Google Stadia Details -- Games, Price, Release Date, Founder's Edition

Everything you need to know to start gaming in the cloud.

107 Comments
Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Google Stadia Launch Date, Pricing, And More Announced - GS News Update

Google has finally shared the release details for Stadia, the cloud-based game streaming platform it revealed back in March. During the Google Stadia Connect event right before E3 2019, the company announced that Stadia will first launch in November 2019 as part of a special Founder's Edition for early adopters, with the free Stadia Base for everyone else following in 2020. You can pre-order the Stadia Founder's Edition right now.

Unlike conventional platforms, Stadia is a cloud-based gaming service, with games running remotely on dedicated servers while seamlessly streaming to nearly any device that can support Google's Chrome browser. This theoretically enables players to access cutting edge games without investing in cutting edge hardware, along with a host of other interesting perks, such as the ability to jump directly from watching a streamer play something into trying and then buying the game. We got our hands on Stadia at an event earlier, and were broadly impressed, if a little skeptical about the effect of variable connection speed and input lag on twitchy games like Doom (2016), despite Google's assurances that it will not be an issue.

The only physical hardware included in Stadia is its controller, which uses Wi-Fi to connect directly to the remote data center running the game. Selling for $69, it's largely a standard gamepad, with the addition of buttons for easily capturing footage and for calling up Google Assistant to ask for in-game help.

Some big games and content was announced during the Stadia Connect event, including Baldur's Gate III and Destiny 2: Shadowkeep. You can check out our news recap for more details on all of that; below you'll get the rundown on the core details on what we learned about Stadia.

Stadia Founder's Edition

Available for pre-order now, the Founder's Edition is the only way to access Stadia at launch in November 2019. Selling for $130 from Google, the Stadia Founder's Edition includes:

  • A limited-edition night blue controller
  • A Chromecast Ultra
  • A three-month subscription to the Stadia Pro service
  • First dibs on your Stadia Name
  • A three-month Buddy Pass to Stadia Pro for a friend

Pre-order Stadia Founder's Edition now »

Stadia Base

Starting in 2020, Stadia will be available to anyone with a controller and a compatible device--at first that will include any computer with a Chrome browser and a Pixel 3 or 3a phone. Users will be able to buy and keep games, granting unlimited access to their library from anywhere at up to 1080p/60fps with stereo sound. This is known as Stadia Base.

Stadia Pro

To get the complete Stadia experience, you'll need to pay $10 per month for access to Stadia Pro, the accompanying subscription service, which includes everything from the Base experience with the addition of:

  • Streaming up to 4K/60fps/HDR in 5.1 surround sound
  • Access to a library of free games for the duration of your subscription (like Xbox Game Pass)
  • Exclusive discounts on purchasing games (for full access even with a lapsed subscription)
  • For a limited time, access to the complete Destiny 2 experience, including all previous and upcoming add-ons

Stadia Launch Countries

Stadia will launch in November in 14 countries, with more regions following in 2020: US, Canada, UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

Stadia Launch Titles

Stadia will launch with more than 30 titles, including some brand new, hotly-anticipated releases, such as Doom Eternal and Borderlands 3.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 107 comments about this story
107 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for deactivated-5d08c48f04907

I don't think I'll partake.

Avatar image for justthetip
JustTheTip

Well, I think I’ve heard just about all I need to about Stadia. I already had no interest in it, and this just reaffirms my original feelings about it. No. Thank. You.

Avatar image for externalpower43
Externalpower43

Yet another streaming service..... It doesn't matter what company is behind the service because they depend on internet providers. Most of them in my area are junk. I'm lucky to be able to have a 10Mbps connection. Most people around here have satellite.

