Don't become game streaming service

Gwarsbane Mar 24, 2019 @ 8:34pm

Once people see how expensive the google game streaming service is going to be (expect 50+ to 100+ bucks a month for around 1 hour of game play a day) along with the fact that you need a really good net connection to handle it and even then the tests that we have been seeing they have said its been 150+ms ping/lag running at 1080p 30fps.

I don't know about anyone else but for an FPS game anything over 100ms ping/lag is no good and I usually try to aim for 30 to 60 at most.

So I doubt Valve will stream games. I personally think that kind of stuff is at least 10 or 15 years away and even then I think it will still be very expensive.

#1

Sleepy Yoshi Mar 24, 2019 @ 9:02pm

Originally posted by Gwarsbane:
Once people see how expensive the google game streaming service is going to be (expect 50+ to 100+ bucks a month for around 1 hour of game play a day) along with the fact that you need a really good net connection to handle it and even then the tests that we have been seeing they have said its been 150+ms ping/lag running at 1080p 30fps.

I don't know about anyone else but for an FPS game anything over 100ms ping/lag is no good and I usually try to aim for 30 to 60 at most.

So I doubt Valve will stream games. I personally think that kind of stuff is at least 10 or 15 years away and even then I think it will still be very expensive.

I'm genuinely curious why you think it is that expensive for the consumer.

Granted I do agree, the latency is the big issue here.

#2

Garou Mar 24, 2019 @ 9:19pm

If people are up in arms against Epic store "spying" I fail to see how they will willingly use Stadia. Unless they are just a bunch of parrots who ganged up on an easy controversial target.

#3

Gwarsbane Mar 24, 2019 @ 10:32pm

Originally posted by Sleepy Yoshi:
Originally posted by Gwarsbane:
Once people see how expensive the google game streaming service is going to be (expect 50+ to 100+ bucks a month for around 1 hour of game play a day) along with the fact that you need a really good net connection to handle it and even then the tests that we have been seeing they have said its been 150+ms ping/lag running at 1080p 30fps.

I don't know about anyone else but for an FPS game anything over 100ms ping/lag is no good and I usually try to aim for 30 to 60 at most.

So I doubt Valve will stream games. I personally think that kind of stuff is at least 10 or 15 years away and even then I think it will still be very expensive.

I'm genuinely curious why you think it is that expensive for the consumer.

Granted I do agree, the latency is the big issue here.

Because every other game streaming service that has been tried so far has been at least that expensive. There was a recent post where someone tried to convince Valve to use some game streaming service. I went though the numbers that they provided and I could not get numbers less than 50 or 60 dollars a month for around 28 hours of game play.

Here we go
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/1798529872642147565/

Short version was that at the prices I worked with found on their own page, it was around 57 dollars before taxes for just 1 hour of game play a day.

By their own admission at the bottom of one of their pages it was 67 dollars for 2 months of gaming for a grand total of 32 hours during that 2 months. Again before taxes.

Going by the OPs own figure of $3 an hour for 1080p 60fps at 1 hour a day that would be around $84 dollars for a 28 day month.

As I mentioned in that thread, buying a prebuilt gaming system or gaming laptop would end up costing you less per month and it would be far more useful.

Onlive was going to be pretty much the same and it also was overly expensive and laggy.

Unless google can bring the price down to under 10 or 20 bucks a month for near unlimited amount of play time its just going to be too expensive, but they also need to bring down the latency too. It has to be under 100ping for 4k 60fps because many will be playing on big TVs if this does not require a box of any sort and 4k TVs are very popular.

But we currently have no idea what the actual prices will be, and they are not really sharing other info we need to know like will we have to own the games already on other services like Steam/epic/gog/whatever or will people be able to play what ever game they want without having to own it first.

#4

Mikasa Ackerman Mar 25, 2019 @ 3:11am

Originally posted by Gwarsbane:
Once people see how expensive the google game streaming service is going to be (expect 50+ to 100+ bucks a month for around 1 hour of game play a day) along with the fact that you need a really good net connection to handle it and even then the tests that we have been seeing they have said its been 150+ms ping/lag running at 1080p 30fps.

I don't know about anyone else but for an FPS game anything over 100ms ping/lag is no good and I usually try to aim for 30 to 60 at most.

