Bumped into this video related to CP2077 & Stadia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehV9Z-T0NPE

That guy certainly doesn't seem to think Stadia succeeds, and apparently doesn't want it to succeed either. Not sure if the information on whether or not Stadia is a success is public information, how many paying customers, are they making any profit or a huge loss etc.? Or still too early to tell if it will be a huge success like some (also here) seem to believe it will be? How many years before we can tell whether it is a success or a failure?

The guy in the video IMHO makes a good point about Stadia's impediment to success being that it tries to replace "local gaming", instead of complementing it like e.g. Geforce Now does. The guy does make Geforce Now sound a great idea, ie. you buy your game normally on e.g. Steam or GOG or whatever, but you can play it in the cloud if you so choose.

Like me in my current case where I am still contemplating which will be my next gaming PC which is capable enough to play the most recent games; while trying to figure that out, I could rent some cloud gaming computing capacity from e.g. Geforce Now or similar in the mean time. I mean, why not? I can cancel the "cloud subscription" at any time without losing my games, like I would with Stadia.

Is that the idea you could build yourself a silly ryzen system for just about 400 bucks and enjoy triple A 4k quality ( with the right cabling of course ) on this system?

Are you asking about Geforce Now?

It is the generic idea with cloud computing, you rent computing and storage capacity from elsewhere (and stream it to yourself) instead of having it locally, and the cloud company tries to make it affordable enough by hoping that different customers use capacity at different times, evening the capacity need spikes a bit.

I tried to check the pricing and shit at Geforce Now site but I couldn't really figure it out fully. They have some free-of-charge plan where your gaming sessions are limited to one hour (per day??? I guess it is mainly to learn how well it runs.), and then there is the pay service which said it is fully booked at the moment ie. they are not accepting new customers at this point, but looking forward to add capacity for new customers.

EDIT: I was thinking about trying out Geforce Now by creating an account there... but apparently I already have an NVidia account! Hey, doesn't cost anything to try...

EDIT2: Oh, is Geforce Now limited to Steam games? Meh... I guess I could try something from my Steam library, but meh meh.

Seems like an hour a day ;)

but yea, might give it a go myself too though only 1080p .... 5 ghz connection that's about what my connection does on good days, no rtx of course and ridicilous low computer requirements

Yeah, currently Google Now seems to be more useful to e.g. Steam users. It is not a cloud service where you can install your games yourself freely on a cloud computer, and play them there. I recall reading earlier here there is at least one such cloud-gaming service, I'll have to look for it.

About Stadia in particular:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2020/05/30/gta-5-publisher-ceo-says-what-everyone-is-thinking-about-google-stadia/#6fe9bc5a7f44

Says many things I've also said before, like this one: I see only two possible ways that a streaming gaming platform could become popular among the gaming masses:

1. It could price its service so that it really is considerably cheaper than e.g. buying a gaming console and games for it.

Currently, it isn't that, and I am not convinced it could ever really achieve that either, and still be profitable. Say what you will, but keeping up server farms for lots of computing capacity needed by gaming costs lots of money. This is not a similar case like Netflix or Spotify which need much less computing power (as well as less dependent on low latency) to provide streaming media content to their customers. There is a difference in streaming a video or a tune to the customer, compared to running an AAA game for them and streaming the output to the customer.

Oh and the publishers want money for their games too, so somehow that platform would have to offer them at least as big profits as to selling their game on Steam or for a console.

2. The cloud platform could offer more advanced games than standalone systems. Google envisioned something like that, insinuating that Stadia "could" have games using so much processing power that even a high-end PC could only dream of.

This _could_ be a feasible key to success... but again it runs into the pricing problem. How much money is a customer willing to pay for the privilege of playing a miraculous AAAAAAAAAAA+++++ game running on 100 CPU cores? Running such a hyper-CPU-intensive game would cost also Google a lot of money. CPU capacity is not free or even cheap, not even for Google, sorry.

So i followed this streaming crap until now.Its not the future of gaming and this also confirmed by microsoft themselve.Streaming isnt for true gamers and it’s not meant to be as a replacement for the superior local gaming.It will never appeal to everyone only to mobile gamers or people which don’t care about gaming at all.Nobody knows right now if enough people will use i don’t think it will work out well like netflix because streaming a film isn’t the same like streaming a game and what they add adds at some point while playing a game the people which stream their games will probably quit.Buying a game and play it locally will always be an option.So and end of story

On reflection (and re-reading) this seems to be unarguably true. I can see pinball machines and sit-down table-top (and electronic) gaming continuing for some time.

It would work if the game and platform were a monad improvement. Maybe like going to a cinemaplex, or with a whole new lawnmowerman suit for an immersive 3D interface. Whatever. The next gaming platform with amped social media interaction, more PvP literally open world environments, constrained only by the software boundaries. A near-future colosseum.

But a virtual library of games to download at multiple sites? Played on a tablet? Not really enticing me at all.

And certainly not with these price rates, 10 euro's a month and you have access to such a huge variety of games.

I guess an average gamer ( at least in the west ( europe america ) ) spends easily around 300 euro's a year on average ?

( checked a couple of answers online to that question and answers found are 119 a month for millennials another named 229 dollars a month )

10 dollars a month can't be feasible for anyone in the business

They would also be sucking off anything they can get which includes whatever the players are doing or seizing and capitalizing on any player created trends.For example why let your players have their own taunt moves when you can sell them their own back to them.

A weaker implementation of that sounds like the old arcades except you would bring your tablet as a terminal.

Yeah. But would that be enough to gain a following? It would need some new "killer app" to kick it off.

I could envisage parties of people bringing their augmented-reality headsets to a special gaming precinct, with Spartan/Ninja-like furniture for people to climb over and added audiovisual elements (smoke machines, (killer) robots, etc.) and projected images (not just in the headsets) of characters and phenomena. People could join a raid and be whoever they want, aliens, superheroes, bionic or augmented future-people, etc. It would be a little like that new wave pool (Kelly Slater built it for surfing contests, the first of many now operational in inland California) only (probably) indoors with everyone is wearing helmets.

Now that would make traditional computer gaming seem antiquated.

The big corporations wouldn't care about legacy gaming, since the new style would require real estate (gated, to charge admission) where special equipment (projectors, local telemetry and processing boosters, lights and mirrors, etc.) and this would be a step-change order-of-magnitude increase in cost (for the users and the providers). A bit like the cost of an IMAX cinema against a normal one. (Imax film requires more and specialized cameras, not the normal cinematographic equipment used to create a movie.)

Much as Microsoft doesn't really care if people pirate Word 6, since everyone now must be online and connected to everyone else to word process their ideas, seemingly. (I guess the delay between "save" and "send" is shorter. :|)

When M$ decided to incorporate central authentication for their software, they first had to build it into the programs (Windows 97? had the OS push a request during the set-up, as opposed to the traditional method of typing in a licence from the printed label; the fall-back for those who didn't have an internet connection was to literally call their switchboard and have someone give the customer a code) before it could rely on the still-being-rolled-out interwebs to automate the process.

I doubt Microsoft has very little to say about the future of game indusyry. I see big companies like Bethesda, EA, Ubisoft, Square Enix, 2k games, Activision are it, they keep growing and getting more control and power among game industry. If you remove those companies, game industry is dead.