even if google makes this a success, its not gonna make s team or gog or battle net obsolete, why cos not everyone wants to play gamesl ike that, did netflix kill every possible other way of watching films no, and google have failed alot recently, google glass and failing with youtube

I see that statement and I gotta both agree and disagree when it comes to... me ;P
(lots of "I" so beware)

I subscribe to Netflix (not a binge watching series dude myself) like many do, monthly fee as usual (find the price pretty decent) but still go to the movies when something interests me. Welp, can't deny that most of the netflix catalog, for me, is utter trash, gotta stress that. Vastly different for kids and wife, though. They love it.

Gog delivers my drm-free gems which I can download and play where I want to, same thing I've been doing for ages.
Got me some 3 or 4 physical copies of 360/ps4 games last year and some 10 digital purchases on consoles. So that evens it all up, eh?

But streaming... for many like me, well, I feel like it'll be more of a complement. Not my main thing by a chance. GOG/Steam are. Netflix gaming service never will be.


Gotta agree on that. Digital took the world by storm in like, 10yrs or so.

Or you could get rid of these bodly enjoyinments for good and transcend or some s** like that ;D

No thanks. I've already had a negative experience with Netflix that a movie disappeared while I haven't finished watching (I started watching, didn't had time, 2 days later the movie was gone). With games it's even worse, I could've invested 100 hours in a game and poof it would go away. Nope, don't want any of that.

There's lots of potential for user-end problems, power outages, ISP down, all kinds of weather interference for those on satellite, etc.

Then there's network-end problems, not the least of which could be hacks from other countries or 3rd party nasties. Any and all of these things could interfere with the vidya gamez for tha kidz.

No internet? I can still play my gog games to my heart's content. No power? I can still load up my DSlite and play mario brothers. No Stadia? Well... anyone got a deck of cards?

Being bluntly honest, I can't exactly see this being a rousing success. While it is true that Google has launched many products, most of them were failures and are mentioned in the same sort of tone as the Virtual Boy or Gizmondo.

Nobody remembers Google Buzz, and most are trying to forget Google Glass was a thing.

Remember how people said the Ouya was a gamechanger? And where is it now?

But more to the point, my actual reasoning is that I doubt the service would have the sort of obscure Windows16x/DOS games I'd be into anyway. No obscure Japanese tower builder, no Railroad Tycoon, and no Commander Keen 4. As primarily a retro gamer, this platform likely won't have anything for me.


I found this old comedy bit from Ashens that reminds me of where we are now.

Sure it does: it allows people who can't afford a computer, or who can only afford low-grade crappy hardware, to play games on top of the line hardware that they don't own, instead of & without first having to invest several hundred or a couple of thousand dollars into a computer.

But they can still afford to pay the (probably) really high monthly fee that's needed to keep such a server park running while at the same time having access to an Internet connection that's top of the line and expensive?

My guess would be no, not in the near future.

I already mentioned in the previous thread all the bad opinions I have about game steaming in general.

But even if I were interested in game streaming Google would definitely be the last ones I would trust with that, you can be sure that the tiniest controversy or any major company threatening of removing they adds from Youtube you will have disappearing games or censorship.

Just to give my two cents here, I've been using a cloud desktop/gaming service (Shadow) for a few months now as I don't have access to a powerful computer at home. Before subscribing to that service I considered buying a PC (and monitor) around the 1200$ mark. My math pointed out that for that money I could afford the cloud service for around 3 years with the flexibility of cancelling/subscribing again anytime, and with the added benefit that if I move I wouldn't have to carry bulky things around (yeah, I'm one of those people).
So, considering that I'm already paying for a relatively good internet service, for me it's a great solution in case certain months I have more spare time with which I could play some games.

As I mentioned before, cloud computing and streaming have the potential to provide choices for many people who couldn't or wouldn't fit the requirements for gaming; moreover, they have the potential to override many known hassles of the PC/console gaming experience whilst, if taken to an extreme or to a monopolistic position, could also end up proving to be really detrimental to gamers and consumers alike. In my opinion, it's more interesting to ask what does gaming streaming entail to gaming as an industry/form of entertainment/art/etc than debating over wether it's worth it or not, as not everyone has the same lifestyle or condition than the current average PC/console player.

These kind of SaaS services are indeed a nightmare from the consumer point of view, because you literally have zero rights of ownership on the titles. Even current, Steam-centric digital distribution system has huge risks, but as long as you have data, there is a chance that either devs or you can do something about it, if anything catastrophic happens.

I visited the discussion topic of one of the main computer enthusiast site of my country regarding this service, and not a single person pointed out the shittyness of SaaS from the consumer rights perspective. They actively wondered about input lag and image quality, some were hoping for monthly subscription instead of a specific license fees and if not counting scepticism over the techical aspects of cloud gaming, most seemed to have positive attitude towards SaaS gaming, or GaaS.

There won’t be public outcry about this subject, until other options to consume games start to disappear and first large scale negative aspects of GaaS services hit big bunch of consumers in the face. And at that point it will be too late to complain or vote with your wallet.

Like half the thread needs to check into rehab asap.

No, streaming won't do shit for poor people. For starters, the poors don't have fast internets, and rendering the video stream is also demanding. I tried watching a 1080 movie on a circa 2013 tablet once. Last mile? Try last yard. Poor people have shitty wi-fi.

No, streaming won't overtake any type of gaming. Not indie games (obviously), not skill games, online or otherwise (because you can't buffer this shit), and not grand RPGs or strategies (no modding). What's left is... browser games. Congratulations, Silicon Valley invented yet another bus.

"But muh internets are fast"
Well mine aren't. Hell, a significant number of content websites are getting rid of https because people with shitty connections can't access them. It's not an Epic Store situation where they bribe developers to jump the adoption hurdle. Google will have to pay forever. A developer's share on Steam is 70%; there are simply not enough percents in a hundred to compensate for castrating your audience reach.

Finally, game development costs aren't going anywhere, we know many games stay unplayed, and there's almost no barrier to trying a game on Steam for free. When the barrier is nonexistent, the conversion rate would be less. Developers will have to charge the current full price or more in inflation-adjusted dollars. And who'll want to pay more to pretend-own a game on a service which'll "sunset" in a year like every other "incredible journey"?

That's an insane amount of money for that. You have to try hard to spend that much money. (Yes, including monitor.) [And the streaming system would have the performance of a much cheaper model, for comparison.]

This really makes me nervous. I'm not a huge fan of the lack of ownership with digital things, but this takes it to a new level. It just feels gross.

Stadia and Cloud Gaming in general is a nightmare scenario for me. Once the servers shut down, you’re screwed. Game’s gone forever. That’s the irony of the whole “cloud gaming is the future” thing, because older titles that are stored locally will last far longer into the future than any cloud server based games.

I’m not against it as an option so long as a native application of some sort still exists, but if it ever becomes mainstream (or even if there are exclusives like what was already confirmed for Stadia), then those games will have an expiration date.

It’s this precise kind of future-insurance that I buy stuff from GOG in the first place for. I’m willing to even rebuy games I already had on Steam from GOG simply to have that peace of mind that 10, 20, even 50 years from now, so long as I properly back things up, I can still play the games I bought, played and have lots of fond memories of.

I would love to see something like Stadia by GOG for older games.

The same game could be played on multiple devices, eg. start a Windows game on a Macbook and then continue it on an Android.

Play through a web browser, so there's no need to install anything or worry about operating system, patch level, compatible hardware.

Multiple players could access the same cloud instance, playing games together that only have hotseat or LAN multiplayer modes.