So I doubt Valve will stream games. I personally think that kind of stuff is at least 10 or 15 years away and even then I think it will still be very expensive.

this , streaming wont be cheap and besides , you need unlimited internet ( not like "300 GB at full speed ,then very slow" or "just 300 GB and then nothing) and you need fast internet , and those 2 are the main reason streaming wont be big , countries where people cant afford good rigs their own , the requirements for streaming will be out of reach as well , at most streaming could be an alternative to consoles , like " you have a weak laptop but want to play the witcher 3 on the go , get our service and it can atleast run on it , unlike a console which cant run it on the go "

#5

Trundle Mar 25, 2019 @ 3:16am

Aussie internet would be big

for this.

#6

Sleepy Yoshi Mar 25, 2019 @ 4:15am

The comparison to Parsec doesn't make sense to me. They pay for bandwidth and rent machines from Amazon. Google owns the hardware directly and has been building it's own CDN for years now in a similar manner that Netflix took with it's CDN/OCA's.

I see them going with a model closer to Playstation Now (which I don't pay near $100 a month for or hell, even for a year) rather then the model Parsec had to take. And even in that comparison, Google has leverage in it's own network infrastructure.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Stadia is going to be the new "hot thing" as there are some significant disadvantages to cloud gaming. Many of which you covered already, but I legitimately don't think price is going to be the significant issue.

Since we got offtopic to move back to the OP, I don't think you have to worry about Steam going this route anytime in the near future. They may have paved the way with Steam, but I don't see them trying to pave the way with this considering the upfront infrastructure cost and the amount of manpower they'd need behind it. Considering they are laying people off....I'm not really seeing it.

Last edited by Sleepy Yoshi; Mar 25, 2019 @ 4:17am

#7

Gwarsbane Mar 29, 2019 @ 2:00pm

Hope you have a beefy internet connection.

Gonna need at least 25 megabits (around 3 megabytes) per second for 1080p 60fps. 4K is going to be at least 30megabits per second. Something doesn't seem right though, cause 4K is 4X the information that 1080p is. So there must be a whole lot of extra overhead with this than just an image being sent as some think it is.

https://www.fudzilla.com/news/gaming/48392-google-reveals-stadia-bandwidth-requirements

At 3 megabytes per second you're going to use up around 10.8 gigabytes in an hour. Over a month of 28 days thats around 302 gigabytes, for 31 day month thats 334.8 gigabytes.

Now this does not include all the other downloading you do. Or anyone else in the house using the internet at all. So you have to think about, does anyone in my family including myself watch any thing over the internet including stuff from youtube? Will anyone be using the net at the same time as you are playing?

Also this is a bare minimum, do you know what its like to play a game with the minimum required specs? Its pretty bad though technically it does work. I'd suggest having a net connection of no less 50 or 60 gigabites per second download and I'd check with your ISP to see if you have any actual caps on the amount you can download in each month and many don't have unlimited and going over can be VERY costly.

And anyone who thought they would run this through a phone tether, ya thats not gonna happen.

There is also still the issue with high lag that will not go away unless you have a fiber optic connection and even then, who knows till someone tries it on a home fiber internet connection.

Those looking to use Stadia on their TV will need Chromecast, and at launch, you will also need the Stadia controller as well.

So looks like you will need to buy a controller too, not just use what ever one you have now that you like.

Unfortunately, Phil Harrison was not that keen to answer any questions regarding the price or the official availability date so the availability and price announcements are is still scheduled for this summer, hopefully at the E3 2019 show.

Of course they are not sharing the price, they know its going to be high because if it was going to be very low, they would be screaming it from the hill tops already. Again the minimums that I'm expecting will be somewhere between $60 to $100 USD per month for the 1 hour of play a day.

I'll post again once we know more details (mainly the price is what people want to know)

Last edited by Gwarsbane; Mar 30, 2019 @ 3:26pm

#8

//// Mar 30, 2019 @ 2:47pm

i would rather peel off my face with a cheese grater than become a streamer.

#9

CazadorDeLobo Mar 30, 2019 @ 3:33pm

Originally posted by ////:
i would rather peel off my face with a cheese grater than become a streamer.

