Platform Discussion Thread

[Mobster100]

(Note: Before I say this, understand I am actively arguing against my own fears. So, let's call this "hope".)

I'm beginning to get the gist. It's not a platform meant to unseam the triple-A industry but, rather, combat it. It should, as described, alleviate the encumbrance and expense of distribution almost completely. But only for titles that fit within its framework.

Once Stadia goes live, a title can be (essentially) built on, distributed, and supported by a single system. That system will make itself available to the widest range of hardware possible. To do so...

...it will need to be significantly limited in its application and execution. In order to ensure reliable compatibility between Windows OS, Xbox OS, Sony OS, MacOS, iOS, Linux, Android, possibly freakin' Rust by that point...we're talking a lot of walls and odd angles.

At least...at first.

So, early on, I foresee lots of indie devs with truly focused ideas, plus bigger companies with really cool off-shoot ideas, jumping on-board to target niche audiences. (And, of course, countless, trifling games simply looking to cash in with rubbish.) I don't think it will immediately be able to compete with triple-A studios.

I do think it will start gathering its own following almost at once.

If that doesn't happen, I think it's going to wind up being one of the most colossal failures of all-time. I say this, because it's coming from Google, is global, and is something that a lot of companies will jump on.

Currently we have to guess how it will work as there is not a lot information out there, from what I can see. But looking at their dev site it seem that they currently have support for Unreal and Unity and a lot of common developing tools used in the gaming industry and will keep adding more.

In regards to other engines such as Frostbite or even the one CDPR uses, I can imagine two ways how this works. If we use CDPR as example, they would either have to collaborate with Google getting their engine working with Stadia, should they require support for some custom functionality. Which means that studios like EA, CDPR etc over time will be able to use Stadia much like there is support for Unity and Unreal.

The other way, is that studios have to add certain Stadia functionality to their games so they support it. Much like when you release on Steam, they have certain APIs that allows you to integrate your game with Steam.

So its difficult to say, in the presentation they use Assassins Creed Odyssey as one of the examples. Which I guess weren't original created to run on Stadia. But how easy it was to make it work with it, the story doesn't say

My biggest fear with Stadia is unreasonable pricing running amok, so you have to pay Google for a subscription, and knowing how a lot of the gaming studios work, I think we should expect the worse . And its not unlikely that they want to jump on this as well so you have to pay a subscription fee to them as well with micro transactions and what other stuff they can throw in there. So having to pay Google 10-20$ to use it and maybe 10-20$ to each studio to play their games, (Ain't that what their live services cost now?) you can suddenly end up having to pay quite a lot of money each month, which would not be very desirable then. This doesn't include potential hardware you have to buy to make it work in the first place.

To me the success of this is highly linked to what the total cost of using this is in the end. To high and it will fail.

 

[CyberBobber]

My biggest fear with Stadia is unreasonable pricing running amok, so you have to pay Google for a subscription, and knowing how a lot of the gaming studios work, I think we should expect the worse . And its not unlikely that they want to jump on this as well so you have to pay a subscription fee to them as well with micro transactions and what other stuff they can throw in there. So having to pay Google 10-20$ to use it and maybe 10-20$ to each studio to play their games, (Ain't that what their live services cost now?) you can suddenly end up having to pay quite a lot of money each month, which would not be very desirable then. This doesn't include potential hardware you have to buy to make it work in the first place.

I think you are missing one important point. Youtube has something what Google doesnt and its visibility. Youtube is the King, not Google. Google gotta listen Youtube, imho. Its simply foolish if Youtube let Google choose business model etc. Hmm or no, of course Google is everywhere, but still Youtube can give them even more visibility.

Oh damn, Google bought Youtube 2006..

 

[Mobster100]

I think you are missing one important point. Youtube has something what Google doesnt and its visibility. Youtube is the King, not Google. Google gotta listen Youtube, imho. Its simply foolish if Youtube let Google choose business model etc. Hmm or no, of course Google is everywhere, but still Youtube can give them even more visibility.

Oh damn, Google bought Youtube 2006..

One benefit about Google making it, is that they have released a lot of stuff for "free" over the years. Just imagine Gmail and how many people are using it and the amount of space you have available. So my hope is that they somehow can come up with a good solution for people. So I think its good that its them doing it and not some other company, at least it give some sort of hope

 

[Sild]

Anyway, it's definitely something to keep a close eye on.

