Google reveal Stadia will only have 12 games available at launch, more later in the year

They're in for the long run. Will take them years until the library is "big enough" to make it even viable. They're throwing their weight at the gaming market, and they've cash enough to sustain that, especially controlling the android ecosystem.

We'll be able to judge if Stadia was a success or not in ~5 years or so.

Quoting: Mountain ManAre they trying to fail?

Might be, kind of. Because it would be slightly inconvenient if everybody would rush to try it out, overstressing the servers and then leave with a "Stadia sucks" because all they got was a "server full" message or bad performance.

Quoting: Nezchan

Quoting: Whitewolfe80

Quoting: NezchanAnd not a single one I'm interested in. Which saves me the FOMO, I guess.

The price and content of the subscriptions ensures i will never feel FOMO also i bc i dont believe fomo is a thing and if it has become a thing we need to destroy social media now.

Oh, poor innocent. It was a thing before social media even existed, it just didn't have a catchy acronym.

It definitely was a thing before social media, but post-social media it's been far easier for companies to leverage FOMO against an exponentially larger, and more susceptible, audience.

Not "believing" in FOMO is like not believing in the entire field of consumer psychology. Anyone interested really ought to watch the BBC documentary "The Century of the Self" (Wikipedia article. Incredibly interesting stuff.

I'm not super-familiar with all these games (none of them are stuff I'd be interested in), but aren't they all character-based action-oriented games? Come to think of it, for a streaming service, why don't they have any single player games that aren't action-oriented? Y'know, ones where the slightest input lag wouldn't destroy people's ability to enjoy it? Imagine playing a Civilization game where the fractions of a second of lag don't affect it too much, with the power of a server somewhere to calculate those interminable late-game AI turns. Or any of the many graphically-less-demanding puzzle-type games out there. Those would seem to be a much more natural fit than games where speed and reaction time matter. But I guess some suit at Google thought they wouldn't get the "hardcore" gamers if they didn't offer entirely AAA action games.

English is not my language sorry. Google will go wrong is signed. Simply for not selling games for PC, the "gaming community" in general that can not access a fast internet in much of the world, throw trash against the platform.
Another thing I read is about negative latency or AI in gaming is fatal since it predicts beforehand a shot or any other action loading the experience.
If it were a platform that can download the video game for Linux flatpak type so that developers and companies remain calm about its code that is locked without access to the source code.

Still no info on game pricing though. I'm curious to see what they think the value is of a game that is so tied to their service that there is no hope for recovery if Google calls it quits.

It's not native but the lutris install for the epic launcher with the patched 64 bit .net runs borderlands 3 fine. not willing to spend money on rdr2 to find out if it works though.

Everyone's their own of course, but I'm surprised how many people state no interest at all in Red Dead Redemption 2.

Quoting: PhiladelphusI'm not super-familiar with all these games (none of them are stuff I'd be interested in), but aren't they all character-based action-oriented games? Come to think of it, for a streaming service, why don't they have any single player games that aren't action-oriented? Y'know, ones where the slightest input lag wouldn't destroy people's ability to enjoy it?

German computer magazine c't has asked people to play games on PCs without telling them they were streamed - and the people didn't even realize. Furthermore, every online game has the same communication lines to cross...

Quoting: pskosinskiOther issue is that in "third-world" countries they use mainly GSM to access internet and Stadia needs really good fiber.

As far as I know in US everyone can afford good internet connection but many people can't afford good hardware and I guess that's the target.

Here in Poland you can get good fiber simply only in big cities, I would gladly pay for one but where I live there are none. :|

Yup, I do live in one (the most expensive one btw) and I know that unfortunately it's impossible to a project like Stadia to succeed here due to poor network infrastructure, but ironically would be the perfect place for consumers because of the vast low end pc/notebooks here.

Quoting: EagleDeltaIsn't this technically a "Soft" or "Beta" launch, hence the subscription requirement for the Founder's Edition? I know the general version of the service doesn't launch till next year, so my guess is that this is to get actual users on the platform to get real-world performance data so they are less likely to run into issues on the true launch day

Even though it's still beta, average consumer want only the better experience, so if the first impression is "it's worse than playing with my high end pc" then people won't use it anymore. Valve made a similar mistake with Steam machines because they didn't refined the system (SteamOS, drivers, big picture...) before launching it for the public, then was released and floped.

Different from Netflix, the smallest input lag can be terrible when we talk about games (especially the fast paced ones) and this will be the main complaint when it release officially.

Some people may continue to use, but it'll be a niche, and a niche can't sustain this kind of market.

Quoting: HopfenmeisterBecause it would be slightly inconvenient if everybody would rush to try it out, overstressing the servers and then leave with a "Stadia sucks" because all they got was a "server full" message or bad performance.

In my opinion you're more right than you know :)