Stadia Silliness...or why Google Failed to be an ISP

[ZMystiCat]

First of all, disclaimer: I work for Google, but this is all my opinion.

Second, I’m not sure if this should go in Popular Media, since it deals with Stadia, or Casual Discussion, since it’s really a joke.

Anyways, for those who have been following Stadia, you probably know that a major concern is data cap limits. Many ISPs cap you monthly at 1 TB, and if you’re streaming games at 4k and 60 FPS, you’ll eat through that in about 65 hours, or 2 - 3 hours per day. And that’s not accounting for other tasks like YouTube, Netflix, game downloads on other services, etc. Needless to say, Stadia’s biggest design flaw seems to be the American Internet infrastructure.

But Google VP Phil Harrison seems unphased:

ISPs are smart [and] they understand that they’re in the business of keeping customers happy and keeping customers with them for a long time

(Source)

To be fair, he does kind of back up the claim that he thinks ISPs will respond appropriately, but the phrase seems bizarre for anyone familiar with how much of a joke ISP service has been. This is especially weird coming from Google, a company that tried to become an ISP because they weren’t pleased with the state of the industry. (Oh yeah, and by the way, Google Fiber still exists. It’s a different company under Alphabet, though, and it has been in a kind of limbo state since 2016.)

I’ve actually had discussions with some coworkers about how Google Fiber could be relevant again with Stadia, since Stadia (and other cloud gaming projects) are arguably the next potential strain on our Internet infrastructure. Given this comment, though, and what seems to be a general lack of interest in Google Fiber from Alphabet (e.g. no merging into Google like with Nest or now Chronicle), I’m not sure. I guess I’ll never get my 1 Gbps Internet speeds.

(Also, to be fair, at least Comcast seems to have stepped up their game a lot in the last couple years. I can’t say the same for AT&T and Frontier, though. They’re still awful.)

But Google’s ISP woes and silliness aside, what do others think of Stadia? I’ve signed up for the early adopter’s program. I’m really interested in the idea of cloud gaming, and I think Google has the best shot at nailing it from a technological standpoint. That said, I am concerned about the current limitations of American Internet infrastructure, and it would be kind of a funny downer if Google’s unwillingness to properly invest in Fiber comes back to bite them on this.

 

[Inquisitor85]

I neither know nor care about Stadia or any other gaming platform, to be honest games bore me. However I do know that ISPs in the UK do not typically have usage limits, I’m genuinely surprised that the US still does.

 

[ZMystiCat]

It’s still kind of a rarity. Only about 4% of users ever hit it, even with video streaming and massive game downloads becoming more and more popular.

Stadia is kind of challenging this, though. Video games often run at 60 FPS, well above what movies and TV shows tend to run, and that’s going to require more data than streaming 4k on Netflix. As a result, I think more will become aware of this problem soon. Until now, this was mostly a way of ISPs to squeeze a little more money out of their highest-use customers. Despite Harrison’s optimism, I think many ISPs have their mouths watering at the thought of all the potential new data-cap-hitters that Stadia may bring in.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

But Google’s ISP woes and silliness aside, what do others think of Stadia?

Stadia represents a huge push to move most tech from an “ownership”* model to a lease model. It negates one of the advantages of gaming vs other entertainment, low cost per hour. For $300-$500 or so I by a console or upgrade my computer for gaming. This investment is for several years making it $8-$14 a month. Games are $60-$80 offering 40-60 hours of content but often more, $1/hr approaching 25 cent over time. Waiting a year halves the purchase price. Beyond initial setup of each game this doesn’t require internet for the single player experience and is therefore cheap compared to other ways people entertain themselves.

Also, I greatly appreciate the ability to game without an internet connection, something that occurs due to ISP issues, power outages on key infrastructure, or just over saturated networks making gaming impractical at times.

Maybe I want to play a game offline in another room while leaving bandwidth for The Wife to video chat and send/receive critical files? What if I wish to pass the time after a natural disaster (assuming power is on)? Last few quakes generated an instant surge in cell phone use that multiple carriers were overwhelmed. With more communications via internet I see no reason to believe future disasters won’t clog networks following disasters.

*technically you don’t own software you buy. You typically have a license to run it practically forever on one device.

 

[ZMystiCat]

It negates one of the advantages of gaming vs other entertainment, low cost per hour.

I’m not even sure this is an advantage anymore.

I spend about $15 for a Netflix subscription. While there are months where I don’t approach the $1 per hour mark, there are some months where I easily put in 50+ hours of new TV and movies. Very few games, for me, offer anything approaching a $1 per hour, let alone cheaper.

The same can be said of Spotify. Sure, there are months where I probably just listen to old albums. However, every once in a while I get the itch to catch up on all of a band’s albums or get into a new band, giving months that easily outdo $1 per hour.