 

[CyberBobber]

One benefit about Google making it, is that they have released a lot of stuff for "free" over the years. Just imagine Gmail and how many people are using it and the amount of space you have available. So my hope is that they somehow can come up with a good solution for people. So I think its good that its them doing it and not some other company, at least it give some sort of hope

Maybe. Its way too broad topic to discuss imho, business model that is.

I hope Celebrities/Youtubers gets good attention, it definitely has the best entertainment value. Fans playing with YouTubers is nice. But I think there should be a way for fans to give money to Youtubers if they like it. Isnt that the corner-stone of all this celebrity thing, fans giving money to a person, bigger your purse, more power you have, more power you have, more companies are interested in you.

After second thought maybe my idea wasnt that good, but anyway at least I would love to know who of the Youtubers are the best. Yeah, the money way kinda sucks, nothing stops some millionaire putting tons of money on his daughter etc or maybe its the idea of century.

 

[Mobster100]

Maybe. Its way too broad topic to discuss imho, business model that is.

I hope Celebrities/Youtubers gets good attention, it definitely has the best entertainment value. Fans playing with YouTubers is nice. But I think there should be a way for fans to give money to Youtubers if they like it. Isnt that the corner-stone of all this celebrity thing, fans giving money to a person, bigger your purse, more power you have, more power you have, more companies are interested in you.

But ain't there lots of ways to do that already? Some of them make a ridiculous amount money already. I my self is not into all this celebrity stuff and find it stupid to be honest. It have nothing to do with the Youtubers, singers, movie stars etc. But I personally think, that people should celebrate those that actually improve the world one way or another, such as people finding cures for disease, invent stuff that benefits everyone living standard. And not some random dude playing a computer game or sing a song, or someone putting there everyday non sense stuff on a stream, that does nothing of any worth besides entertain, and again its not to have a go at them, because its the case for most people, but I do think that people should consider which type of people they think really deserve to be celebrated.

Just to underline it, I don't understand this "crazy" need to be a fan of entertainers or football players and so forth as if they were Gods, so might be why I don't really get it in the first place.

 

[CyberBobber]

Hmm, think about Ranked Youtubers? it should create tons and tons of discussion what developers could use for making their games. As long theres "fire burning" as long we get games. maybe I went too crazy with this.

 

[Mobster100]

Hmm, think about Ranked Youtubers? it should create tons and tons of discussion what developers could use for making their games. As long theres "fire burning" as long we get games. maybe I went too crazy with this.

Yeah that is possible, which could be beneficial. A couple of things I don't like about promoting youtubers as expert in how to make good games is that they are not really any more qualified than anyone else is. In the end a good game, is one that entertain you, but this varies from person to person. So obviously their opinion is valid, just as everyone else is.

One of the issues is that some tubers make their channel around a certain game, such as Diablo 3 and a community that like it. So they will go fairly far in defending it as being a good game and not really be in a position to having a honest opinion about it, as it could ruin their channel. Also some get sponsored to promote new game releases to help push half finished games down peoples throats, which doesn't help to improve games, but simply help companies to sell products.

This is obviously not all tubers, but there seem to be enough evidences that both streamers and review sites that are not praising games risk being denied access to early preview releases by certain companies if they don't. And having a game review site, I would think its somewhat crucial that you can get access to these games as soon as everyone else. So at least its something to be aware of.

What the companies have to do is to actually wanting to deliver good games. I know it might sound weird, but there is a reason why certain games and companies get praised a lot and some don't. For instant CDPR, I think its fairly obvious that they want to make Cyberpunk as good as they can, even though it might be bad or not in every ones taste, just like the TW3 ain't. But despite how one might feel about TW3, I think most would agree that, its not just a half arsed game thrown out there. The same goes for a lot of indie developers, which at least to me, make them interesting, is that they try new things, but also for the most part you can see that these games are made by people that care.

Secondly, the companies could benefit from making better use of feedback from their community than they seem to do. They keep throwing out "similar" games, a new Fifa games pretty much every year or two or something? If that's the case, I wonder how much new content they can add each time, that would make people keep wanting to buy it and each time its filled with micro transactions that no one asked for. So it just seems that there are to many different interested going into making games, when the absolute most important one, is simply for the companies to actually care and wanting to make good games, that they can be proud of and they will sell. But looking at some of the reason releases, its very difficult to see that those that made them even cared about them.

