You must log in or register to comment.

voidsrus t1_iu1x9u3 wrote

  1. most US ISPs are shit, and provide a shit level of service which most people probably don't consider as reliable as an on-prem gaming device
  2. recession -> people spending less money -> people spending less money on their shitternet and wind up with even worse service
  3. graphics cards are affordable again

GhostalMedia t1_iu25xt4 wrote

It ain’t just the US with shit ISPs.


qtx t1_iu3j8re wrote

It's mostly Anglosphere countries that have the worst ISPs.


marvbinks t1_iu3tea5 wrote

It's almost like those countries prioritise profits over anything else....


bootselectric t1_iu48z43 wrote

European cell service is ass, at least the MVNO’s that provide prepaid sims.


Zagrebian t1_iu26oq0 wrote

What percentage of US households have fiber?


chuck138 t1_iu27axn wrote

I've been waiting for over a decade and I've lived in decent sized cities for most of it. Some have even had fiber but due to building contracts I've never been offered the service.


Roboticpoultry t1_iu2sno5 wrote

My college apartment building got fiber just as I was moving out and my current building doesn’t want to pay for it. That said, we still have more than enough bandwidth for what we need


chuck138 t1_iu2zfwc wrote

Yeah I have been paying for the fastest consumer speeds since I've had a full time job and I've never had an issue except for upload speeds.

But I also know I'm paying a premium price for very outdated technology that is run by corporations who have zero interest in improving their services or their customer relations. All of which I have no choice in because they've virtually eliminated all competition.


goingtotallinn t1_iu3bg9i wrote

Hey what's the fastest consumer speeds you can get and how much it about costs for you? I live in small town in Finland and we can get 10Gbps fiber for 100€/month (100€ = $99.67)


inverimus t1_iu4jk4m wrote

I don't live in a small town in the US and pay ~$80 a month for 800 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up. I could pay $110 for 1200 down/20 up and that is the highest available.


jbman42 t1_iu5l3pg wrote

Bruh, i live in the middle of nowhere in South America and I've had fiber for several years, now


Some-Reputation-7653 t1_iu61xkh wrote

Could you be more specific? I’m curious - what country/region; who is your ISP? What kind of speeds


jbman42 t1_iu7y8kw wrote

Brazilian northern coast, in a moderately sized city of about 400k inhabitants. Local ISP called Proxxima. My plan is for a 100Mbps fiber connection, costs about $20 monthly. I only actually tested speeds once, and got around 90Mbps download, and 40Mbps upload. I get about 120ms latency when playing games on American servers (completely bearable to me), doesn't matter if it's west or east coast. Never had such a stable connection before, and uptime should be around 97%. I literally don't see the need for better speeds, though I guess I could reduce latency if I lived closer to big urban centers.


Some-Reputation-7653 t1_iu88ft5 wrote

Standard of living there sounds pretty good - I’ve a friend who moved to Colombia and he keeps telling me to come over…


Lunafreya_NoxF t1_iu6svzc wrote

Same thing here. Also, no data caps. That seems pretty common for the guys up top.


8Bitz0 t1_iu28hpk wrote

According to BroadbandNow (April 2022), 43% of U.S. residents have fiber-optic internet available.

According to Jon Brodkin - Ars Technica (September 2019), Over 30% of U.S. residents have fiber-optic available


qtx t1_iu3jngz wrote

Those are very tricky articles, they're talking about fiber backbones mostly and not the bit from the backbone to your house, which is the important thing.

The number of people that actually have access to fiber right now is a whole lot lower.


slow_connection t1_iu29lad wrote

I'm sure it's low, but that's not super relevant. Stadia works fine on cable, and 99% of users will never benefit from 200mb service in the foreseeable future.

Stadia needs reliability, not raw bandwidth. Good cable can provide that, Comcast just isn't good cable.


ErikPanic t1_iu283gp wrote

Good question. Safe bet it's under 10% and that's me being generous.

I want fiber. But I've never lived anywhere that offers it. 1200down/45up cable is the best that's offered to me, and that shit's $135/month with the "unlimited data" option that you have to dig to even find.


ShinySpoon t1_iu2iy61 wrote


ErikPanic t1_iu2lr1v wrote

That's shockingly high. I'm pretty suspicious of how that percentage was calculated.


