-up.
I don't think established platforms like Playstation and Steam can afford to ignore the huge group of consumers who don't have excellent streaming options. I feel they would loose far more consumers than they would gain. Streaming services for gaming does not open up the gaming market, instead I think it restricts it.
Google claiming this as the best solution for gaming is not surprising, they have no gaming consumer base to loose, so of-course they have a very limited view of this.
@lacerz
It often seems like America is the pinnacle of first world countries, where you'd expect by default the best Internet. But somehow you keep voting in such money hungry governments and never pass fair play anti monopoly rules so all the money is kept at the top, capitalist ceo's of you major companies monopolise your country and milk all your money. There are so many poor people you could fight it and vote for better opportunities, instead your fed the belief that you could be a success and live the American dream.... At what cost to the majority.
Edit, due to good enforced competition I get 200mb unlimited fiber for hardly anything and I have at least 6 alternative providers if I choose to move. For either better price or service.
I don't like the fact that it's going to require Google Chrome to be used. It's a browser, not a gaming application. Never understood why Google dislikes desktop applications... It's not so hard to build them as companion apps for the Web version...
@AntDickens Hey! For some reason, when I open the website without specifying "https", it redirects me to "http" instead...
@jdv95 It does have a fairly clear advantage for complex massive multiplayer games. People who are into that type of game might be the ones who think it looks amazing.
Will be a sad day when physical media is no more. But looking at the votes, gamers want Sony to stay the way they are that’s fine by me. Google think there on to something they need to see the votes and realise not everyone wants all this streaming crap.
I think it's an exciting time for gaming to be honest. I understand some of the skepticism but "consoles" aren't gonna go away for a long while (if ever) so I don't really understand the seemingly strong denial of game streaming ever becoming a viable service.
There's definitely questions that need answers and it might not be perfect but gaming isn't perfect now either.
My PS4 Pro is almost unusable at times due to how loud the damn fan gets. Then there's having to find a space for it and sort out the power and HDMI cables so they're not all over the place or tangled up with another system. I've then got to power it up, maybe download firmware update, install that then reboot. The game might need a patch and then that takes time to download and install. All of which could be solved with game streaming.
Don't get me wrong, I love physical media. I've got a ton of records, CDs, blu rays, dvds, videos and games from the last 30 odd years but times change and this could be genuinely game changing the same way smart phones, and music and video streaming is now.
Some people can't get past physical media still. I just don't see streaming being all that popular with the current market model of gaming. The market will need to change first (which is slowly moving to a subscription model anyways).
Otherwise, I could see it potentially being popular in a country a developed internet infrastructure, but not in the USA.
The demand for very high quality visuals will always be there anyways. Maybe not for console gaming, but PC gaming. A good comparison I'd throw out is cell phones vs proper cameras. Yes, many people think cell phone photos are good enough, but if you're used to modern DSLR/mirrorless cameras, the quality isn't even close.
I'm in the "its a load of rubbish" and "I would abandon sony if they went full streaming", just like a will if they put all their exclusives on other platforms in the future.
You know that feeling when you've been meaning to watch something on Netflix for a long time only to find out it's not there anymore? Now imagine the feeling when you're 20-30 hours into a game and it goes away because it was no longer financially viable for Google to keep it running.
Streaming will be really good for companies, so eventually it is going to dominate the market. But I don't think it will be soon because the internet infrastructure isn't there yet. Both in terms of speed and data limits. But companies are gonna push for it, and once enough of the market is capable, traditional gaming is gonna be phased out. Streaming is good for companies for a number of reasons: No materials cost. No need to tailor a game to common PC or console levels. No shipping, retail or manufacturing costs. Subscriptions will let them tailor ads to consumers to make more money - and rest assured, ads will come - or you will pay more.
It doesn't matter if gamers dislike it, us "gamers" are a minority of the market, as is evidenced by the explosive take off of mobile phone games as a multi billion dollar industry. Eventually we will be forced to adapt, or left behind.
I think it will eventually be the norm but not for a long while yet. I don't really get how you can stream something in 4K HDR with surround sound at 60fps and play online with other people without any lag. Some places will have fast enough fibre optic but not most of us : / Also not looking forward to a future where all games are online and you don't own any and if the servers are down there's nothing you can play.
@AllHailQueenBoo It's not conspiratorial at all. It's likely a very accurate prediction too. And it isn't because there is some evil fat greedy CEO who wants to line his pockets either. It's simply because corporations are essentially machines designed to maximize profits and will do anything they can get away with to do so.
