With Google's game streaming service Stadia inching closer, we have some more information to share about it. Part of this, is thanks to a recent AMA (Ask Me Anything) they did on Reddit. I've gone over what questions they answered, to give you a little overview.
Firstly, a few points about the Stadia Pro subscription: The Pro subscription is not meant to be like a "Netflix for Games", something people seem to think Stadia will end up as. Google said to think of it more like Xbox Live Gold or Playstation Plus. They're aiming to give Pro subscribers one free game a month "give or take". If you cancel Stadia Pro, you will lose access to free games claimed. However, you will get the previously claimed games back when you re-subscribe but not any you missed while not subscribed.
As for Stadia Base, as expected there will be no free games included. As already confirmed, both will let you buy games as normal.
We've still not seen what the UI will look like, but they did say it will be shown off before launch in November. As for features, it's launching with a basic set like being able to "play games across screens, no waiting for downloads or patches, social, store, etc". For social features at launch, you can "manage your friends list, create parties and use platform-level voice chat". However, Achievements will not be enabled at launch but they will come "a little bit later".
Stadia supports standard HID gamepads so Xbox Controller, DualShock 4 and likely many more. This shouldn't be too surprising, since Stadia is apparently using SDL (source). If you want to play on your TV, it will require a Stadia Controller and a Chromecast Ultra.
One thing I've seen people worry about (and I do share this worry), is what happens to games if Google decided to shut down Stadia? Google do have a history of starting things, going a few years and then stopping. Answering that, they said they will support "Takeout", so you can download "your game metadata, including saves if you want to". However, they said nothing about getting an actual download of your game in that case.
Modding support is something else people have been curious about and Google have confirmed Stadia does not support mods. However, they would like to and said they're "working with developers now to find the best way to do this".
As for cross-platform play, they said "cross-play and cross-progression are big priorities for us" and so it should be. Locking multiplayer behind closed doors just isn't what people want, where it makes sense for the type of game, it should be allowed and be possible so I'm happy that Google are well aware of this.
In regards to a question about Linux support, they said "Stadia will run in full desktop or laptop Chrome browsers.". They've been clearly steering away from mentioning any specific operating system, only that you simply need a Chrome browser and that's all across desktops and laptops. Project Stream (which Stadia was built upon), worked fine on Linux so I expect no issues there. Especially since the person from Google answering the questions, said they're most proud of "playing Assassin’s Creed on my son’s dirt-cheap Chromebook" so there's absolutely no reason why it won't work on a normal Linux distribution.
Since it will work on Linux and it's powered by Vulkan and Debian Linux, it's going to be interesting to try. I'm not sold on it personally but as a tech enthusiast I want to give it a go. For online-only games, that don't work on Linux and will likely never run on Linux, Stadia could be a pretty great option for us.
As an additional note, one not from the Reddit AMA, Ubisoft had some positive words to say about Stadia. Including that it doesn't cost them much extra to support it. We already knew they were planning to get their Uplay+ subscription library on Stadia, so that's not too surprising. The difference between supporting Stadia and the Linux desktop, is of course Stadia being one set configuration and a bigger market share.
As for comparing streaming games to streaming films or music, due to the nature of the content, for me it isn't the same experience. Gaming isn't passive consumption, and I have different expectations that accompany active consumption, consumption in which I am part director.
The issues with streaming have been stated before, and will be again countless times more, so I will avoid rehashing them now. What I will say is that I will avoid any single player games for which streaming (or even just always-on DRM) is the only option. I would certainly be willing to revisit my decision if gaming companies agreed to source code escrows for those games. This will, of course, never happen. And if the whole gaming market shifted to streaming during my lifetime (improbable, but not impossible), I would stop new game spending, and would stick to my existing games, of which I have plenty.
As Bill Gates wrote in 1995: "A new competitor 'born' on the Internet is Netscape. Their browser is dominant, with 70% usage share, allowing them to determine which network extensions will catch on. They are pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the key API into the client to commoditize the underlying operating system. They have attracted a number of public network operators to use their platform..."
It ended up being Google which is poised to commoditize the underlying operating system, not Netscape. And it appears Stadia exists exclusively in service of the Chrome ecosystem. Perhaps one gatekeeper (Microsoft) has been exchanged for another (Google).
Last edited by vector on 22 July 2019 at 1:20 am UTC
Quoting: ixnariQuoting: GuestIt is always funny to read the random comments.
The team at Google Stadia mentioned that privacy will be “at the user's control".
Oh, I'm sure.
so what? they will know that i'm a bad player? who cares.
when it comes to voice patterns, video patterns or knowing who i'm friend with, i can see how this could be used for evil purposes.
but spying on me while i play? why is that an issue? how can this be used for "evil" purposes?