ShinySpoon t1_iu2sx1m wrote

So you give “a safe bet” with zero sources and I give you a source that you’re “suspicious” of. I guess just wild ass guesses are your preferred data sources? Ok, good luck.


geekynerdynerd t1_iu5juqj wrote

You should be. The article appears to be using the FCC's data, which is notoriously misleading, and according to a footnote, they (the FCC) are including any ISP which uses fiber at some point in the connection. So fiber means not just Fiber to the Premises(FTTP) but also Fiber to The Node (FTTN), Fiber to the Street(FTTS), Fiber to the Distribution Point (FTTDP), etc etc.

The fiber connection could be two to three city blocks away, not being offered to you at all, and still count under that measure.

The real number is completely unknown at the moment, as the FCC has basically operated under an honor system when it comes to coverage information for the last 20 years or so, and only began the process of changing that about a year or two ago.


Catzillaneo t1_iu28bvz wrote

Well its not me lol, though our speeds have gotten a lot better if we dont go over the cap.


goldencrisp t1_iu2desv wrote

Internet options were a factor in us buying our home recently. Luckily we were able to get fiber.


monacelli t1_iu3casi wrote

Same thing when we bought our house a few years ago. It's a shame Verizon isn't really rolling out FIOS anymore.. I wish everybody had access to an ISP like this. It's fast as fuck and they never hassle me about how much or what I download.


rabbit994 t1_iu2pqh5 wrote

It's not the wire to the household, it's the wifi to the device. Anyone living in shared area where frequencies are jammed to all hell is going to have latency issues. Since Stadia made more sense for casuals, they were probably more likely to be in area where wifi is very congested.


FrostyTheHippo t1_iu33vut wrote

It's funny. I actually got AT&T Fiber like 6 months ago, but they force you to use their terrible all in one unit. I'm a fairly tech savvy guy, but for the life of me the best I could do is run my dedicated router in parallel. There is no way to get that BGW-320 unit to just act like a modem.

The speeds were good when they worked, but the signal was so fucking unstable. My wife and I work from home and the internet would go out long enough to get disconnected from meetings like 5 times/day.

So yeah, went back to Spectrum. Got a great deal for $30/month for 500mbps down for 2 years. Don't miss fiber at all since I can use my own fuckin hardware again.


Feniksrises t1_iu3oszb wrote

I think the real question is: do you have a data cap?


el_f3n1x187 t1_iu2f1mf wrote

> most US ISPs are shit

WOrldwide ISPs are a bunch of assholes with the service they provide and the amount of money they collect.


hm___ t1_iu60y2l wrote

I want ISPs like the swiss they got at least one with actually decent priced 10gigabit fiber connections for private persons yes 10gbps not 1gbps


abuilderofworlds t1_iu277lp wrote

Also, people who can afford ultra-high speed internet can also afford PCs and brand new gaming consoles


Blom-w1-o t1_iu2eec6 wrote

Number 1 here.

100mb download but none of the streaming services work for me unless I use windows and even then it's occasionally choppy.


nucflashevent t1_iu2va1y wrote

In all fairness, for these kind of services to work you need internet service that very few places in the world are able to provide.

It isn't just raw bandwidth, it's also latency.


Eudaimonics t1_iu4wk3p wrote

Also isn’t crypto waaay down? Probably less people buying graphic cards for mining.


voidsrus t1_iu4yod2 wrote

yep that's the main reason GPU prices are back down, btc/ethereum can't be efficiently mined by GPUs any more and the prices are also tanked, so there's a glut of used GPUs on the market


tjtj4444 t1_iu5gru9 wrote

  1. Cloud gaming has a high cost for the provider (server HW, internet, electricity and more) so not an obvious cash grab.

lilrabbitfoofoo t1_iu4zrns wrote

No. The one and only reason is...

Microsoft and Sony own this space because they have the games to play via internet streaming.

Google and GeForce Now do not have any games of their own, so why bother?


JimJalinsky t1_iu5dm7v wrote

Ignore the downvotes, you are right. Stadia had a limited catalogue and was streaming only. Xbox's Game Pass subscription gives you PC, Console, and streaming with a far better catalogue than Stadia ever had. Stadia never made profit, while Xbox just revealed how profitable Game Pass is. That's why Nvidia just lowered the price, they're having a hard time competing.


roboninja t1_iu55p9f wrote

That's not how Stadia or Geforce Now work. They offer plenty of games from lots of publishers. Your "one and only reason" makes little sense.


lilrabbitfoofoo t1_iu5bqm5 wrote

No. You don't get it.

