A look at Google’s Stadia, the gaming platform that works through streaming on any device you own – Will it be a console killer or just another failed Google project?


I'm a girl that's liked technology from day 1. Mostly interested in the PSVita/PSP scene but I've always modded my stuff when it's possible, that is :)Contact me via DM at @KawaiiAuroraA on Twitter if you have any questions/concerns about my articles or if you have any article requests.

24 Responses

  1. John says:

    This will fail miserably 🙂

  2. Kurosaki says:

    This is the worst thing in the videogames history.

    • AtomeCrochu says:


      While the mobile ‘business model’ has been a disaster for console gaming, the literal hybridation of those two may spawn something disgusting…that cellphones players may enjoy, which is the worst.

      The irony here, what I hate the most has killed what I loved the most.

  3. Kevin Cormier says:

    Of course it will fail, nobody really wants it and the idea of streaming games makes no sense at all when user hardware is getting smaller and cheaper. Video streaming makes sense since the user is sent a bit at a time and your hardware does the work… in games you basically have to download atleast all the core files or you are server side processing (which makes no sense).

  4. Justin Drobey says:

    I don’t understand at all why the “console” stats are relevant in the discussion. If it is a streaming platform, the stats are useless. My PSVita’s stats have absolutely nothing to do with the performance of my PS4 games when using Remote-Play.

    • Unknown Stranger Alien says:

      I think in general they are useful to let you know what “the source” is. Also since it’s basically a cloud farm it’s important for PR, to show off their mammoth processing power or whatever. Even though the average subscriber will end up getting some laggy sub-par feed.

    • Mantiz says:

      No but your PS$’s stats do…this is the server that’s actually running the games those stats are for, that’s the compute power each game can use to render same as a console

    • Jack Attack says:

      And what are they streaming from, do you think? Magic? Their specs don’t matter much since they’ll scale it to match premium PC gaming, I imagine. Maybe if enough idiots take it on they’ll then try to do better than ANY consumer hardware, but that’s doubtful and I do hope consumers aren’t quite so stupid to give away all sense of ownership just yet.

  5. Deco says:

    This feels like OUYA. And we saw how that ended.

  6. Bullrog92 says:

    Not interested.
    Google can take their streaming service and get lost with it

  7. bluerobotshoes says:

    These game streaming services are garbage and I really wish people would stop supporting it. Yeah, a lot of people said the same thing about rental stores but you actually got to use a PHYSICAL platform to test a product. Sure, Netflix and other MOVIE streaming services are successful, but that’s a video platform and you don’t watch the same video over and over unless you are a kid who wants baby shark on repeat another 100 more times every 10 minutes.

    Gaming needs to stay as a physical platform controlled by each users needs instead of a service trying to either be “the next big thing” or another repeated fad. Companies are already selling unfinished games and people are purchasing it which is stupid for lack of better words but this is just another path to money wasted on useless services. I hope it is another failed Google service and they concentrate on something better.

  8. cantfindthegenepool says:

    It’s all about squeezing as much money out of the paying consumer as possible, I’ll stick with physical games & consoles thanks, They will bring in a simple pricing structure to start then change it to rake in more money

    Can see it now as its google….. Just doing an important part of a game and a popup appears on the screen even though you have “Paid to remove adverts”

    No thanks

  9. Dennis says:

    These services do work and in optimal conditions provide a pretty solid experience but they have a lot of disadvantages.

    One problem is at least here in the United States 99% of people don’t have access to very fast and reliable internet connections. Most people barely have 50Mbps and forget anything over 100Mbps unless you’re in a rare place that has optic fiber. This is the biggest hurdle. Consider that if you live in a multi user house and everyone is on at once it’s going to kill your speed even more.

    Although they make it look convenient with the service running on multiple devices via wireless connections, the truth is you’re going to experience occasional lag due to interference over wifi. You won’t achieve a stable and low latency experience without being connected over a wired/Ethernet connection.

    Although the cloud provides continuous hardware upgrades with your subscription, you have to consider the risk that they can change their pricing model at any time and raise their fees in the future.

    There is some upside to the cloud, like not having to download games or at least download them quickly and being able to carry your gaming experience between various devices, but the overall experience is lacking unless you have a stable wired connection with a robust internet service to back it all up.

    My conclusion is that for most of us cloud gaming still can’t compare to a local gaming system. But, for those that have a robust internet service at home and that live close to the data Center they are using, it can provide a very, very close experience to what you’d get with a local machine.

    • VashTS000 says:

      “99% of people dont have access to very fast and reliable internet.”

      thats not true – this has been said by so many news outlets that people are believing it. fact is MOST people do have fast enough internet, at least in the USA. if they don’t then its economical reasons, not sourcing thats the issue.

      can’t afford the base 60 mbps internet cable offers? too bad, but that doesn’t count as you “don’t have access”. they do, they choose not to take it.