Avatar image for saganage
Saganage

I truly don't understand the bad sentiment I see just about everywhere about Stadia. I understand the skepticism: Google's track record on scuttling projects is worrisome, and I too will have to see to believe 4K resolution at 60 FPS on just 35 mbps internet, but come the hell on folks. I am a 33 yoa hardcore gamer that owns every major console and a gaming PC. Gaming is my passion. I'm surprised at the amount of "gamers" that seemingly aren't excited for at least the idea of what Stadia is offering: instant boot up to play the latest AAA titles at the highest graphical settings, no patches or downloads, and play anywhere on any device that runs Chrome.

I understand the concerns of all the what if arguments over ownership and access, but at the end of the day they are just what if arguments that I don't think should make people outright ignore what Stadia could do. I think we should give Google a chance to execute on what they claim Stadia can do, and not just doubt it every step of the way or make out like its garbage.

I see folks all over commenting how crazy they think it is to have to subscribe to get the best quality stream, but are they forgetting the fact that they aren't having to buy and build a several thousand dollar 10.7 teraflop gaming PC to play the game? How is it so frustrating to be able to play a game at it's highest graphical fidelity without having to cough up thousands for a rig? To be able to take a controller with you and spin up a game session on any device with chrome browser and a semi decent broadband connection? Not to mention that we are paying monthly to yearly subs to play online for our current consoles and STILL have to purchase the hardware?

Like I said, I understand and appreciate healthy skepticism, but most of the arguments I see against Stadia seem oddly reminiscent of my grandmother griping about how today's music is garbage lol. The best argument/concern I see being raised is about data caps from ISPs. Other than that, I can't tell if people's attitude is due to console loyalty, fear of loosing "ownership" of games, resistance to change, or just plain ignorance. Until we see this service actually shit the bed, I think folks should give it a fairer shake. If it works as advertised it can completely reform how we play in a good way IMO.

Avatar image for dirtyvu
dirtyvu

@saganage: let's see... the free version is useless unless you buy games. And you're buying games that you don't really own for a platform that can disappear if Google decides to cancel it. At least if you buy a digital game for a PC, Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, etc., you can play that game forever even if Microsoft, Sony, etc. were wiped from the face of the Earth. If you decide to pay the $10/month subscription, you still have to buy the vast majority of your games. You're given a handful of games for that subscription. And Google expects early adopters to subsidize the servers by requiring Google hardware, a paid subscription, and purchase of games. Heck, the first free game (Destiny 2) is going free to play on other platforms.

Avatar image for saganage
Saganage

@dirtyvu: With any digital purchase you no more "own" that title than if you were to buy a game on Stadia. Digital purchases from every publisher is essentially a long term lease on the game, where you are guaranteed access to the game as long as the server is up and running. So no, you can't play a digital PlayStation game "forever" if PlayStation was wiped from the earth somehow.

The good news is that this isn't likely to happen, as each game console company is surely keeping backwards compatibility in mind for each of their future consoles, especially since digital is becoming more mainstream. That being said, I like the idea of an all digital platform through Stadia, in that all games from now until the foreseeable future will be playable and just "work" on the platform. Perhaps we will even see graphical upgrades to old favorites as they update the hardware in the data center over time.

Yes concerns about Google canceling Stadia are valid, but I'm of the opinion that there is a relatively low risk of that happening after all the resources being poured into it. This is a long game for Google and I foresee Stadia becoming a staple Google service, much like youtube, google maps, and gmail.

Avatar image for Liferow
Liferow

@saganage: Have to agree with you. If ISP is an issue for you, then this is not for you. I'm pretty sure Google, a hightech company is aware of the latency issues in certain regions. Netflix sucks when I go to the cabins, I wouldn't expect this type of a service to work where the first sign of civilization is 200 miles away from a datacenter.

Avatar image for jsprunk
JSprunk

How much are you willing to pay for a Roku with a game controller?

Avatar image for gamingdevil800
gamingdevil800

Is it true that in the USA that there are no unlimited data plans for broadband packages? If true that pretty much kills any savings you get with this. Like in the UK unlimited data plans is pretty much the norm for home internet connection packages.