Stadia just had to REFUND those games and service fees to people, because the users couldn't use those games anywhere else. It was only for use...on Stadia. And the selection was piss poor. :P

Do you see the problem now?

Why would anyone buy a game to play just on their cloud service? Either you own the game or you do not. Stadia should have partnered with Steam or Xbox or PS etc.

Or included the games as part of their subscription, as Xbox Cloud Gaming does. You can then play these games on your PC or console or on the cloud. It then becomes an option, to be used based on the device you have on hand.


Paperdiego t1_iu2a2c8 wrote

US isn't in a recession, and consumer spending is still very high.


AREssshhhk t1_iu5y62w wrote

Not where I’m at (major city in US)


Paperdiego t1_iu5y8jc wrote

Where are you? No major city in the US is inna recession right now. Data released two days ago shows growth in every metropolitan area of the US.


AREssshhhk t1_iu61oyd wrote

I’m in Chicago where cheap rent is $1500 a month. I see a lot of people cutting way down on their spending because the basics like food, energy, transportation, energy, insurance, rent, etc has gotten crazy expensive and keeps going up fast


Paperdiego t1_iu624iy wrote

Sorry for your situation. Data certainly shows inflation up, which sucks. Consumer spending needs to go down in order for inflation to ease. There is no data backing up a recession, infact all the data is the opposite. Consumer spending is still very high, which helps explain why prices haven't dropped. Employment is at historical lows as well. The market just keeps hiring people, so people have money to spend.


AREssshhhk t1_iu638gb wrote

We’ll see in a few months. I happen to believe it’s all going to come crashing down soon


SimmeringPassion t1_iu1v6st wrote

investing in google hardware is a fools errand


throwaway836282672 t1_iu1vgyt wrote

As a former Nexus and Pixel user, I hate that you're right.


GhostalMedia t1_iu25r58 wrote

Given how most other manufacturers handle Android updates, I still think Google is one of the better options for an phone Android.


lenzflare t1_iu39pq7 wrote

But there's one that's better: Samsung


lord_pizzabird t1_iu1xplm wrote

I was almost a Pixel owner and the sub / reviews scared me off. Few weeks ago I saw a cool looking Pixel phone, liked some of what I saw, anddd.... then read all the constantly bad opinions from owners and users. Oof.


o_opc t1_iu22f13 wrote

The pixel sub is super negative, mainly because people who are happy with their phone don't post about it. I've had 2 pixel phones now and they've been pretty much flawless for me


b0w3n t1_iu2teex wrote

Same I've never had a problem. What's up with the pixels that's making everyone hate them?


Derik_D t1_iu3f1a5 wrote

Nothing. Mostly vocal minorities and fandoms. People happy about their products aren't as noticible.


throwaway836282672 t1_iu52xvc wrote

For me, it's the customer experience. The phones themselves are great, but the experience behind them is lacking.

  1. I had a Pixel 3a XL that had OLED burn-in from the factory, and it was an absolute pain to get handled from Google (whom I bought directly from - but my Google account was still affiliated in Canada, despite living and working in California at the time... nightmare support) and....

  2. then the replacement Pixel 3a XL was a refurbished one (despite me buying brand new), and the digitizer died after 90 days. The screen replacement from Google wasn't covered because they claimed a micro-crack in the display killing the digitizer... for their refurbished phone. However, I had a positive experience with that phone, until it died from flooding during a natural disaster (not Google's fault).

  3. So I bought a refurbished Pixel 4a to replace it. The screen had the micro-cracks in the display that killed my last phone's digitizer so I (tried) to return it. It was a hassle to handle that again, because of Google's authorized retailer Best Buy. Compounded with the emergency... Eventually I gave up dealing with Google's headache, and accepted this until the phone screen cracked. The quoted repair price exceeded the cost of a new Pixel 5a...

  4. So I bought a new 5a with the old 4a as a health monitor of intranet utilities with the cellular service to alert engineers of downtime. The 5a is great, until Android 13 came out... Now so many crashes of Spotify and I get warnings that my phone is "too hot" so features have been disabled.

Google can do great. I think they're working on it. But I'm done. I just want my phone to work - no more troubleshooting, no more dealing with support... I'm staying with my (used) S21 Ultra. No more Google.


AREssshhhk t1_iu5yol7 wrote

Sounds like you need an iPhone


No-Nefariousness681 t1_iu65y5a wrote

Why would he want to use a phone that can't even install apps outside the appstore without jailbreaking it or other workarounds.