Overall, I’d guess Spotify and Netflix for me get me about $1 per hour or less of new entertainment. Games rarely reach that, especially if I start buying DLC or microtransactions (I refuse to pay for loot boxes). While I know games, especially open world and multiplayer ones, have theoretically 100+ hours of gameplay (or 1000+ for MMORPGs), a lot of games have also fallen into a trap of being gauged on purely raw content rather than engaging content. Sure, that’s an objective measure over the subjective engagement, but it is hard for me to care about the number of hours I put into Dragon Age: Inquisition when the number of really engaging hours comparable to the first two games was less than either of those two, even if it was more raw hours than those two combined.

Basically, for me, games are probably still my most expensive hobby, and games that attempt to get around this with raw hour count tend to be shallow.

And this isn’t even getting into the fact that games are still the hardest piece of entertainment to get. Yeah, it’s not really “hard” (ignoring special edition excess), but compared to movies or music, going to a store, waiting on an Amazon order, or waiting on a massive download (seriously, have you seen the size of some games?), we’re far from the “browse and play” environment of Netflix or Spotify.

Also, I greatly appreciate the ability to game without an internet connection, something that occurs due to ISP issues, power outages on key infrastructure, or just over saturated networks making gaming impractical at times.

This is my main concern. Normally, I’m not a huge fan of always-online games, especially singleplayer. One thing that kind of turned me off Dark Souls was the invasion system. However, I have softened up a bit to this over the years, since I haven’t played a game with always online where I felt hampered by the always online.

With that said, the other advantages of Stadia and its relatively cheap price make me want to try it out to see if it really is a good value. At the very least, I have my Switch to fall back on even in a power outage (until that runs out of power).

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Overall, I’d guess Spotify and Netflix for me get me about $1 per hour or less of new entertainment. Games rarely reach that, especially if I start buying DLC or microtransactions (I refuse to pay for loot boxes).

Microtransactions are the scourge of gaming imo. I bought Far Cry 5 recently ($28) given that I greatly enjoyed 2 through 4. Yet this sequel is filled with opportunities for transactions that can easily exceed the purchase price of the game. But even without those features and items I’m likely near $2/hr so far and will likely get sub $1/hr over the year or two. I don’t buy new games that often.

On the PC side I do a few indie games typically $25 or less (some early access). One I have over 1000 hrs on over several years (it recently exited beta). I’m sure there’s a while other thread to be had about the big game studios getting greedy.

Yeah, it’s not really “hard” (ignoring special edition excess), but compared to movies or music, going to a store, waiting on an Amazon order, or waiting on a massive download (seriously, have you seen the size of some games?), we’re far from the “browse and play” environment of Netflix or Spotify.

True. Though I was comparing mostly to movie theatres, playing paintball, etc. A lot of the game downloads I’ve done occur while I’m doing something else and aren’t something I’m actively waiting on.

With that said, the other advantages of Stadia and its relatively cheap price make me want to try it out to see if it really is a good value.

Depends on the cost of the games and how well it plays on the average internet connection. $10/month is fine, except that you now rely on this service to always exist. At the very least an always online game is likely to give you a key to play disconnected when support is terminated. I can’t see this happening with Stadia.

 

[ZMystiCat]

except that you now rely on this service to always exist.

Granted, we’re practically already there.

Consoles have always had the problem that sometimes the new generation isn’t backwards compatible. At that point, you’re basically relying on your console not dying, lest you need to shell out a lot money on a used one. Emulation works for some games but is also in a legal grey area.

PC gaming has also often been risky on OS and hardware updates, and modern PC gaming is basically reliant on platforms like Steam staying up.

 

[Pattylt]

I’m still trying to understand the Stadia model.
I pay 10 bucks a month for the streaming service but I still have to buy the games? So, I’m paying 10 bucks to use their servers? Also, it doesn’t seem designed for hard core gamers. For them, it’s all about the ping time. How is Stadia going to handle the various lag times?
Thanks

 

[ZMystiCat]

I pay 10 bucks a month for the streaming service but I still have to buy the games? So, I’m paying 10 bucks to use their servers?

From what I can tell, the $10 gets you access to certain games and a discount on those that aren’t covered under the $10. Unfortunately, it isn’t the full-blown “Netflix for games” that many of us were hoping for, but that might be an eventual goal. Given the general lack of transparency in the industry, it’s hard to tell how much of this is driven by Google or the more established companies.

Also, it doesn’t seem designed for hard core gamers. For them, it’s all about the ping time.

I think it is less “hardcore” gamers and more “competitive” gamers. Stadia can work for certain genres often attracting hardcore audiences (e.g. RPGs), but it isn’t going to work all that well with very competitive games that rely on reaction times, at least at the most competitive level. Some people just want to play Call of Duty, not go 60 - 1 against the pros.