 

[CyberBobber]

I see, Im new to YouTubers probably thats why Im so excited about them. I know Franchis and Angry Joe. Open Forum for YouTuber doesnt cause any harm for sure. Players make them look as they want, some might defend, some might like the dude, some might help devs, some might want new games etc. Who knows what kind of paths it opens. Also the big question is if Stadias YouTube Site is public or no. I remember I read an article where they said Stadia wants to give better tools for YouTubers, but what those are they didnt say.

 

[Vhalyr]

People already tried this avenue, some years ago, with games on steam. Now, i don't remember the name of the software, but it had several problems.
First thing first, there's the issue of game exlusives on both ps4 aand xbox consoles, which would limit quite much the available games.
Then there's the problem of the internet connection: even if they had a monster rig capable of holding thousands, if not millions, of people simultaneously, people would still need an excellent provider in order to be able to play with a decent frame rate (i, for myself, am stuck with a shit connection, for instance).

So my opinion is: no, this won't be the future of gaming. Not yet, at least.

 

[Nyanko73]

People already tried this avenue, some years ago, with games on steam. Now, i don't remember the name of the software, but it had several problems.
First thing first, there's the issue of game exlusives on both ps4 aand xbox consoles, which would limit quite much the available games.
Then there's the problem of the internet connection: even if they had a monster rig capable of holding thousands, if not millions, of people simultaneously, people would still need an excellent provider in order to be able to play with a decent frame rate (i, for myself, am stuck with a shit connection, for instance).

So my opinion is: no, this won't be the future of gaming. Not yet, at least.

Once it takes off, ps4 and xbox will become obsolete. Just like DVDs are today, replaced by flash drives. It's just a matter of time. So yes, it's the future of gaming. Saying 'not yet' is nonsense, as we are not stating it's tomorrow's future. We are just stating it's the future.

 

[Mobster100]

I see, Im new to YouTubers probably thats why Im so excited about them. I know Franchis and Angry Joe. Open Forum for YouTuber doesnt cause any harm for sure. Players make them look as they want, some might defend, some might like the dude, some might help devs, some might want new games etc. Who knows what kind of paths it opens. Also the big question is if Stadias YouTube Site is public or no. I remember I read an article where they said Stadia wants to give better tools for YouTubers, but what those are they didnt say.

I think they will add a range of tools, however one of them are the ability for viewers to sign up and join a streamer in their game, so they can queue up for it. At least that functionality is shown in the presentation, so it does sound like they are interested in adding tools for them, but if that is the only one they meant, I don't know.

People already tried this avenue, some years ago, with games on steam. Now, i don't remember the name of the software, but it had several problems.
First thing first, there's the issue of game exlusives on both ps4 aand xbox consoles, which would limit quite much the available games.
Then there's the problem of the internet connection: even if they had a monster rig capable of holding thousands, if not millions, of people simultaneously, people would still need an excellent provider in order to be able to play with a decent frame rate (i, for myself, am stuck with a shit connection, for instance).

So my opinion is: no, this won't be the future of gaming. Not yet, at least.

My brother told me that he have heard that you needed around 10 mbit, but how reliable that is, im not sure of.

 

[CyberBobber]

Once it takes off, ps4 and xbox will become obsolete. Just like DVDs are today, replaced by flash drives. It's just a matter of time. So yes, it's the future of gaming. Saying 'not yet' is nonsense, as we are not stating it's tomorrow's future. We are just stating it's the future.

I doubt PS4 and Xbox dies, Ive read stuff about this in last few days and this seems extremely messy. Stadia's marketting strategy is just making people more confusing. But maybe they survive, if they manage to keep pumping out games at good speed, somekind of new games that is, I mentioned it earlier. Heck, all you need to read is this thread, and you will see how confusing its.

Speaking of new games, lets see if Google New studio, EA, Ubisoft and BGS is able to make shortish higher quality, more entertaining games and good replayability like 3 per year, it means 12 per year, that might do the trick imho.

 

[Maverick89]

Cloud gaming will be more like a add-on like Steam link everywhere, you buy the game and have the option of cloud gaming. Buying games with only cloud gaming makes no sense and Google censors a lot. I don't trust Google.

 

[Vhalyr]

Once it takes off, ps4 and xbox will become obsolete. Just like DVDs are today, replaced by flash drives. It's just a matter of time. So yes, it's the future of gaming. Saying 'not yet' is nonsense, as we are not stating it's tomorrow's future. We are just stating it's the future.

What i meant is that it is not a viable future, until technology developes a bit more.
That aside, i personally storngly dislike this kind of things. I already am not liking platforms like steam and the like.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I wonder if Valve can leverage the heavy lifting of Google bringing developers to release for Stadia. I.e. once they already ported the game to Linux, Valve can offer incentives for them to release it for regular desktop Linux as well. Amount of effort should be small, and it can actually work.