Avatar image for jsprunk
JSprunk

@gamingdevil800: In the past 30 years since I've had home internet service, I've never had a data cap on my service in the US. That I'm aware of, the only plans that have data caps for home internet service are those offered through satellite internet providers. They're prohibitively expensive and are for the rare case that someone cannot otherwise get internet service from a TV or telephone provider.

Avatar image for dr_derogatory
dr_derogatory

@jsprunk: Wish that were true. I only have unlimited data because I also carry cable TV. If I cut that cord, I'm limited to 1TB/month. This is through Cox Communications, and they're not small at all. I think I read an article on IGN that stated that 4k resolution streaming through Stadia would use 1TB of data in 65 hours of use. Avid gamers will burn through that very quickly. Supposedly the service works pretty well, but data issues, and licensing/ownership issues are my biggest problems with Stadia. For now, I'll stick to Sony and Microshaft.

Edit - Clarifying the "wish that were true" statement. Meaning I wish it were only limited to the satellite ISP's. Not that you don't have a cap. I'm assuming you don't. I wish all ISP's were like that.

Avatar image for jsprunk
JSprunk

@dr_derogatory: Ah yes, this is true. At one time I think all cable companies required you to subscribe to TV service in order to get internet service from them. Now some like Cox are offering limited options to people who don't subscribe to their TV service. I guess I've just been lucky for the past 10 years or so that I've lived in an area where the cable company just charges a premium rate for their internet packages they offer and data is unlimited.

Edit: Does Verizon offer FIOS in your area with unlimited data caps?

Avatar image for NorseLax09
NorseLax09

@gamingdevil800: Not true. Some carriers maybe have a data cap. Mine does not.

Avatar image for iranicus1
iranicus1

I'm not sure how to feel about this as an avid console & PC gamer o.o

Avatar image for megawavez
megawavez

Ex cept for th e la g sh ould b e f u n ! !

Avatar image for pmanden
pmanden

Read the article.

Shrugged my shoulders.

Looked at my PS4.

Turned on my PS4.

Avatar image for Naylord
Naylord

All the vitriol gamers sent towards the epic store needs to come in full force against Stadia. This is actually the apocalyptic publisher endgame that will hurt consumers in the long run if games end up only existing on cloud servers. I usually try to take a positive approach and root for the success of most gaming ventures, but this one I'm rooting for its failure.

Avatar image for Liferow
Liferow

@Naylord: The irony of this complaint is analogous to when the internet blew up and printing companies where complaining about how this is the end game. Explain how this will hurt consumers? If anything, it'll benefit the environment more as opposed to printing all those gaming covers made of plastic that won't do anything besides collect dust for the most part. Secondly, I'm sure they'll find a way to create a market to enable consumers to sell their digital copies. Each purchase of the game can create a unique hash tied to the user account, and through a simple trade function created in a library you can either sell, temporarily let someone borrow your hash for x amount of days, etc. Once you sell your game, that uniquely identifiable hash will transfer to the user, and removed from your accounts database......ROCKET SCIENCE.

Avatar image for NorseLax09
NorseLax09

@Naylord: This was the natural progression of gaming.

Avatar image for dantesergei
dantesergei

@NorseLax09: Primitive point of view. Online services are pathetic and mediocre, and devoid of the little freedom of choosing we still have, if any.

Avatar image for NorseLax09
NorseLax09

@dantesergei: I don't see how what you said has anything to do with the FACT that this type of service IS the natural progression of gaming. But I suppose my views are primitive (whatever the **** that means) so I wouldn't know any better....

Avatar image for dantesergei
dantesergei

@NorseLax09: It is indeed a fact as you mentioned it, but people should not accept this natural anti-consumer progression in gaming.

I apologize, sometimes my head just explodes with this corporate shit.

Avatar image for NorseLax09
NorseLax09

@dantesergei: I see where you're coming from. What you say is anti-consumerism doesn't necessarily have to be. What freedom are you upset at losing? The ability to resell your game? Having it on a shelf? At some point we have to transition from physical media to all digital. Think of the cost savings if that is the case and no more disks are printed. Think of the effect cutting down on the waste made by manufacturing will have on our planet. Sure you can't own or resell your games, but at some point if you're paying for a subscription then it no longer matters. Then there's the matter of emulation and ROMs for older games.