Jumping to worst case scenario is not a good idea. Stadia will be 95% older games With a few Google exclusives. No one has said Stadia will attempt a hostile takeover of the current game system on console and PC. Streaming is a subscription service not a retail sales outlet. Gamers are in control with their wallets and their would be a huge revolt.
Games will still go retail/digital first Streaming last. No way Dev's or Sony first party games will bypass the profits from that. You should see a doctor if you think Sony is going to drop profits from hardware sales, PlayStation Plus, PlayStation Now, PSN Store, Retail market sales. PSN Discount Sales all for a streaming platform. LOL
I have no doubt that ultimately streaming will play a significant role in gaming, but I’m doubtful that the traditional model that we’re accustomed to is going to vanish anytime soon, if at all. Ultimately, I think the technology will fall into place to make it viable in many markets, but like all of the concerns voiced here, I’m not sure that all consumers are going to be willing to buy in to the new service. Realistically, I think it will be an option, not a replacement, at least for many years to come. That said, I for one wouldn’t want Google’s version of gaming in my home. Not in light of some of their questionable buisiness practices.
We just need Sony to show some of the PS5 demos and then this pile of dreariness will get forgotten about, just like the 'console killer' nVidia Shield.
@gingerfrog I don’t think you’ve grasped the point. I can easily afford the extra costs. My internet is exceptionally good. And data caps are rarely, if ever, an issue.
My current cable package costs $74.99 a month and meets all my needs. I have no desire to change that for a service that is questionable at best. I vote with my wallet and, just like Anthem and Fallout 76, will not spend my money on something I find no value in.
As for your bashing of the US...in America we call that free speech. Something many countries have no right to. As for your opinions...opinions are like armpits and arseholes. Everyone has them and the majority of them stink.
Not a chance does this ever take off. The amount of bandwidth this will take will take decades to have deployed. Not to mention there is a large amount of people who will refuse to touch it spelt because they recognize paying a fee for a lisence as opposed to owning the download or physical media is a terrible idea.
Comments 63
Yeah the poll is quite telling. Two thirds of of the current votes are against it and 44% are vehemently against it.
Can we stop making Stadia a thing please?
The name is stupid.
The symbol is stupid.
Google is stupid.
If streaming is the future it certainly won’t be due to anything named Stadia.
What a horrific end that would be.
/rant over
If it's the future, it should be in the far off, distant future rather than the immediate one. I can't get fully behind the idea of solely streaming video games in order to play them unless it's 100% stable, no matter how interesting the concept is. Even then, I'd honestly rather have personal ownership of the games rather than having them as long as a licence exists.
If it has to be there, at least let me purchase a game digitally, rather than having to rely on a network just to play.
I'm glad everyone is onboard on seeing this thing tank.
It's certainly a part of the future.
As with ebooks, when the buzz was that printed books would die out. They haven't.
There will always be a market for offline gaming. Be that 'purists' or even just those who can't access some technologies.
short answer:no.
longer answer:it will be PART of the future but not THE future.
aslong as the internet is not good enough it will never kick off the way google want's it to.
even the people that do look forward to it may very well not be able to use it because poor internet.
now if this came out 10 years later when the internet might be better suited for it than yes it could have a bigger impact.
but now? not so much. it will just be an option alongside discs and digital. but it won't take over traditional consoles well atleast the consoles that still care about offering non streaming options such as playstation and nintendo.
and as much as streaming movies and music is a huge thing well even that did not kill off cd's,dvd's,and that is far more internet friendly so why would streaming games kill off disc's and digital sales?
aslong as there is a demand for traditional gaming (the big majority wants it to stay) than we will always have our disc's and traditional consoles.
people still have not forgotten MS's attempt at an internet bound console,an idea that almost killed the xbox brand. and the vast majority are still not ready for it,and part of those that actually are simply don't want it.
Not in the near future. Streaming might eventually be the norm, but traditional consoles will be around for a long time yet.
Internet connections are by definition unstable IMO, so it's a no from me. Simply don't want a subpar gaming experience.
The future is when we finally have real hoverboards and can stand up to bullies called Biff.
It's still too soon. There are a lot of people that have bad internet to play ps now for example so yeah, too soon
How strenuous would it be to stream across multiple devices at the same time? I have a hard stop at 1024 GB before overages kick in. And an unlimited plan is an extra $50 a month. Spread that over our current gen and I’d have paid an extra $3,600...without considering the costs to have access to the games.
