Hacker News Reader

Comment by bartread | Hacker News Reader

When Microsoft launched Xbox they suffered pretty terrible losses for a number of years but they always knew that was going to happen[1], and they were willing to accept it because they were playing the long game.

This worked out not only because Microsoft had the money but, critically, because they had the will to make Xbox a success. They resolved to slog through the years of losses, failures (anyone remember the Japan launch?), and missteps in order to build a successful business.

Whilst Google have the money, more than enough money, to do the same, I don't think they have the will.

From my own perspective, as a gaming enthusiast, Stadia simply isn't solving any problem that I have, and I don't believe it's going to be around long enough that I want to invest in it.

[1] I'm sure they would have preferred if it wasn't.

View on HN

I have an incredibly good internet connection since I'm working from home, but because I only play like 2-4 hours a week I can't really justify investing in a very expensive gaming computer. I need a laptop for work, and investing in an extra platform just for those 4 hours? Stadia might be a very good compromise for me, and I think there are quite a few others like me out there, especially in the youngest generation who mostly use mobile in the first place.

"A very expensive gaming computer"

You already have a laptop/PC. A lot of gaming can be done with iGPUs so the cost for you would be zero.

If you really want to play big titles, then you are looking at a delta of 300$ (the price of a good GPU) for 5 years, which amounts to 5$ a month.

I don’t see why anybody who has already a computer would pay more money to vendor lock-in themselves into an online-only service, one-store-only, no-mods-allowed, Internet-quality-dependent service.

I can see the appeal for people that wasn’t into computers before that, though. But still, if I were in that case, I would choose a non-locked-in platform at all costs.

Where would that GPU go? My laptop doesn’t have a place for it, and doesn’t have the connections for an eGPU. A $300 delta would only be true if I had a desktop.

I use Paperspace + Parsec for a regular Windows cloud desktop so I’m not locked into anything and pay just a few dollars per month for my gaming.

I think you are side-stepping OP's point in your response. The primary cost of a desktop is the GPU, everything else is pennies.

I don't know, my new system costed me substantially more than the cost of the GPU. Those high-end CPUs aren't cheap.

Next to the laptop, believe it or not.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208544

eGPUs are supported by any Thunderbolt 3-equipped Mac1 running macOS High Sierra 10.13.4 or later

The key is to realise that modern cables coming out of laptops are basically extensions of the PCIe bus. The bandwidth through them is phenomenal. It's entirely feasible to run an external GPU.

However, you don't really need one. I am a casual gamer who uses my laptop (got an Xbox too though), and even with the embedded GPU strategy/city building/etc type games work fine and look great. The Mac isn't a good platform if you're a capital-G "Gamer" but if you just want some entertainment on long flights and the like it works just fine. Go grab Steam and off you go. I don't think I'll be using Stadia any time soon as a consequence.

God it's so frustrating to see posts like yours.

https://netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.asp...

Thunderbolt 3 based eGPU-s work very well on Windows-based machines, too.

I really dug Paperspace + Parsec when I was using it. Their support is also top-tier; very impressive.

I ended up having too many glitches and lost connections and eventually moved to Shadow.tech and been thrilled with their service (though it's more than a few $'s a month).

Nitpick: An RX 570 is like $150, and can do VR acceptably. A $500 build from 5 years ago can still play modern games. A super powerful laptop that most developers insist on having should also game just fine

Test before you commit. I just grabbed a 3 month free nvidia geforce now subscription which is same/similar in nature and within the first 30 minutes I knew it was a no-go. I've got Google Fiber Gigabit, and even with that the service was laggy and the fidelity was garbage. Thought it'd be a good way to stop plunking down $1000 on the latest Ti cards every 2-3 years, but alas I was completely unimpressed.

Nvidia doesn’t have the same global network that Google has built so Stadia may have different results for you. I have Fios fiber and my issues with Stadia are not performance related, it’s about the lack of content variety at this point.

Yeah the reason I tested Nvidia instead of Stadia is because Nvidia lets you just use the games you already bought on steam. But you may have a point on performance. Not sure given the trade-offs in ownership that it represents a win either though. Maybe someone will get it right eventually, but for now I'll just stick with a local gaming rig. As hobbies go, even with my overbuilt and often refreshed setup, given the low cost of the games themselves and the number of hours I typically get out of each title I find interesting my dollar cost per hour of entertainment is still quite low compared to other hobbies. shrug

I feel like there's a few more cost effective options than getting a $1000 card every few years lol.

Geforce now probably isn't it, but titans are overkill (unless you're also using them for work.)

Titan != Ti. RTX 2080Ti is ~$1200 vs $2500 for the Titan RTX. One is aimed at gamers with too much money the other is geared towards serious professionals with too much money.

I swear that said titans before. Or I'm losing it. (Probably the second)

Either way there are certainly options other than nvidia's most expensive consumer end card.

