Slashdot Mirror
Why Google Stadia Will Be a Major Problem For Many American Players
Earlier today, Google launched its long-awaited "Stadia" cloud gaming service at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco. Unlike services from Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo, Stadia is powered by Google's worldwide data centers, allowing users to play games across a variety of platforms -- browsers, computers, TVs, and mobile devices -- all via the internet at a 4K resolution. One major problem with Stadia, which Google didn't mention in its presentation, is that it will require a ton of bandwidth, testing the limits of data caps that most U.S. internet service providers have.
"Most US ISPs cap their customers' bandwidth usage, usually somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 GB per month. And streaming 4K content eats up about 7GB an hour," Steve Bowling from YouTube gaming channel GameXplain tweeted. "And that's based on Netflix's publicly available guidelines for 4K video content, which is shot at 24 fps, a far cry from 60fps, meaning content at 4k60 could be more costly." He added: "Your average consumer likely isn't rocking a 100Mbps+ connection, and in some parts of America such options aren't even available, limiting Stadia's potential reach. And if you are, that cap can come at you fast, especially considering most folks are going to use their internet for more than just streaming games. Most ISPs offer additional data at a premium, but how many are going to want to pay that premium to stream 4K games?"
What's unknown is whether or not Google will work with ISPs to help alleviate this concern. PCWord also notes that there's no option to download and install a game if you want, which is an option available on Steam's streaming service. "You're always streaming it, and presumably copies sold through the Google Play store won't come with more traditional versions from other storefronts," reports PCWorld. "You're either all-in on Stadia and streaming or you're not."
UPDATE: A Google spokesperson told Kotaku they were able to deliver 1080p, 60 FPS gameplay for users with 25 Mbps connections. They also said that they expect Stadia to deliver 4K, 60 FPS for people with "approximately the same bandwidth requirements." How exactly they will achieve this is still unclear.
"Most US ISPs cap their customers' bandwidth usage, usually somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 GB per month. And streaming 4K content eats up about 7GB an hour," Steve Bowling from YouTube gaming channel GameXplain tweeted. "And that's based on Netflix's publicly available guidelines for 4K video content, which is shot at 24 fps, a far cry from 60fps, meaning content at 4k60 could be more costly." He added: "Your average consumer likely isn't rocking a 100Mbps+ connection, and in some parts of America such options aren't even available, limiting Stadia's potential reach. And if you are, that cap can come at you fast, especially considering most folks are going to use their internet for more than just streaming games. Most ISPs offer additional data at a premium, but how many are going to want to pay that premium to stream 4K games?"
What's unknown is whether or not Google will work with ISPs to help alleviate this concern. PCWord also notes that there's no option to download and install a game if you want, which is an option available on Steam's streaming service. "You're always streaming it, and presumably copies sold through the Google Play store won't come with more traditional versions from other storefronts," reports PCWorld. "You're either all-in on Stadia and streaming or you're not."
UPDATE: A Google spokesperson told Kotaku they were able to deliver 1080p, 60 FPS gameplay for users with 25 Mbps connections. They also said that they expect Stadia to deliver 4K, 60 FPS for people with "approximately the same bandwidth requirements." How exactly they will achieve this is still unclear.
If bandwidth is concerned, it is no different than watching Netflix, Hulu, Twitch, Prime Video, or YouTube. Consumers are already aware of their data caps if they're hitting them.
This is worse than renting games. Streaming them too? I have great fibre service where I live and I'd still rather just install them on my top end gaming pc and enjoy them with the best experience I can get.
Why would I want to lag in a single player game, for instance?
A solution looking for a problem.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
If bandwidth is concerned, it is no different than watching Netflix, Hulu, Twitch, Prime Video, or YouTube.
Sure it is, much different.
First of all, most of that content you get from those providers is not even in 4k yet.
Secondly, all the TV/movie streaming providers compress the video quite a lot more than a game can, without noticeably losing lots of detail. In movies or shows the focus is not so much on tiny minute details bu instead on large figures on the screen.
Lastly, most people spend a LOT more time on a game they like than movies or TV. I know in the times when I am really into a game I put way more hours into gaming than I ever would watching video content.
So this service will indeed sneak up on people who otherwise never notice bandwidth caps (which is I would say, most people). This people are also not truly aware of data caps from a practical sense since it does not affect them today.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not to worry; the way Google operates, the service will be cancelled before anyone has a chance to reach their bandwidth cap.
They can't wait to show copies of your stream to the rest of the world... with appropriate ads, of course. If they can stream it to the player, they can stream it to anyone. What did you think, they were doing this out of the goodness of their hearts?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
ISPs, so they can throttle it and extort money from Google or customers in order to work as intended.
Personally I have 0 interest in such a product. No thanks Google.
Google might as well announce date they will become bored with it and shut it down during launch to save everyone time and guesswork.
The only thing more idiotic and wasteful than the underlying concept of streaming games is relying on Google for anything.
Its not watching data like TV.
This is moving vast amounts of game data in real time every time a person in a game moves around in real time.
Less use of the GPU and CPU, vast amounts of needed graphics and sound data is pushed down to the user playing the game.
Every movement and change in the game is sent up and new data sets get pushed down to the user.
Every hour in game is like downloading select parts of a 30-90 gig game again and again.
That is the data use per day.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
To maintain a really high end gaming PC takes a lot of time and effort, more than most people are willing to invest - this service is a way to experience high-end graphics with none of the hardware pains that comes with owning and maintaining a gaming PC.
You're trying to make both sides of the argument simultaneously. The people who aren't willing to invest time and effort into a highly optimized experience are the target demographic of game consoles. It's not a dig, it's a reality - they offer a solid experience with virtually no configuration required. Many have exclusive titles and franchises that make them even more appealing to that demographic. This group is already a solved problem.
The #PCMasterRace that doesn't want to spend a massive amount of time or money can go to my local Microcenter. They can pick up a Powerspec with an 8th gen i5, 16GB RAM, and GTX1060 for $800. It's not earth shattering, but it'll play most games at a quality commensurate with what this service can provide, and again, doesn't require a massive investment of time, effort, or money.
If graphics quality is a big enough draw that the aforementioned $800 machine isn't enough, we're dealing with enthusiasts. To that end, that's where tinkering and modding starts to become a part of the experience, but if one is intent on avoiding cracking open the case, then that's where Alienware / Origin / Falcon Northwest / Sager come into play with their four figure price tags.
Streaming doesn't meaningfully address any of these better than the existing solutions. About the only market for this is one where paying $20/month which covers both hardware and games is seen as superior to a few one-off purchases. There is one, but I'd argue that it's even smaller than the enthusiast community who's willing to drop $500 on a graphics card. Really, this primarily benefits the companies behind the streaming more than it benefits the end users who play them.
Posting as AC as I modded some comments.
If you are not a "huge data user" but pass the 1TB cap...
You ARE a huge data user!!
DethLok
Whatever latency you have to the server, add another 100ms or so to compress and decompress the video stream.
Tic-tac-toe will work great.