It really depends of the market. With games steadily (but surely) reaching ridiculous file sizes of 100GB+, I see streaming as a great option to let us play instantly and with better visuals than the system would be able to provide. That said, for it to become mainstream, they'll need to figure out how to deliver a decent quality service even with slower internet connections. Fiber isn't available at every country, so developing an streaming-only device would cut those markets almost entirely. Other thing to consider is the duration of the servers. We know they are not gonna last forever, so buying a game and then having it being unplayable would suck more than having it downloaded to your system. So yeah, for now I believe we could see a mix of both on the next gen.
It is too soon. It is somewhat strange to have to rely on the internet connection for gaming and we have no idea how much such services will cost. That said I am tired of patches, updates, hdd costs and having to spend hundrends of euros every few years on new consoles. You cannot preserve modern games anyway in the traditional sense. I am open to the idea but it is way too soon. I would much prefer a new console with BC than a streaming service that could also have older games.
It's the future... For casual gaming. That's what theyr after anyway.
Idk why people always want to see a yes/no situation. Dark/light. Etc
We all know it's Google, amazon, Snapchat. Fb etc etc going for mass casual gaming. Some more traditional gaming companies want a slice.
I see things going more like games with gold, Netflix style service were you have a library of games you pay monthly for and if you wanna stream the games or download them you can, streaming for instance just to trail a game then download if you like it, just a thought
not in my Future & I won't be using Stadia if it ever did it really rubs me the wrong way that they think they can turn up out of nowhere & tell us the console is dead piss off Google!
they have not earned a seat at the table yet let alone dictating the future of gaming! & a Netflix only way of playing games would be awful & step backward for gaming IMO.
@David187 yeah i don't realy like their tough talk while being the new kid on the block (if they even succeed that is)
i mean they realy should put on a less dominant tone considering their track record of failed projects.
Stadia (agree s**t name) looks good for what it is but there’s still a massive market of people like me that like a traditional setup as is evident by the success of PS4, switch and Xbone...
@jdv95 yep I hear you mate real big headed of them.
I won’t say I never use it if it’s the only way to play something but I want to play I certainly will. Particularly since it has no set up cost. But to be more than a small part of the market it would have to be better than the existing technology and for single player games I don’t see that happening.
I see it making more inroads into the casual market of people playing on devices that weren’t designed for gaming but who have decent Internet for another purpose.
Fo sure, it is the future just not the near future. I think some are a being a bit over defensive in being dismissive of streaming. I don't think we will see streaming totally replace physical media in video games , they will live happily with each other just like in other media.
It is interesting that at the same time 4K is replacing 1080p that a future of streaming is a big topic. While off my PS4 hard drive i still rarely have 60fps at 1080p. Some games even struggle at 30fps.
However new tech can change it all, if. If i get lag free 1080p or higher at 60 fps and no loud whine noises. Now add pc standard options like fov, dof, and motion blur options, and do all that streaming. Well i could then become real interested in streaming.
If I can still dress myself properly and have full control of my bladder by the time streaming-only consoles are the norm, I'll be disappointed
@JJ2 do you think doom eternal is for casuals? And even more do you think it will run steadily in the stadium. Cause if it does its surely is something to worry about already they saw lag in assassins and no one is playing
sadly, yes, streaming is the future. that said, i think we have another 5-10 years before streaming becomes mainstream. keep in mind that 60% of all ps4 games sold were physical as of last year. even if stadia turns out to be a hit, it will only cater to a subsect of players who live in areas with a good connection. also, and this is the most important factor to consider, stadia will sink or swim entirely dependent on publisher support for the platform. as it stands now, it is severely lacking in this regard. should publishers refuse to sign up, the transition to streaming will be much slower.
@lixei32
I mean casual players can play the same games as more dedicated gamers. Nothing wrong with that. This type of platform seems very convenient to hop from one game to another without getting too involved.
@JJ2 I mean if you don't get in olved in doom you won't last 15 min. Moreover doom by this move has gone cheap. I bet they recieved funding from Google to put this thing on.
@lixei32
I mean, if you want to spend hours dedicating your spare time for a particular game you love, I can't see the appeal tbh.
No issue with streaming being an option, however I don't want it to be the ONLY option. Gaming will age awfully if that happens.