AREssshhhk t1_iu68mfw wrote

My iPhone has an app for everything. There’s multiple apps for everything. I do calls, texts, internet, gps, Bluetooth, banking, email, delivery, work, pictures, videos, voice recording, flawlessly on my iPhone with the best security. And the phone is supported for 7 years at least


No-Nefariousness681 t1_iu6n6tv wrote

And if you ever need to do anything outside of what apple considers acceptable you won't be able to. Remember when they banned parler? Will they ban Twitter next? Who knows.


AREssshhhk t1_iu6nybk wrote

There is literally nothing I need to do on a phone that Apple will ban


No-Nefariousness681 t1_iu6x5ju wrote

For now. Maybe one day meat will be banned and apple devices will block access to all ip addresses of underground meat sellers.


AREssshhhk t1_iu6yb79 wrote

Yah if that happens, I’m goin team pixel the next day


cunningmunki t1_iu3k7gu wrote

I've had a Nexus 4, Nexus 5X, Pixel, Pixel 2, Pixel 4a and Pixel 6 and they've all been great phones.


throwaway836282672 t1_iu53pdz wrote

I had great experiences with the hardware, but Google's support team is my issue. Have you dealt with the support team?


Cynical_Chameleon t1_iu4sd4o wrote

Yeah, I got the budget 3a and it was great until I just upgraded to the 7. I would've gotten the 6 but they released the 7 right before I could for the same price, so why not?

So far no issues, hopefully it stays that way. But yeah, Pixel has been great for me thus far, same as the friend who got the first one and recommended it.


Hyperion1144 OP t1_iu1zecr wrote

My Pixel 7 Pro is working great so far.


Stratocast7 t1_iu20kcm wrote

Same here, I've owned several and have been happy with them


DriftwoodBadger t1_iu21dn3 wrote

Same. Finally gave up my Essential PH-1 for a new Pixel 7 Pro. The camera lured me in...and not disappointed so far.


Hyperion1144 OP t1_iu26eyq wrote

I have found the night sight feature very impressive.

I've never owned a real flagship before.


RealNewUser t1_iu2312g wrote

Pixel is always the best Android phone.


USS_Hornet t1_iu33vze wrote

That’s true but one must understand how you qualified it. Not best phone, best android phone. There’s your problem.


Jammintoad t1_iu23a2z wrote

Pixel 2 XL was my favorite phone ever, and it lasted me 5 years only reason I stopped was the battery was getting old. I have pixel 6 pro now only complaint is battery life (besides normal android hiccups any android phone would have). To be clear the battery on the 2 was good, just normal degradation. My 6 pro battery would probably do better if I turned the high refresh rate off


loobricated t1_iu24tyg wrote

Have a pixel and its awesome.


lord_pizzabird t1_iu2lhw3 wrote

I have no doubts that yours is awesome, but what concerns me is that nearly every time I've ran across a Pixel user organically their experience have been very negative.


MetaMortis t1_iu2m687 wrote

Yeah, I've had three pixel phones so far and never had an issue. I'd highly recommend them but I always forget to write reviews.


Zyansheep t1_iu23km1 wrote

Pixel is the most secure and privacy respecting phone in the world (assuming you install GrapheneOS on it)


Tachyoff t1_iu2pud2 wrote

My pixel 2 treated me well for years, switched to a pixel 6 a while ago and have had no issues with it.


AlludedNuance t1_iu33quc wrote

It's not that bad there, it's just the worst right when something new comes out. I have zero complaints about my new Pixel products(not advertising for them so that's all I'm getting into.)


Marcos340 t1_iu1xbga wrote

That’s why I’m worried since their acquisition of Fitbit, I like their design, premium is annoying but never had an issue with their product, have been using for over 5 years.


therealcmj t1_iu2p0ka wrote

This is a huge problem for Google going forward. As an idiot from Connecticut said, “fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, can’t get fooled again.”

Fewer people are going to be willing to invest in Google hardware before it becomes popular. But fewer of their devices will become popular because more people are holding back on buying them in case Google gives up too early.

Same thing with Google services.


BrettEskin t1_iu20hdc wrote

Google did the google and killed a business that didn't turn profitable quickly.

Nvidia despite their recent success is struggling to compete in a newer market.

Microsoft is Microsofting, under cutting the compeption with a massive price and infrastructure advantage then cranking prices when the competition is on its knees.


GhostalMedia t1_iu28tzd wrote

I would argue that streaming is a nice-to-have for most game pass customers. The real value is the large selection of AAA titles.

