Hacker News Reader

Comment by alienallys | Hacker News Reader

This is the reason I'm sceptical of signing up for Google Stadia. People are heavily betting it would fail, and Google being Google will be quick to shutdown when it sees that.

View on HN

My two cents on Stadia: people don't like platforms that challenge Steam.

Steam was the first big digital games marketplace, and people have been using it for a long time. They've amassed many games, the future playability of which depends on the continued availability of Steam to host the code.

If you threaten Steam, you threaten a lot of hardcore gamer's libraries. Any platform that tries to compete is always controversial.

That's why I think some may be rooting for failure, formed through anecdotal observation.

Steam only hosts the code incidentally. It manages your licenses. This is a big difference, and it's one publishers are free to work around if they wanted to.

Are you saying that Steam/Valve doesn't have any lock-in contracts? So, if my game is sold on Steam then I could let people 'port' it to another provider?

That would surprise me, but it would be great.

GOG Connect may be along the lines of what you're describing. The compatibly of games is on a temporary basis set by the publisher, but, yes, it does allow you to activate Steam purchases on GOG.

If by "port" you mean remove it from a steam accounts library and add it somewhere else on a different platform then no, I never heard about something like that. But you are free to give an extra copy to the other account, while accepting that some people will abuse this. Just like you can let people buy the game somewhere else and give them steam keys that can afaik be generated for free while missing out on some steam features like reviews being counted.

Or do you exclusivity contracts? There are certainly games that were sold on Steam and are now exclusively available on Epic's Store. Satisfactory is an example that comes to mind. Copies sold on steam are still honored there, so the contract probably doesn't allow you to force users off steam after the sale.

In general I'm quite amazed at how little abusive practices Valve has shown while having a quasi monopoly for such a long time. Stagnation is probably the one, if you want to count that. I hope they won't become worse under pressure. And I certainly have little trust in other companies trying to replace Steam to behave as well.

When it comes to DRM and content hosting, the recent closure of the Microsoft ebook store comes to mind.

If a marketplace is underutilized it risks becoming obsolete. And, unfortunately, sometimes that means loosing access to content.

There are additional considerations, of course. Steam is also a social network of sorts, so fracturing gaming communities is also of concern. But it could also just be that gamers are accustomed to Steam; they like it. And they don't like platforms that don't play well with it.

This is somewhat myopic -- there would be no incentive politically or monetarily for a publisher to a) track these licenses to the individual or b) give out new licenses to previous purchases.

> people don't like platforms that challenge Steam

It's not a matter of challenging Steam but of convenience.

Much like streaming, everyone prefers having their content on a single app/platform/whatever. Plus Steam has some other benefits like Big Picture that nobody else has.

It‘s always interesting when people like monopolies one day and call for antitrust the next.

Besides data sovereignty and user manipulation, the relationship between competition and convenience seems like the biggest issue in tech now. And there are no real solutions. It‘s obvious why tech is so consolidated. Marginal cost of growth is pretty much zero. 2 to 3 platform for a given use case might be the most „efficient“.

Chances are that quite a few of the new streaming services will disappear/consolidate soon enough.

I'm a fan of what Disney did with MoviesAnywhere-- buy a movie once and it becomes playable through all participating linked providers. So you can, for instance, buy a movie on Amazon and play it back on iTunes.

The catch being that it only applies to movie purchases by participating studios. No rentals, subscription based streaming, or TV shows.

But imagine if that's how other services worked. One can always dream.

I believe it's actually that people don't like exclusivity of platform. A game for PC should be sold on all platforms (or at least the major ones).

A tv series should be distributed on all platforms, rather than just HBO or Neflix or Hulu. Making exclusivity deals should be outlawed as anti-consumer.

Who is doing all that betting, really? I'm pretty excited about the service, honestly (and the prospect of game streaming services in general).

Given the partnerships and buyin they have developed with game publishers and studios, the infrastructure investment necessary for this kind of service, it would seem Google is actually betting pretty heavily on it.

The commentary on every new google product launch is the same tiring canards about sunlit services... at this point, most of it feels like astro-turfer generated FUD.

Google would need to solve speed of light problems for Stadia to be successful. It's not that people are betting against Google, they are betting on their understanding of physics.

Stadia is going to be the luke warm product that OnLive was and then Google will shutter it. AT&T also tried to do this kind of service in limited markets with fiber optics to the home, servers near the last mile, and a partnership with nvidia for rapid decode/encode. Didn't stick. Why will Google be successful?

I'm skeptical too about lag, but OTOH this is not super critical for all types of games. Also not everyone is as sensitive to it.

Time will tell.

People forget that latency is actually pretty big on a console already. Many of the more casual gamers might not mind. From what I‘ve heard from the test run of AC Odyssey lag wasn‘t too bad. If anything I‘m interested to see of we‘ll see any difference in graphics quality with regards to artifacts. Also, how scalable and future proof their stack is (or how they upgrade). Especially once PS5/Scarlett come along. But most of the more casual players won‘t mind I think.

Light travels 186 miles per ms and a company like Google can put machines all over the place. The speed of light is really not an issue compared to other network overheads which can be improved.

Again, AT&T tried this and there was still noticeable lag.

Nvidia's current service (in beta) does really well. Google's project stream demo went really well for many people. But obviously, one's experience will be contingent upon internet providers, ultimately.

So... Stadia, along with all other current and future streaming services, are going to really suck for a lot of people.

But... they are going to be really amazing for a lot of people too.

Best-case latency should be as low or lower than the latency many play with on their consoles.

Doesn't matter who has tried it or whether it's feasible, speed of light or physics are not reasons this won't work if a company is willing to put machines every couple hundred miles.

Stadia is an audacious attempt to demonstrate technical prowess of Google. Failure of Stadia would cast doubts on Google Cloud's efficacy. I am sure Google will put all its might behind Stadia. I, for one, is rooting for its success. That does not mean others would go out of business. It's a huge market and everyone can benefit.

Stadia is an audacious attempt to demonstrate technical prowess of Google.

And Google Fiber wasn’t?

No, not really.

Fiber is/was more about solving legal issues than technical ones.

You didn’t read about the fiasco of “micro trenching” in Louisville?

That was definitely technical.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Google-Fiber-Microtrenchi...

I signed up, and I'm looking forward to it. My brother and friends are similarly excited.

I just upgraded my pc... In two years I probably go the online cloud gaming route...i hope there will be a cheap stadia "console". All it just needs is an ehternet port and a damn cheap arm. Power usage should be very very low.

What would the point of a Stadia "console" be, when Stadia will already run on a chromecast?

Your Stadia "console" is a Chromecast Ultra and a Stadia controller. It also has ethernet and often sells for less than $80.

You don't even need the controller.

For Chromecast, you do.

> Which Chromecast devices are compatible with Stadia?

> For launch in November, only the Google Chromecast Ultra will be compatible with Stadia, and you will also need a Stadia Controller and access to Stadia to play with Chromecast. Access to Stadia in November is only available through the Founder's Edition or through a Stadia Buddy Pass. Stay tuned for future announcements regarding additional device compatibility.

https://support.google.com/stadia/answer/9338946?hl=en

This is the reason I don't think I'll ever sign up. Pay a monthly subscription and full price for games that'll likely vanish in a puff of efficiency? Thanks but no thanks.

Its free, if you don't mind "slumming it" with 1080p resolution. You only have to pay if you want access to free titles and 4k streaming. Honestly, its a pretty good deal when compared with a console, where you pay hundreds up front, then full price for games, then for a subscription service if you want updates and multiplayer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com