Agree I don't see the appeal. I neither see the appeal for a true gamer to embrace this kind............. Anyway
Definitely not high on Google’s new thing they got here. But I’m not gonna knock it. We will see what happens when it hits.
I said the same thing about Netflix when I bought my blu ray player.
I want hardware and I want software to stick in that hardware. For me I'm very happy having a console that is generating the image and experience.
I hope it's a complete flop for Google and that it looses them a fortune. Nothing can replace buying a new console.
I don't share Google's image of the future and I hope it fails.
I think streaming will definitely be a mainline thing in the future. Internet speeds are only getting better and physical media is on the decline. However right now or even in the next 10 years I do not think it'll be mainstream. Still not everyone has fast enough internet, which is probably why lots of people are voting against it because it's the worry of quality. I too am worried about Stadia working well and everything of course, but I can see it not being an issue in the future, similar to what happened to movies.
The thing is though, can streaming quality even be equalized? These services will have to focus on countries, or consumers, who have the latest and best "internet quality", as well as the supporting hardware. The technology is not static however, it's an evolving thing, where a few countries will always be ahead and most will play catch-up.
I don't think established platforms like Playstation and Steam can afford to ignore the huge group of consumers who don't have excellent streaming options. I feel they would loose far more consumers than they would gain. Streaming services for gaming does not open up the gaming market, instead I think it restricts it.
Google claiming this as the best solution for gaming is not surprising, they have no gaming consumer base to loose, so of-course they have a very limited view of this.
@Bonbonetti this is what sony thinks to.
https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/02/sony_will_leave_no_gamer_behind_says_theres_life_in_local_consoles_yet in this article they admit that streaming would leave some players behind so they are still focusing on making sure to offer non streaming options in the future.
Okay, now which one of you google fanboys said its amazing and cant wait to use it?
@Gamer4Lyfe tbh some people just vote for the most unpopular choice just to stirr people up.
i always take those votes with a grain of salt.
that goes for all polls.
@lacerz
It often seems like America is the pinnacle of first world countries, where you'd expect by default the best Internet. But somehow you keep voting in such money hungry governments and never pass fair play anti monopoly rules so all the money is kept at the top, capitalist ceo's of you major companies monopolise your country and milk all your money. There are so many poor people you could fight it and vote for better opportunities, instead your fed the belief that you could be a success and live the American dream.... At what cost to the majority.
Edit, due to good enforced competition I get 200mb unlimited fiber for hardly anything and I have at least 6 alternative providers if I choose to move. For either better price or service.
One more comment on the matter.
I don't like the fact that it's going to require Google Chrome to be used. It's a browser, not a gaming application. Never understood why Google dislikes desktop applications... It's not so hard to build them as companion apps for the Web version...
@AntDickens
Hey! For some reason, when I open the website without specifying "https", it redirects me to "http" instead...
@jdv95 Yea, has to be people trolling.
@jdv95 It does have a fairly clear advantage for complex massive multiplayer games. People who are into that type of game might be the ones who think it looks amazing.
Hey remember 5yrs ago when everyone said consoles were dead? Phil Harrison apparently doesnt.
Will be a sad day when physical media is no more. But looking at the votes, gamers want Sony to stay the way they are that’s fine by me. Google think there on to something they need to see the votes and realise not everyone wants all this streaming crap.
I think it's an exciting time for gaming to be honest. I understand some of the skepticism but "consoles" aren't gonna go away for a long while (if ever) so I don't really understand the seemingly strong denial of game streaming ever becoming a viable service.
There's definitely questions that need answers and it might not be perfect but gaming isn't perfect now either.
My PS4 Pro is almost unusable at times due to how loud the damn fan gets. Then there's having to find a space for it and sort out the power and HDMI cables so they're not all over the place or tangled up with another system. I've then got to power it up, maybe download firmware update, install that then reboot. The game might need a patch and then that takes time to download and install. All of which could be solved with game streaming.
Don't get me wrong, I love physical media. I've got a ton of records, CDs, blu rays, dvds, videos and games from the last 30 odd years but times change and this could be genuinely game changing the same way smart phones, and music and video streaming is now.
I’m posting this comment from my iPhone. I would have done that on my pc once upon a time.
Some people can't get past physical media still. I just don't see streaming being all that popular with the current market model of gaming. The market will need to change first (which is slowly moving to a subscription model anyways).
Otherwise, I could see it potentially being popular in a country a developed internet infrastructure, but not in the USA.