How is Stadia going to handle the various lag times?

Connecting the controller directly to the server will help remove a little bit of (name removed by moderator)ut lag. In general, though, I’d imagine Stadia developers are targeting a soft real-time requirement, but I’m not sure exactly how they’re doing that. Well, I think it is pretty obvious that they’re trying to leverage advantages servers have over consoles or PCs, but I’d imagine that there’s a lot of fancy tricks going on.

From what I’ve read and heard, it sounds like Stadia is smooth enough. It’s not good enough for the highest performing players, but it sounds good enough for the average person who just wants to play DOOM or Assassin’s Creed.

 

[Pattylt]

Thanks…that really helped! I’m going to take a long slow wait and see attitude until it has been in the wild for a bit and see what various reviewers and gamers have to say.

Other than the initial first free game, I didn’t realize there would be any free games after that. For now, Steam is fine with me.

 

[anon99031074]

(name removed by moderator)ut lag, compression artifacts. Technological stagnation. In 5 years, what is going to motivate Google’s shareholders to pay for swapping out current gen graphics technology with next gen GPUs at an unbelievable cost (assuming they will actually have many Stadia-users)?

 

[phil3]

As to limits once 5G becomes common place it will be unlimited.

 

[Pattylt]

I do think 5G will eventually make its way across America but it has roadblocks in its way.

The first problem is Huawei is the predominate producer of 5G components and is currently having problems getting into the US. It just got permission again to sell their phones here but it’s been very on again off again. It could change again tomorrow!

Second, a massive amount of cell towers need to be built and depending on the cell companies to quickly do this?

 

[ZMystiCat]

(name removed by moderator)ut lag

Most of what I’ve heard has been positive in this regard. I know someone who has tried it out as part of Google’s internal testing, and he said it is serviceable for Assassin’s Creed. The Verge also reported that playing Doom Eternal was smooth, albeit with stability issues. Granted, reporting has been more mixed on Doom Eternal, but that’s also one of the faster-paced games Stadia will offer.

compression artifacts

I hadn’t really considered that. Then again, it’s gotten next to no discussion compared to discussion on (name removed by moderator)ut lag. Maybe it just isn’t noticeable enough for most to bother commenting on it.

In 5 years, what is going to motivate Google’s shareholders to pay for swapping out current gen graphics technology with next gen GPUs at an unbelievable cost (assuming they will actually have many Stadia-users)?

You could say the same for consoles.

 

[anon99031074]

You could say the same for consoles.

No, the end user pays for the console hardware. Google has to pay for a server upgrade, and that is a significant risk without an obvious financial benefit.

Most of what I’ve heard has been positive in this regard. I know someone who has tried it out as part of Google’s internal testing, and he said it is serviceable for Assassin’s Creed. The Verge also reported that playing Doom Eternal was smooth, albeit with stability issues. Granted, reporting has been more mixed on Doom Eternal, but that’s also one of the faster-paced games Stadia will offer.

AC: Odyssey has an (name removed by moderator)ut lag of more than 100 ms on an xbox one x. Add to that TV (name removed by moderator)ut lag of perhaps 40 ms, and you get what streaming can do, if the server is a couple of kilometres or less from your home. Google cannot break the laws of physics. Also, when you watch Netflix, chances are your ISP hosts a few mirrors. These are cool, low cost, and low power. When it comes to gaming, it will be the exact opposite. It will be high cost, drain power, and produce significant amounts of heat. I don’t believe ISPs will be as helpful with mirroring Stadia as they are with mirroring Netflix.

Finally, there is the issue of what gamers want. I have many friends who love gaming. I don’t know a single one, whether young or middle aged, who wants game streaming. Most are quite negative, some are willing to give it a try. So I wonder who this is for. Casual gamers don’t need it, and the gamepad is too complex for them anyway. PC gamers don’t want it, and console gamers don’t seem to either.

I may of course be completely mistaken, but I suspect this is 90s VR all over again.

 

[ZMystiCat]

No, the end user pays for the console hardware. Google has to pay for a server upgrade, and that is a significant risk without an obvious financial benefit.

And Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony have to pay to upgrade their consoles in the form of R&D, parts, manufacturing, etc. Yes, they have a new product to sell, but that new product may be sold at a loss. So why bother with the risk?

But as for Google Stadia, it is marketing itself as a AAA streaming service. You can’t keep making that claim if AAA technology moves beyond what your server is capable of. Sure, Google could concede and just be an indie platform (though would there be a serious problem there?), and as long as Microsoft and Sony keep pushing what AAA games are capable of, Google has a very clear motivation to keep up.