I.e. someone like Ubisfot and Bethesda started making Linux games for Stadia now, but they did nothing to release it for normal desktop Linux. Valve can incentivize them.

 

[Garrison72]

Given the craptastic state of online connectivity in the US, there is no way in hell this tech could take off, let alone become an industry standard.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Given the craptastic state of online connectivity in the US, there is no way in hell this tech could take off, let alone become an industry standard.

I guess it would be limited to those with fiber optic connections. Then again, low orbit satellite ISPs with low latency are supposedly coming in the near future, so all these slow and monstrous monopolists like Comcast and Charter will quickly become obsolete.

 

[Snowflakez]

Im not sure why you would assume that only mainstream games would be there? I would assume that anyone making games can sign up with google. It seems to work in a way that companies that deliver this service, have a Play button on their website, why this should only be limited to some websites, makes little sense I think. As I again assume, that any developer can pay google for being able to use this service. So unless the price for doing so is extremely expensive, there should be no reason why they shouldn't be allowed.

It might actually make it cheaper for indie developers to get big and better projects going, as they can optimize towards whatever hardware google uses, rather than the millions of different setups people are.

Also there are very view reasons besides games, that requires you to have a high end computer, most people have no real need for these. So being able to setup a subscription and not having to invest a lot of money in your own computer is really cool I think.

I at least would welcome such system with open arms and really hope that they can make it work as they say. I do think that games themselves will still be filled with micro transactions and whatever crap they can put in them to get peoples money. But it will allow those companies that aims at making bigger projects, know that they can. Because as it is now, they can't simply make crazy games with insane graphics etc. that will only work on high end computers, as there might not be enough people to buy such games, well now they can

I have to say that I see a lot of benefits with this.

We already have crazy games with insane graphics; that's arguably part of the problem with the current AAA industry. Too much focus is being put on visuals. These games are on both consoles and PC.

 

[SigilFey]

My biggest fear with Stadia is unreasonable pricing running amok, so you have to pay Google for a subscription, and knowing how a lot of the gaming studios work, I think we should expect the worse . And its not unlikely that they want to jump on this as well so you have to pay a subscription fee to them as well with micro transactions and what other stuff they can throw in there. So having to pay Google 10-20$ to use it and maybe 10-20$ to each studio to play their games, (Ain't that what their live services cost now?) you can suddenly end up having to pay quite a lot of money each month, which would not be very desirable then. This doesn't include potential hardware you have to buy to make it work in the first place.

To me the success of this is highly linked to what the total cost of using this is in the end. To high and it will fail.

Mmm. I'm waiting to hear what it will work like. I think it might be something like an actual service. As in, I log into Stadia itself, and I play the games on Stadia. Limited-to-no downloading. That would mean the only thing all of these different platforms need to do is send inputs and display the results. The actual processing for CPU / GPU stuff would be on Stadia's end and limited only by bandwidth. If that happens to be the case, I can foresee something like a simple per-game or general subscription cost for the entire library...but I worry about it being a pay-as-you-go model. The more I play; the more I pay. That could get out of hand fast.

All just speculation, though.

I guess it would be limited to those with fiber optic connections. Then again, low orbit satellite ISPs with low latency are supposedly coming in the near future, so all these slow and monstrous monopolists like Comcast and Charter will quickly become obsolete.

I would doubt it, simply because of how much that would potentially limit the market. (Unless they also plan to offer fibre-optic internet to people at crazy-low prices. )

We already have crazy games with insane graphics; that's arguably part of the problem with the current AAA industry. Too much focus is being put on visuals. These games are on both consoles and PC.

That's been the case ever since 3D acceleration caught on. Used to have exactly this discussion back in the '90s , too. It's really hard not to focus on visuals, though. Great graphics have always sold well, even if the games themselves were "meh". I've got friends that simply can't deal with the graphics in Deus Ex, Thief 1 and 2, or Freespace 2, and they just won't play the games.

I wish more devs would take approaches like Freelancer, Amalur, or Homeworld. Minimalistic, but they really nail their aesthetics so well, that they're timeless. I'd argue that all 3 of those games carry the same charm and look just as good today as they did when they were released. (I know that Homeworld released the remastered addition, and it's definitely more detailed and still gorgeous. But when I look at screenshots / gameplay of the original by themselves, they're still very "wow".)