No worries I got you point I was just being a bit nitpicky. It's true there are cheaper cards but I do like maxing out those settings. To me the main potential draw of a service like stadia or geforce now would be max current possible graphics without max graphics card purchase. Based on what is actually being delivered I am very likely not the target audience. Perhaps it's geared more for people who are deciding between a $400-$500 console or mid-range graphics card outlay or a $5/mo service.

I’m in a similar boat. Parsec seems to be the right solution:

https://blog.parsecgaming.com/a-seamless-cloud-gaming-experi...

You run a windows vm with a beefy gpu in the cloud, so anything that can run in windows is supported.

I’m definitely rooting for them. I don’t want to introduce a middleman that decides what games can and cannot be distributed.

Also, if parsec or paperspace or microsoft or steam go sideways, it’s easy enough for the industry to bypass them. That won’t be the case if one or two cloud vendors have monopolies over gaming hardware.

NVIDIA geforce now is available for free to play for one hour and is only 5 dollars if you want to play more it can stream your steam library games

I have both gigabit internet and stadia pro and even still you get stutters and buffering problems. after spending a few hundred on games I canceled the service and simultaneously realized the money spent on games is lost.

I knew Stadia would fail when I first heard about the project. It's a gaming product built by people who clearly have no idea about gaming or typical domestic internet connections.

If they had done some basic market research they could have saved themselves a ton of money.

I have a Ps4 and recently tried out the PS4 now streaming service, and while it was nice to try, I would not subscribe because of one reason: to much lag. And I have a very good internet connection and ethernet connection. I also live in a city where there are datacenters which host service.

Even then the lag was unaccceptable to me and I wouldn't even call myself an avid gamer. I'm just a moderate gamer.

There's only a certain type of game that is feasible over a streaming service and that is slow-paced strategy type games, or adventure games. Anything that requires fast reactions who's work. Kids won't like it. Kids will demand a PS4 or PS5 from their parents.

Putting games like Doom on Stadia is pure idiocy. These are the wrong type of game to put on it.

In any case, it will certainly fail and be shut down pretty soon.

Don't underestimate the difference in scale between Google's network and whatever powers the other streaming services...

I'm bearish on streaming games as well, but if there's one company that has the potential and know-how to solve the hard problems, it's Google.

I'm sure Google has the edge in terms of technical know-how but launching a successful game streaming service is about so much more than getting pixels on a screen fast.

I think Stadia has come about 20 years too early. Cloud gaming makes sense, but the infrastructure isn't there yet.

I already have a gaming PC at home and decent rigs in the places I frequent except the places where there is no internet at all. So it’s a no-go temporarily. But in 2 years when my current PC needs an upgrade. Maybe I take streaming services into account and don’t get that high-end graphics card.

But in 2 years it won’t be just Stadia in the games streaming game.

It already isn't. Nvidia Geforce Now lets me stream (some of) my prebought steam games. And its a pretty satisfying experience.

Their free tier isn't too bad, as of now, too. I see very little sense in buying something on Stadia, when I can buy it on steam and play at my desktop, or stream on my laptop.

> Stadia simply isn't solving any problem that I have

I see one specific market it could target: visual heavy "walking" simulators. Contemplative games where you don't care too much about input lag but having a powerful rendering hardware could add to the experience.

I have Stadia. The input lag is negligible. Especially when using the Chromecast Ultra on the TV (it seems this has better support than the browser-based option on the PC).

Honestly, they nailed the 'hard part' - technically the platform is incredible, I can pick up the controller and be playing almost immediately with short loading times, no updates etc.

And then they screwed up the launch itself, all the marketing and failed to get a decent library of large games.

It might sort itself out though as they are set to launch the free version next month which will add many more players (so multiplayer without crossplay won't be dead) and equally there are some huge games down the line like Cyberpunk 2077 and Baldurs Gate 3.

I bought it because before I had a gaming PC but to upgrade it I'd have to replace the motherboard and practically every component - whereas with Stadia I can play on my PC with kb+m or on my TV with controller etc. depending on how I feel and it's easier to get in and play.

I hope they sort out the problems as I feel it has a lot of potential.

Apparently they also heavily botched the developer experience, when reading across some of the sources on the dev community.

Think Android NDK, just worse. At least that is what I get from those comments.

Not giving Microsoft a few million dollars so the server backend was built on Windows instead of Linux was a catastrophic error.

It vastly increases the work required by devs for very little incentive.

If they launched and made a go of it? You could make a slow transition. But up front? Insane.

What reason to Microsoft have to play ball, though? They would be enabling competition with the XBox line.

Microsoft signed a deal with Sony to support their cloud initiatives for gaming, so clearly Microsoft does not see it as an issue.