    • Jack Attack says:

      No. Wrong.

      You lose ownership and you lose free will. Games will come and go and some would be lost forever if they were streaming only. You’re bound to their will on what you can play and when. Companies can’t even prepare properly for launch weeks as is, can you imagine putting yet another infrastructure into the mix during a launch?

      This is Renta-A-*** gaming. No dignity, no proprietary. Just utter shame and selfishness.

      Moreover, given the connection you need for this to work perfectly you could download any game within an hour or two if they’re over 100 GBs in size. AND you wouldn’t need to keep saturating your connection while you play it. The very definition of specious reasoning is to say it’s more convenient to stream…

  10. Lennyvita says:

    100% Flop. This wont work for people who like physical media. I will only buy a digital version of a game if a physical release don’t exist. You cannot re-sell digital. Also any lag in streaming for FPS and action games will be a bust. I cannot see this working out. Zero interest in this.

  11. Psxplay says:

    I have a multitude of consoles and my streaming experience so far has been poor RE7 on the switch awful, PlayStation now trail couldn’t even get a PS3 game to load and my internet connection is sold to me as super fast!!

  12. Fernando says:

    Hey.. and how ’bout offline experiences? No one is ever talking about that? What happens if connection closes off? Can I still play it? If not, Stadia sucks and consoles are still the way of it! Or is it gonna be only “multiplayering”? I’m a little concerned about offline playing..

  13. Byte says:

    Some games like PINBALLFX3 you can’t have any lag aka latency of more than a frame or two. No way a streaming service can deliver that.

  14. Hexx says:

    The whole online only thing is really friggin annoying. The internet is powerful, but not eternal

  15. JD says:

    Only way this is a console killer is if they bring google Fiber along with it to the rest of the US.

    Still FAR too much of the country has *** for Internet speeds.

  16. S3RG3 says:

    C´mon guys!! No matter what we say, they´ll do whatever the heck they want. In the end it´s all bussiness. There´s no gaming passion or whatsoever, only by us. They sell stuff, period. That´s what Game Industry means.

  17. DarkHao says:

    meh.. just another stupid realisation. it works ONLY with FREE cloud system, including storage\stream\etc… only when all database was free, all can buy 1 gadget like switch (good idea, gamepad-tablet) but from google. and if MOSTLY all was FREE in that cloud, with basic functions like play\watch\read\serf, i repeat, all content MUST be free! THAN it realy was good. someone ask: where to get profit from that? i answer: extra features.

    Yes, that plan can`t give a millions for one time, like if u create AAA title and sell in all world, but it can give millions, oh.. no.. my fault, billions!! for a long time.

    Slowly, but 100% profit.
    ( but.. u know.. who cares =\ )

  18. Jason says:

    Maybe the industry moves too fast for you kids (with the exception of the guy mentioning Ouya).

    Remember OnLive? I used to subscribe to it, back when internet in my area (outside a metropolitan area, enough that our internet was fairly awful). What happened to it?

    Sony bought it.

    Minus the millennial that thinks everything should be free because (s)he hasn’t yet realized that every free service (s)he uses has compiled user data extensive enough to create an AI spambot millennial that rampages through the internet not only demanding everything be free, but that it have no viable business model that generates revenue… the whole discussion could come from the era where Steam started to take off.

    How many digital games do you “own?” My physical titles are my modern “rentals.” I trade them when I’m done. My steam library is somewhere near the cusp of 1,000 titles.

    SaaS is a game where I hope consumers can refuse to engage. Enterprise, sure, but I truly hope consumers opt out and these endeavors fail, spectacularly. I’m somewhere in upper-middle class in the US, as far as median income, and I don’t want to subscribe to Netflix/Hulu/Prime/(Whatever Apple’s Thing Is)/Spotify/YouTube TV/YouTube Red. Go ahead and Patron a bunch of people and support a bunch of Twitch streamers.

    Then we get to SaaS. Adobe has done it. Microsoft almost did it and I wouldn’t be surprised if they release an update where Windows 10 is free, but everything you do is theirs. There is XBox Game Pass and PlayStation Now. They’re the model we’re looking at, probably, but I think if you can look into OnLive, you’ll get closer (I remember similar reports of their processing power back in the day). I simply don’t see where I can rationally budget that many services. Google would do well to figure out a way to, like Amazon, to bundle Music, Video, and Games (my Prime subscription would have stayed if the book subscription wasn’t another bill, as the family reads voraciously). I just dropped Prime after their last “report record profits, increase price of Prime.” There is an opening.