Quoting: Salvatos- if you don't have unlimited bandwidth, it's probably easier to fit some more hours of video streaming in your monthly allowance than a large game download (or several);
gaming use more bandwidth than video, since you dont have time to create an buffer and improve the encoding or waste on decoding.
and the reason why people dont surpass their data limit already today is because they bandwitdh is not used while they are playing.
downloading an 100GB game may sound like much, but you will use more than that quite fast if you keep "downdloading" it forever.
Quoting: GuestI think Netflix has proven that both things are not a major obstacle for most people.there is a key difference here, if netflix stop dont renewal an contract to stream something and none of his competitors do, you can still watch it by pirating it.
but if no one is willing to stream an game anymore and this game isnt avaliable to play outside of streaming, the game is dead, no one can play it anymore.
there are a lot of games that are currently umplayable, video game preservation is an serious issue and this thing only contribute to make it harder.
Quoting: kaimanOne question that also comes to mind is how game streaming might change games as a whole, if it ever catches on. I'm pretty sure it's not good for business if people keep streaming the same game (they paid once) again and again. So it's either in-game advertising, micro transactions, shorter or generally less re-playable games (or a mix of those), neither of which I find potentially appealing.running an old game will not consume google data centers so much, so they will not care.
Quoting: Guestalthough it was more recently used by Ubisoft to host The Division 2 in the Cloud and support the developer's real-time triple-A gaming endeavours."
there is a difference here, they may need to "play" the game on a server for multiplayer purposes due to things like physics and who killed who needing to be processed server side, but they dont need to process the graphics of it, wich is the most expensive thing to process.
Quoting: TheRiddickSo let me get this straight... how people can't see that scenario as being a complete scam is beyond me!
because you didnt get it straight.
"you pay $50-60usd for a game on Stadia"
if its a triple A it will cost this prices, indie games tend to be much cheaper.
" can play it while having a subscription only"
you can play it forever in fullHD, you only have to pay if you want to go 4k, and once google upgrade their servers, the free tier should be updated to 4k and the paid tier should be 8k, 120fps.
"and if they shut the thing down or remove that title from the store you get your save-games so you can then go over to GOG or Steam to buy the game again on your actual PC"
that part is a little bit confusing, they said once you purchase the game is your forever, wich means they should provide you with an key if they ever want to discontinue the server, i dont know where this key will be located, if they will make an client such as steam to distribute, give you keys on steam or an store of your choice, or whetever, but i highly doubt they will leave you with nothing but your save game.
in any case i hope you can transfer your save at any moment, not only if they decide to shut it down.
Quoting: vectorIt ended up being Google which is poised to commoditize the underlying operating system, not Netscape. And it appears Stadia exists exclusively in service of the Chrome ecosystem. Perhaps one gatekeeper (Microsoft) has been exchanged for another (Google).
what scary me the most is that Stadia is powered by Linux, and if we ever enter an world where the standartd is gaming without preservation of old games, gaming without the freedom of mods to makew your own maps, characters etc. it will be google and linux fault that we were able to reach that world.
its linux communism where you fight for an better world and end up with an worse one and in some countries even up to today.
in the end of the day, letting microsoft have an monopoly is sounding less scary somehow.
Quoting: KimyrielleI do understand streaming music and videos. I don't understand streaming games. In contrast to music and movies, people generally play only a very small selection of games at the same time, so having access to a huge library has not a lot of appeal in the case of games.
for microsoft, the key advantage is that they will be able to sell games for android users, wich is a huge user base and keep directx as the standard for gaming and improve windows share on servers, or at least enjoy the fact that they have more servers than most companies so they will be among the few ones on this market.
for google, its good that they will be able to enter the desktop operating system market with chromeOS (since games will not be an issue anymore) and enter the hardcore gaming market.
for the players, they will be able to play anywhere, not worry anyore if their system can play the game or worry about hardware upgrades.
Quoting: elmapulQuoting: ixnariQuoting: GuestIt is always funny to read the random comments.
The team at Google Stadia mentioned that privacy will be “at the user's control".
Oh, I'm sure.
so what? they will know that i'm a bad player? who cares.
when it comes to voice patterns, video patterns or knowing who i'm friend with, i can see how this could be used for evil purposes.
but spying on me while i play? why is that an issue? how can this be used for "evil" purposes?
Like I said before, because you're feeding proprietary AIs, training them manipulating people.
Would you think watching human problem solving, or even human responses to enotional dilemmas might be useful for that?
See more from me