And all of this is also only considering that they would have GPUs for gaming. Companies like Google and Microsoft have had GPUs in their servers for a while now, and you can even get VMs on GCP and Azure with a dedicated GPU. Basically, it’s already part of the maintenance cost of occasionally upgrading servers so that you don’t fall behind in all the other technological races going on right now.

Google cannot break the laws of physics.

When did I say that they were claiming to? I was relaying people’s personal experiences with it, and despite the fact that (name removed by moderator)ut lag is calculable, it’s still a personal experience. If (name removed by moderator)ut lag never exceeds the threshold of what we feel, it’s negligible.

Also, kind of odd to make a claim about breaking laws of physics when no physics was done. (Fun story: When I worked at Microsoft, I was once asked to do something that would break the laws of physics, specifically move data faster than the physical system was capable of doing. Of course, I had the math to back up that claim to the manager, and he backed off.)

I don’t know a single one, whether young or middle aged, who wants game streaming.

In contrast, I’ve known people who were interested in game streaming since at least before OnLive tried it. Even then, it’s generated occasional discussion in a lot of the gaming groups I hang out with, with most wondering when someone would finally deliver on a Stadia-like experience. (We thought it would be Microsoft and didn’t consider Google until rumors within the last year or so began surfacing that they were nearing a reveal.) Even now, I don’t know anyone irl who is averse to the idea of game streaming or Stadia specifically. (Granted, a lot of the people I know are Google employees, but none are working on Stadia specifically.) At worst, there’s skepticism, but most seem enthusiastic to try it out.

I think the biggest concern is that Stadia will end up being killed off or rolled into YouTube, but some of that concern is kind of just frustration over Google’s handling of many products recently.

 

[anon99031074]

And Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony have to pay to upgrade their consoles in the form of R&D, parts, manufacturing, etc. Yes, they have a new product to sell, but that new product may be sold at a loss. So why bother with the risk?

By comparison, Google’s investment is like buying enough consoles for players all over the world to timeshare, and then hoping customers will pay for them afterwards through subscribing month after month. It is far more expensive than doing some r&d, and and even selling at a loss, which Sony and MS no longer do. My belief is that transitioning to new hardware will be more difficult for Google than this.

And all of this is also only considering that they would have GPUs for gaming. Companies like Google and Microsoft have had GPUs in their servers for a while now, and you can even get VMs on GCP and Azure with a dedicated GPU. Basically, it’s already part of the maintenance cost of occasionally upgrading servers so that you don’t fall behind in all the other technological races going on right now.

They have partnered with AMD to deliver specific gaming GPUs with power that Azure in no way, shape or form is able to deliver without it. I am not doubting Google’s ability to investin this hardware now. I am doubting their investors willingness to use a tremendous amount of money to upgrade this hardware in 5 years. Time will tell if I am right or wrong.

When did I say that they were claiming to? I was relaying people’s personal experiences with it, and despite the fact that (name removed by moderator)ut lag is calculable, it’s still a personal experience. If (name removed by moderator)ut lag never exceeds the threshold of what we feel, it’s negligible.

Please do try playing Doom 2016 at 100+ fps on a PC, even with a an Xbox One gamepad, then try playing it on the Nintendo Switch in 30 fps, which gives you the equivalent (name removed by moderator)ut lag of streaming, and tell me you cannot feel the difference. And that assumes servers close to your home, and that the household has invested in a decent router, or it might be worse than NS…

In contrast, I’ve known people who were interested in game streaming since at least before OnLive tried it. Even then, it’s generated occasional discussion in a lot of the gaming groups I hang out with, with most wondering when someone would finally deliver on a Stadia-like experience.

Ok. I guess we’ll see. All I have offered is my beliefs in response to your question. I have been wrong in the past, and may certainly turn out to be wrong about this as well. I have also been right. We will see. If we’re both in this forum in 5 years, we can see

 

[ZMystiCat]

Sony and MS no longer do

Source? The last I heard, they were still selling at a loss in the hope game sales and subscriptions would pick up the slack.

My belief is that transitioning to new hardware will be more difficult for Google than this.

Except Google can accurately quantify the impact of losing the AAA market. Companies like Microsoft and Sony invest in a new console with the hope that the new console sells. A streaming service already has the data necessary to quantify the return on investments, making it less risky.

Please do try playing Doom 2016 at 100+ fps on a PC, even with a an Xbox One gamepad, then try playing it on the Nintendo Switch in 30 fps, which gives you the equivalent (name removed by moderator)ut lag of streaming

I think all this does is highlight that we already have equivalent experiences. Many people, myself included, are fine with 30 FPS. Sure, I would like at least 60 FPS, but a steady 30 FPS is completely serviceable.

Now FOV on the other hand, that is something too many games are getting wrong.

We will see. If we’re both in this forum in 5 years, we can see

Is there a remind me bot?