If I can pay $10 a month and play ANY game that is available and at a great resolution/framerate while also cutting out the need for buying a new console every 5-10 years then sign me up (already did. :-) I pre-ordered the founders ed.)

This will ultimately be a great deal for people with limited income who love games. Maybe not for the collector, but most definitely for the player.

Avatar image for Liferow
Liferow

@NorseLax09: It's 10 a month for the service, not the entire library. You still have to pay for your games. The developers still have to get paid. Otherwise, I also don't see why people are upset about losing physical media. Their excuse for not being able to resell can easily be addressed. Went into detail in my above comment.

Avatar image for dirtyvu
dirtyvu

not like Xbox Game Pass, but rather, like Xbox Live Gold. With Game Pass, you instantly have access to 300 games all at once. You don't have to pay 1 cent beyond the $10/month. Stadia requires that you pay $10/month and then pay for games on top of that. And they'll give you some games per month which is like how Xbox Live Gold is. Xbox Live Gold is $3/month and you get 4-6 games per month.

Avatar image for lonewolf1044
lonewolf1044

@dirtyvu: What they mean by like Game Pass you get to play the new games as you do on Game Pass which you cannot do even if you have live which entitles you to play games past and not present. Also, there is an 12 month Live which costs $60 so all in all it is like Xbox Game Pass or EA Access for that matter.

Avatar image for dirtyvu
dirtyvu

@lonewolf1044: why would anyone buy games on Stadia that you don't really own and can disappear at Google's whim? And Xbox Live Gold is the same: you can purchase your brand new games, just exactly like Stadia. At least Game Pass has brand new games on its list. Brand new games on Stadia require purchase.

Avatar image for Jag-T1000
Jag-T1000

I only support three systems. Xbox, ps4, and Switch. Everyone else can go to hell.

Avatar image for melante
melante

I am an old guy. I used to buy games full price and get the disc (or cart). Then things went digital and I only got a download code. Ok. I still felt like I owned something as I did get a file to keep (thanks GOG.com). Now I still have to pay full price and I don't even get to download my game!! LOL. What's next? "Give us the money and come to play it in our office, with amazing speed connection to our servers, whenever you like (disclaimer: transportation costs not included)"?

I am curious, but I think this will tank badly (and I won't be sad if it does)

Avatar image for lonewolf1044
lonewolf1044

@melante: It may but companies are going digital and sadly it going to stick. I am not against it only if there is another way to acquire an game other than digital as seeing what Telltale has done it may have opened peoples eyes and making true what the downside of digital can do even if it is one instance. I do not dislike the device I have too many consoles and PCs and dam+ if I need another and also for some depending on your ISP you may have an Monthly quota like Comcast does and one reason for those not to partake unless they pay an All you down load fee on top of your internet bill.

Avatar image for pmanden
pmanden

@melante: I will be elated if it tanks badly.

Avatar image for lorddaggeroff
lorddaggeroff

You all wanna know something funny, right now I'm texting on my phone yet I have no internet or mobile data, however at home I have a box stuck on my wall and the box supports 1gig speeds, to expensive, with glass fibre optic cable running all the way through the premises.

(But wait it gets even funnier) Because I have not had that lil white box switched on in 1 year.

The plans I could get are like 100mbs downand 50mbs up for 90 a month, or less.

That's just a example.

But as I said before that while I'm on my phone texting the WiFi I am accessing well my phone hacked the modem(because the stores dumb enough to turn on wps) and I'm downloading what ever I want.

Oh yeah this is the part where it's absolutely funny(sorry I forgot) my next door neighbor has drug addicts that come over, and they thought the white box on their property was a spy camera so they destroyed the box that had utrla fast fibre optic cable housed inside and they don't even own a TV.