It's possible Microsoft doesn't have an issue dealing with the incumbent, but won't help a challenger; the Play Station has outsold the XBox for the past 2 generations.

The way I see it is the competition is happening anyway, why not make money from every major player in the market?

> I have Stadia. The input lag is negligible.

I don’t see how this is possible if they are sending player input to a server somewhere with a 50ms ping. That’s a full twentieth of a second, not counting any lag at all from the server side.

I guess if you play an MMO or something that doesn’t care about lag it wouldn’t matter but I don’t see how you could play even a simple fighting game like Street Fighter 2 with that kind of lag, except at the most basic level.

It's Google. They seem to have hundreds or even thousands of edge data centers all over the world, and it's plausible they'd put Stadia servers into all of them. Which means that a decent fraction of the population will have ping times that are much lower.

Most people do have 10-25 ms latency to their servers. Ping isn't the problem here though, the problem is that you have to download the frame. That just takes a while. Input lag is like 150 ms.

The reason some people think that is absolutely insane and ridiculous is simply perception. I switched from 100 Hz CRTs to 120, then 165 Hz LCDs. Console games to me are unplayable already. Obviously, Stadia in it's current form is entire useless to me, no matter what game I'm playing because it just feels bad.

However, people who mostly played 30 FPS console games their entire lives, can usually play on stadia perfectly fine. The input lag isn't that much worse.

It really is negligible. The controller is a wifi controller connecting directly to the player's Stadia instance which helps combat latency.

As for a game like SF, I am not sure. They have MK on Stadia and I hear people enjoy it but I don't know what the latency is like.

I got a Stadia though some re-seller partner program at work. Honestly it plays really well for me. I often forget I'm playing a game in a browser. The problem is lack of games and the controller on PC still has to be plugged in.

Geforce Now is free for 3 months, go try it and you'll see. Input lag is negligible. 50 ms is not representative either, it much less than that.

I get 20 ms to paperspace (using it with parsec). The lag is good enough to play super meat boy.

This is with wifi hitting a local router, to a separate wifi access point, then wifi to my desktop. None of the network equipment is “gaming grade”.

FWIW: At 60 ms (due to a misconfiguration) super meat boy was unplayable.

If Google want to get into gaming, they should have released a high-spec console with android OS, which could play existing android games, but also compete with PS4 and the upcoming PS5.

If they did that, they could offer cloud gaming as a niche service on that platform, to test the waters, meanwhile they are building up a solid user base.

Instead they decided to go all-in on unproven technology, launched with barely any games available and no clear path forward.

Wow. This is an absurdly valid point, that would’ve been the way to go.

It’s true that at this moment - I don’t even know what, other than the streaming side, Stadia is even based on.

Edit: Apparently it’s Debian and Vulkan? Because that’s what every game developer uses as their tool chain, right? eye roll

It's weird seeing comments like this in HN. The "proven" approach is just a less controversial way of lighting money on fire.

Google wasn't going "all in" on "unproven" technology. They were making a strategic investment in a new market segment using technologies and people that it already was an expert in rather than trying to follow the footsteps of competitors that have several decades lead on them. And they're not betting the bank on stadia. They could turn it off tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip of difference to the health of the company.

How do you explain Windows Mobile?

Microsoft supported Windows Phone for a long time after it was clear that it would never take off.

Microsoft is really good at supporting products it releases even if they don't take off, at least when it comes to software.

Just got my last security update for my Windows Mobile phone two months ago. Years after they stopped making new phones and everyone considered the platform “dead”. Microsoft’s commitment to dead projects is pretty incredible, it’s probably the one huge strength they have. You know Microsoft will stick with their product regardless of its success.

backwards compatibility is Microsoft's motto

The mobile platform is inherently different from desktop - what made the desktop OS flourish constrained their thinking when they went with Windows Mobile. Gaming, on the other hand... it's not like they weren't dealing with games on the desktop before Xbox. I remember reading somewhere that the Xbox is just a desktop PC in a different case, if you take a look at the components.

That's correct - the Xbox was about 95% COTS PC components. It had a Pentium 3, a Geforce 3 deriviative, 64MB DDR RAM, and a 8GB IDE HDD. Compare that to the PowerPC or MIPS processors and custom GPUs the competition was using at the time.

Nobody can say that Microsoft didn't pour everything into Windows Mobile.

But by the time they finally had a really good OS, developer interest simply wasn't there anymore and a mobile platform lives or dies by it's app store.

Gaming is different because you have the advantage of being able to court and fund exclusive titles eg Halo and Gears of War

I think for Windows Mobile, their persistence and slowness made them fail. They kept trying to improve Windows CE based systems (not going to list all the renames) which were a very poor base to build on. When they finally decided to switch to a new OS/GUI they were slow and managed it badly. When it came out and they had good hardware as well they were way too late.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com