The demand for very high quality visuals will always be there anyways. Maybe not for console gaming, but PC gaming. A good comparison I'd throw out is cell phones vs proper cameras. Yes, many people think cell phone photos are good enough, but if you're used to modern DSLR/mirrorless cameras, the quality isn't even close.
It might work well with Pacman Space Invaders etc etc . 😉
I'm in the "its a load of rubbish" and "I would abandon sony if they went full streaming", just like a will if they put all their exclusives on other platforms in the future.
You know that feeling when you've been meaning to watch something on Netflix for a long time only to find out it's not there anymore? Now imagine the feeling when you're 20-30 hours into a game and it goes away because it was no longer financially viable for Google to keep it running.
As soon a stream only happens im finished with gaming end of discussion
When we have to stream just to play a game, I’m finding another hobby. End of discussion
Streaming will be really good for companies, so eventually it is going to dominate the market. But I don't think it will be soon because the internet infrastructure isn't there yet. Both in terms of speed and data limits. But companies are gonna push for it, and once enough of the market is capable, traditional gaming is gonna be phased out. Streaming is good for companies for a number of reasons:
No materials cost.
No need to tailor a game to common PC or console levels.
No shipping, retail or manufacturing costs.
Subscriptions will let them tailor ads to consumers to make more money - and rest assured, ads will come - or you will pay more.
It doesn't matter if gamers dislike it, us "gamers" are a minority of the market, as is evidenced by the explosive take off of mobile phone games as a multi billion dollar industry. Eventually we will be forced to adapt, or left behind.
I think it will eventually be the norm but not for a long while yet.
I don't really get how you can stream something in 4K HDR with surround sound at 60fps and play online with other people without any lag. Some places will have fast enough fibre optic but not most of us : /
Also not looking forward to a future where all games are online and you don't own any and if the servers are down there's nothing you can play.
When it happens and becomes the norm in the future I won’t mind, but it’s obvious that isn’t anytime soon.
@AllHailQueenBoo It's not conspiratorial at all. It's likely a very accurate prediction too. And it isn't because there is some evil fat greedy CEO who wants to line his pockets either. It's simply because corporations are essentially machines designed to maximize profits and will do anything they can get away with to do so.
Jumping to worst case scenario is not a good idea. Stadia will be 95% older games With a few Google exclusives. No one has said Stadia will attempt a hostile takeover of the current game system on console and PC. Streaming is a subscription service not a retail sales outlet. Gamers are in control with their wallets and their would be a huge revolt.
Games will still go retail/digital first Streaming last. No way Dev's or Sony first party games will bypass the profits from that. You should see a doctor if you think Sony is going to drop profits from hardware sales, PlayStation Plus, PlayStation Now, PSN Store, Retail market sales. PSN Discount Sales all for a streaming platform. LOL
If I don't personally own my games, it's not gaming for me. Just a casual's hobby.
I have no doubt that ultimately streaming will play a significant role in gaming, but I’m doubtful that the traditional model that we’re accustomed to is going to vanish anytime soon, if at all. Ultimately, I think the technology will fall into place to make it viable in many markets, but like all of the concerns voiced here, I’m not sure that all consumers are going to be willing to buy in to the new service. Realistically, I think it will be an option, not a replacement, at least for many years to come. That said, I for one wouldn’t want Google’s version of gaming in my home. Not in light of some of their questionable buisiness practices.
We just need Sony to show some of the PS5 demos and then this pile of dreariness will get forgotten about, just like the 'console killer' nVidia Shield.
@gingerfrog
I don’t think you’ve grasped the point. I can easily afford the extra costs. My internet is exceptionally good. And data caps are rarely, if ever, an issue.
My current cable package costs $74.99 a month and meets all my needs. I have no desire to change that for a service that is questionable at best. I vote with my wallet and, just like Anthem and Fallout 76, will not spend my money on something I find no value in.
As for your bashing of the US...in America we call that free speech. Something many countries have no right to. As for your opinions...opinions are like armpits and arseholes. Everyone has them and the majority of them stink.
@makoshichi Oh I can’t wait till it tanks. Thing is a piece of garbage.
Not a chance does this ever take off. The amount of bandwidth this will take will take decades to have deployed. Not to mention there is a large amount of people who will refuse to touch it spelt because they recognize paying a fee for a lisence as opposed to owning the download or physical media is a terrible idea.
Tap here to load 63 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...