I could argue that they kept pricing low so they could claw back their old market share from Sony. And they’ve kind of done that, and now that Sony has raised prices, it’s safe for them to follow.

MS is competing with Sony, not Google or Nvidia.


BrettEskin t1_iu29gsz wrote

All fun and games until they roll it into 365 in two years.

Oh god that's exactly what they're gonna do isn't jt


DungeonsAndDradis t1_iu42vm3 wrote

My gut instinct (I hope I'm wrong), is that Microsoft will stop allowing game sales. You'll have to subscribe to Game Pass to play the games. I think this will happen with a major AAA title in the next 2-3 years. Once the outrage is done, they'll make that the standard for all new games to the platform.

Every industry is moving towards subscription-only options.


BrettEskin t1_iu437iv wrote

I don't think they'll stop allowing them period, they still offer stand alone office apps after all, but they'll make it to the point where you'll be so impossibly locked in to 365 already you'll have no reason to buy a game out right


lokitoth t1_iu4fxex wrote

> Microsoft will stop allowing game sales

Not so long as Steam exists. Part of the point of GamePass is that when games roll off from it, anyone who is not done but wants to is incentivized to buy it (with a little discount over the top).


caverunner17 t1_iu2num7 wrote

>the large selection of AAA titles

Old ones, though. The lack of new AAA games is a huge issue on the Xbox subs and kind of a sad comedy at this point of "Maybe next year".

Meanwhile, Sony has putting out 1-2+ solid game hits per year for the last decade.

At least half, if not 2/3 of GamePass games are crappy indie games or shovelware.

I like my Series S and with the GamePass conversion trick, the $3-4/month is worth it... but I'd be hard pressed to pay the full $15/month when I've beaten most of the games that are worthwhile playing already.


mmarollo t1_iu1wc63 wrote

Stadia was ok for casual gaming. Hardcore shooter fans would get dropped in seconds on stadia. 100ms is an eternity in PUBG.


gundumb08 t1_iu24rrp wrote

Nah, I regularly stomped cross play folks in Destiny 2 Crucible on Stadia.

Playing a 4k60fps stream that felt 100% native to me on my internet. Toward the end it was all I used Stadia for, to run weekly content in Destiny 2.


GhostalMedia t1_iu26abp wrote

It was great for RPGs, but for competitive stuff, the latency was a little tough. And I’m hardwired into fiber in Silicon Valley, so it ain’t like I’m on satellite out on the farm.


graesen t1_iu2a7vs wrote

Depends on your connection and how far your server was. I played Doom Eternal without any issues.


GhostalMedia t1_iu2b70h wrote

It’s basically unusable here. Games won’t load or freeze every couple seconds.


[deleted] t1_iu1src6 wrote



GhostalMedia t1_iu26qnk wrote

The writing has been on the wall for months with Stadia. Almost 2 years ago they shut down their studios. Money printers stopped going brrr even when everyone was swimming in government COVID money.


4huggies t1_iu23dr1 wrote

Really? How is this even a question. Nobody wants to play video games over internet. The concept is nice but majority of people myself included will not replace our consoles or PCs for remote play and the internet is too unreliable for when you are at hotels. I bought a switch for travel, I rather have low render quality than input lag or random artifacts


gagfam t1_iu2bwxd wrote

It depends on the game. strategy games like civ and total war are a blast to play and it's cheaper to play those games by streaming than it is to get a really good cpu.


Far_Sided t1_iu25cii wrote

Depends on the hotel's setup, really. I've seen places in NC do just fine. I've done plenty of travel as a GF Now founding member and the only bad experiences are :

- Mom and pop places that had a high school kid do their set up
- Old hotels where the brickwork interfered with signal
- Being around the world from the closest endpoint

None of these were issues for non-twitch gaming. And yeah, I can play Cyberpunk with raytracing on an iPad if I want to.


Bloodyfinger t1_iu2isux wrote

You have no idea what you're talking about. Xbox cloud gaming is incredible. I've played sooooo many games through that service and have pretty much not bought a console because of the service.

You're right that it won't work for a lot of situations, but at home it's amazing.


4huggies t1_iu4cjyw wrote

What games are you actually playing? I have used XBOX Cloud too, it’s great for simple and casual games but I would not be playing anything fast paced. Again, it’s not that could gaming is 100% useless, Im just saying that the growth and numbers of users required to make it profitable at this time is not there, for many reasons.