😆 I guess there's a lesson there.

And I don't even care about internet speeds just crazy GPU speeds.

Avatar image for smouche_mole
SMOUCHE_MOLE

@lorddaggeroff: irrelevant, shit example that wasn’t funny

Avatar image for MrDoomLWest
MrDoomLWest

This whole thing reminds of Onlive, and just when they went out of businesses, so did the games. Whatever you bought them or where part of a subscription. They did have their own controller and streaming device. The resolution 1080p is kind of what consoles have, even on the pro ps4, or xbox one. Still, don't see this going anywhere, since internet connection suck for vast majority, no matter where you live.

Avatar image for Pyrosa
Pyrosa

Good luck!

Avatar image for lostn
lostn

That's not so bad, if you don't mind 1080p.

Though I'd still rather buy the local version of the games.

Avatar image for lorddaggeroff
lorddaggeroff

@lostn:

While people are still grappling with the technical ramifications of Google's Stadia platform, gamers have begun asking deeper, more troubling questions. What do mods look like in a world of game streaming? What happens to game preservation? What happens if Google dwarfs gaming the same way it has with search, browsers and advertising? And most worryingly of all, what happens if Google decides to walk away from the industry later on?

In the immediate aftermath of the Google Stadia announcement, the public discourse largely centred on the technicalities. That was the part Google had provided the most detail on, so it was natural for people to focus on broadband connections, latency, and what is possible now versus a few years from now.

There was a little bit of excitement mixed in with all of that. What's the gaming experience like when your connection is in the same room as the dedicated servers that you're playing on? What's the potential level of fidelity like when games aren't limited to the hardware in a single console, or a single PC? What experiences can you have when it's possible to develop a game that takes players across multiple screen formats?

That's exciting to think about. But there's no such thing as a free lunch, especially with a company that wants to carve up a sizeable chunk of the gaming pie for itself.

The biggest complains or concerns against Stadia can be categorised into three broad aspects. The first is a backlash against Google itself. Not Google the search engine, or the presence of a company the size of Google (or its parent company Alphabet), but rather concern over how Google specifically operates as a business.

Google has a history of launching and then abandoning products, even ones that users really love. There's Google+, the company's alternative to a Facebook-style social offering that never really took off. There's offerings like Google Reader, which fans of RSS readers still miss today. Google Health, a service to broaden access to health and wellness information, was shut down in 2012 after "not having the broad impact that we hoped it would". Google's Orkut social networking service found some popularity overseas, but it didn't gain traction in the United States, so that was killed off in 2014. Google's Allo messaging app was shut down this month.

It's not just virtual products that Google has a history of walking away from. The most damming indictment of the company's attitude brought up in the past week was the rollout of Google Fiber in Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville became the 12th city added to the fibre project back in 2017, and the internet conglomerate quickly set about rearranging the city's infrastructure to offer gigabit speeds to residents.

But Google vastly underestimated the technical scope of the project. The plan was to roll out fibre using a series of shallow trenches, where fibre was laid two inches beneath the sides of roads and later covered up with asphalt. The process caused massive disruption to the city's roads, since they had to be torn up. Worse still, the pits and asphalt were too thin, resulting in the rubber patching and, in some cases, exposing the cables and wiring.

Google had to recover affected areas with hot asphalt a second time, but that wasn't the only problem they faced. AT&T and Spectrum sued the conglomerate to block a city ordinance granting Google access to electricity poles in the city. AT&T owns most of the poles in the area, but the lawsuit was really just an attempt to stall Google's rollout, as evidenced by the company's refusal to challenge the judge's ruling.

But the technical challenges proved too much, and after all the disruption Google announced it was shutting down the Louisville project entirely, less than two years after signups began. The experiment hasn't been a total failure - Google's presence forced AT_T to roll out gigabit services faster than they would have ordinarily. But for residents who watched their city pass all the laws Google wanted, and then watched as Google tore up their streets and laid hot asphalt over everything to fix it, only to abandon the project and shut down services altogether, it's a galling lack of respect.