While that has nothing to do with the thread at all, I'll say that you've never worked a day of retail or food service in your life. That or you're among the lucky few that fits in perfectly with the other employees

Look up Google Stadia and while you're at it, re-read the thread title. Do you see "game streamer" anywhere?

#10

//// Mar 30, 2019 @ 4:06pm

Originally posted by CazadorDeLobo:
Originally posted by ////:
i would rather peel off my face with a cheese grater than become a streamer.
While that has nothing to do with the thread at all, I'll say that you've never worked a day of retail or food service in your life. That or you're among the lucky few that fits in perfectly with the other employees

Look up Google Stadia and while you're at it, re-read the thread title. Do you see "game streamer" anywhere?

i think like a simple person: no streamers - no need for streaming services.

#11

CazadorDeLobo Mar 30, 2019 @ 4:09pm

Originally posted by ////:
Originally posted by CazadorDeLobo:
While that has nothing to do with the thread at all, I'll say that you've never worked a day of retail or food service in your life. That or you're among the lucky few that fits in perfectly with the other employees

Look up Google Stadia and while you're at it, re-read the thread title. Do you see "game streamer" anywhere?

i think like a simple person: no streamers - no need for streaming services.

You have completely failed to understand what the topic is or what Google Stadia even proposes... Simple indeed but also misinformed.

Google Stadia is an alternative platform to game on. You don't have to be a streamer, you literally click a button on a YouTube video and are brought into a game via cloud technology. Any video the publisher wants to put their "play now" button on will allow you to use this tech to instantly start playing on your own.

Now simple man, explain to me what being a video game streamer has to do with this service. Simply put, you don't know what "streaming" is.

Last edited by CazadorDeLobo; Mar 30, 2019 @ 4:10pm

#12

Tito Shivan Mar 30, 2019 @ 4:28pm

Originally posted by Gwarsbane:
Because every other game streaming service that has been tried so far has been at least that expensive. There was a recent post where someone tried to convince Valve to use some game streaming service. I went though the numbers that they provided and I could not get numbers less than 50 or 60 dollars a month for around 28 hours of game play.

There's something that worries me more in regards Stadia...

It's a product from Google.

And considering their track in creating products, not investing much on them after release, leaving them rot at the side never improving them or simply axing them when they feel like it... I'll be quite skeptical on it.

Just like google glass, Inbox, Google Now, Nexus devices, Allo, Google+, Google Buzz, Google Wave, Google Reader...

#13

//// Mar 30, 2019 @ 4:40pm

Originally posted by CazadorDeLobo:
Originally posted by ////:

i think like a simple person: no streamers - no need for streaming services.
You have completely failed to understand what the topic is or what Google Stadia even proposes... Simple indeed but also misinformed.

Google Stadia is an alternative platform to game on. You don't have to be a streamer, you literally click a button on a YouTube video and are brought into a game via cloud technology. Any video the publisher wants to put their "play now" button on will allow you to use this tech to instantly start playing on your own.

Now simple man, explain to me what being a video game streamer has to do with this service. Simply put, you don't know what "streaming" is.

oh, you mean that streaming... it's rather confusing, like that post-ironic memes thing...

#14

Gwarsbane Mar 30, 2019 @ 8:43pm

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:
Originally posted by Gwarsbane:
Because every other game streaming service that has been tried so far has been at least that expensive. There was a recent post where someone tried to convince Valve to use some game streaming service. I went though the numbers that they provided and I could not get numbers less than 50 or 60 dollars a month for around 28 hours of game play.
There's something that worries me more in regards Stadia...

It's a product from Google.

And considering their track in creating products, not investing much on them after release, leaving them rot at the side never improving them or simply axing them when they feel like it... I'll be quite skeptical on it.

Just like google glass, Inbox, Google Now, Nexus devices, Allo, Google+, Google Buzz, Google Wave, Google Reader...

ya thats something else to consider that I wasn't thinking about. They usually dropped them because they were not very popular, but many of them were not very popular because they were either very expensive or like you said they just didn't put much thought into them or pay attention to them or heck some were just mostly experimental. Heck they have been pulling out of the google fiber in some places too.

Because of the price I expect it to be I doubt it will stay around long. Some people say "well its their own servers they are using", very true, it doesn't mean the price will be any lower. They still have costs to cover and they still like to make money.

#15

Report this post