Rightly so, people have questioned what would happen if Google took the same approach with games. Which feeds into the second major concern.

Part of the reason why emulators are so revered is because it's the only way some older titles can be played at all. Video games are built on a long and great history of quirks and differences - different games for different regions, titles being censored or banned outright in some nations, as well as what happens to a game during the localisation process.

In the modern era, that preservation problem has been less about functioning hardware and more about compatibility. There's plenty of modders and gamers who have found ways to get titles that used to run on Windows 95 or Windows 98 playing just nicely in 2019. GOG and Night Dive Studios are great examples of making a living doing precisely this.

But have you ever tried to get a game that only ran on Windows 3.11 going? And that's just the compatibility problems. Archivists also have to deal with the degradation of physical media: cartridges that no longer work after 15 or 20 years, magnetic media that becomes disoriented over time, essential data stored on EPROMs that eventually becomes unreadable.

Preserving these games is only possible because gamers have access to the original files, either through physical means or by way of being able to download them locally in the first place.

Why Some Video Games Are In Danger Of Disappearing Forever

Years of neglect are eroding gaming history. Cartridges rot in garages, companies horde demos that they will never release, and obscure titles fade into the ether. Some games may even be lost forever.

Cloud gaming does away with that process entirely. It's part of why cloud gaming has any appeal at all - by not having to download and install tens of gigs worth of assets, you're cutting out all kinds of loading and downtime that gets in the way of actually playing a video game.

But it also means you're entirely reliant on servers for that game, or the platform holders that offer them, being online forever. And that's never, ever the case. Even when communities have tried to keep older games online, they can run afoul of license holders and copyright issues. But at least fans can try to keep a game alive.

With cloud gaming, that's not possible.

Now that might not matter a great deal for games that are being offered via traditional, local storage mediums. In the interim, things like the next Assassin's Creed, the next Fallout, Battlefield 6 or whatever the next AAA game is will be available like that. You'll be able to buy them digitally or on a disc, like always.

But what happens when games are designed solely around the idea of a cloud service, like the platform exclusives Google is funding?

And what happens to the future of mods? Some of the greatest games today exist exclusively as a result of mods: Team Fortress 2, which went on to inspire Overwatch; Counter-Strike, which the foundations of esports in the West were built on, was borne out of a Half-Life mod; and even the ways games have been improved or overhauled through the tireless work of fans, as seen in the Fallout and Skyrim communities.

Do developers have to build new systems and models to make existing mods playable in a cloud gaming context? Do new editors have to be made for people to access the files? Or does that functionality just disappear altogether?

The size of the global gaming market is part of the appeal for Google, although that's also another bruising reality: there's little to no money in preserving older games, let alone the effect spent to make them compatible on modern systems.

Part of Google's Stadia pitch wasn't just to eliminate frustrations for gamers, but also the technical limitations of existing hardware that frustrates developers.

Take the idea of elastic compute. Instead of relying on the power of a single console, developers building for Stadia could design around combining multiple data centres PCs, allowing games to be run at even higher resolutions, with even more fidelity, able to populate in-game worlds with more people, more things to do, and just more stuff.

That's enticing because existing hardware will only take you so far before you run into a litany of performance problems. It might be the lower-powered CPUs in consoles that make it difficult to calculate the movement of too many NPCs at any given stage. Or memory limitations that affect how much data a client can buffer and stream at any given moment.

But how do you keep a game alive that was never designed to exist outside of a data centre in the first place?

Nobody can answer that. And to be precise, it's not a new problem. It's a question people have asked repeatedly with the rise of digital platforms like Steam, and the online-only nature of gaming services in 2019 more generally. Even without cloud gaming, the push towards subscription-based services means there will be a segment of gamers who - in all likelihood - spend hundreds of dollars a year on a hobby without actually having anything tangible to show for it.

You're paying for access, not a product. Should that company decides your money is no longer worthwhile, there's bugger all you can do about it. And the same applies for pricing and access more generally. Australians might have access to a wealth of gaming platforms, and there's competition on the horizon for cloud gaming too.

But in emerging countries and continents, where modern gaming has failed to penetrate due to a myriad of issues (socioeconomic conditions, internet infrastructure, shipping and supplier problems in getting hardware into some countries), that choice might not be available.

What happens in those places when there's nobody to stop Google from upping prices?

The third and most instant backlash to Stadia was the technical possibility, as in whether Stadia would function at all. A lot of that conversation was dominated by the here and now. Some Australians have rightly pointed out that the spotty, broken rollout of the NBN means a service like Stadia is vastly less enticing than it should be. But the majority of criticism actually came from Americans. Google might have all the data centres, cloud platforms and internal infrastructure it needs throughout the US continent, but the quality of internet service from state to state is shockingly unreliable, so much so that it's not unreasonable to argue that Australia has better internet - on the whole - than the continental US.

Google Stadia's stream of 30mbps is required for streaming 4K content, with the 1080p/60fps stream for Assassin's Creed: Odyssey needing 15mbps (although 25mbps was recommended). If you consider that most Australians tend to stream content at 720p or on smaller devices, where the trade-off of lower resolutions is more acceptable, it's not unreasonable to think that, as of today, a solid chunk of the Australian diaspora would be capable of enjoying a smooth Google Stadia stream right now.

There's the rollout of the 5G network to consider as well, the advancement of the NBN, and what happens with future compression technologies and next-generation video encoders like H.265/HEVC/AV1. Newer encoders offer better quality at lower bitrates, meaning users don't have to stream as much data to get the same quality picture.

Avatar image for emmanuelguerrero
EmmanuelGuerrero

@lorddaggeroff:

Very long, but I did read. Thanks for the good write up. Worthy read!

Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

@lorddaggeroff: holy butternut squash that's a long post.

Moderator
Avatar image for gamingdevil800
gamingdevil800

@lorddaggeroff: Nice Essay: https://i.imgur.com/9AvXaFe.gif

Avatar image for Arkhalipso
Arkhalipso

@lorddaggeroff: Damn son.

Avatar image for lostn
lostn

@lorddaggeroff: You got a TLDR for that one?

Avatar image for lorddaggeroff
lorddaggeroff

One thing I am looking forward in Google stadia is:

Allo app, I mean, Google+, no no I mean the Google reader ah geez seriously I mean the Google Nexus.

Look I'll be honest I'm looking forward to the ads baby lots and lots of ads. Sorry subscription is now cancelled to continue your game for free we will add ads baby lots and lots of freaking ads.

(Apex legends is free, not anymore ads, lots and lots of ads. Hay see that head shot oh @##@ ads, hay I need to upload this content to YouTube, just gotta edit out the ads on my computer, but now the edited out ad is now playing over the video uploaded on Google tube.)

Actually those products listed above were cancelled by Google don't ask me why maybe because there were no ads in them.

Ads ads baby.

Avatar image for SkytheWiz1
SkytheWiz1

Somewhere Pete Hines and Todd Howard both gasped in unison, questioning, "No Skyrim?"

Avatar image for zmanbarzel
ZmanBarzel

@SkytheWiz1: Bethesda's E3 presentation is just a few days away.

Avatar image for WESTBLADE
WESTBLADE

Casuals and (and 90+%) console gamers: '''WOW''

PC gamers who know their shit: ''LOL''

Avatar image for Arkhalipso
Arkhalipso

@WESTBLADE: This PC superiority complex really seems like a serious issue. You should get some help.

Avatar image for emmanuelguerrero
EmmanuelGuerrero

@Arkhalipso: I just hope you own a PC yourself and know why some feel the way they feel about PC gaming.

Avatar image for siarhei
siarhei

@WESTBLADE: so about 1% of PC gamers then?

Avatar image for WESTBLADE
WESTBLADE

@siarhei: That's the point...😉