Bloodyfinger t1_iu4jzcw wrote

Guardians of the Galaxy, Gears of War series, Forza, Amnesia collection, Scorn, Immortal Fenyx Rising...... And quite a few more!

That being said, I live downtown Toronto with a 1gbps connection, and lag is <20ms. Basically the best case scenario possible.


apiso t1_iu2jpf9 wrote

This is a solid late 90s early 00s take.

We will, in the not-too-distant future laugh that we ever owned anything besides a screen and the hardware it takes to interact via stream. Real local processing of any kind will eventually be seen as a past blip in the history of personal entertainment experience like B&W TV, Walkmans, RCA cables, TiVo, iPods, etc.

Stadia was too early and made a lot of mistakes, but they were not barking up the wrong tree.

Edit/Add: I’m not advocating for that future. It’s just the overwhelmingly obvious one because of how it lines up competition outcomes and business objectives to “win” in a marketplace (and where businesses never do more than “lease” you a product - they own your stuff and charge you to use it in perpetuity)


cajonero t1_iu338rj wrote

You might be right, but I personally don’t think it’s as inevitable as you believe. Centralized data processing would require massive investments in infrastructure, across the whole internet-connected world. It’s an unreal amount of bandwidth if you think about it. It’s not impossible, just staggering and with an incredibly wide impact.


rayoatra t1_iu1z6im wrote

Yeah that shit still just seems clunky and half ass looking. I got a trial from google and have 2gbps up/ down from google fiber and a 1ms ping. Was still super underwhelming.


Evildude42 t1_iu1zock wrote

Data centers are expensive, most likely a giant cost savings effort.


Immediate_Dust_1303 t1_iu21jan wrote

Game streaming has so far been an utter failure

Its a solution to a problem that simply doesnt exist

I dont see how any of this is every going to change


GhostalMedia t1_iu27t7s wrote

Problem that doesn’t exist?

Expensive hardware that gets outdated, long downloads and installs, giant updates every time you load a game after not playing for a few weeks, PC quality graphics can’t run on a mobile device… I could go on.

Those are very legitimate problems.


Immediate_Dust_1303 t1_iu2b62w wrote

Demand for console hardware is higher than its ever been. They couldnt make enough hardware for almost 2 years

Streaming is simply not needed. If console sales were diving it might make sense


GhostalMedia t1_iu2crwp wrote

Of course people are going to buy dedicated hardware when the alternative is totally unreliable for half of the people that try it.

At some point broadband infrastructure will be beefy enough to reliably stream high res video in near real time. When that happens streaming gaming will totally take off. This is inevitable.


Rockstaru t1_iu43xcg wrote

The main complaint voiced on this thread isn’t related to resolution or quality, it’s latency, and there’s only so much you can do to reduce latency that isn’t “move closer to whatever data center is running your game.”


Immediate_Dust_1303 t1_iu3t3hn wrote

Not it won't because streaming games is always going to have latency due to the laws of physics.

Google Stadia tech was already great, and it failed.

Hardware will only improve and make streaming even more irrelevant than ever


Formal-Appearance210 t1_iu30k97 wrote

After 2 years of entering lotteries, I finally got a PS5 a couple weeks ago. There was a nondescript sign at the back of a big-box store here in Japan telling people to inquire about stock. It always used to have a little sign that just said, "Sold out."

I had to pass a bunch of checks to qualify, but I walked out of there $600 lighter and one PS5 heavier.

I wanted the digital edition because I never buy discs, but I took what I could get.


quettil t1_iu2t9hy wrote

And yet these services are all falling


GhostalMedia t1_iu3b1my wrote

Because the technology for reliable real time video isn’t there yet. It works in some places, but even in major metro areas you can’t be guaranteed that Stadia or xCloud will have a fast end to end connection.


Immediate_Dust_1303 t1_iu3tah4 wrote

I dont know why you think instant latency free video will ever exist. It wont. The laws of physics are never going to be changed


GhostalMedia t1_iu4glm9 wrote

Yes there will always be some latency.

My point is that stadia and xCloud are downright unplayable over a lot of home connections. For example, my Xbox has a wired connection to fiber and I often can’t LOAD a Xbox cloud streaming game. I either look at the stupid rocket ship screen forever, or the game straight up freezes when it does load.

In order for streaming to stand a chance, things like data centers need to be in the right places and stuff needs to generally work if you pass the connection speed tests.

Stadia did work for me in my area. There were a couple ms of lag that made me not want to use it for PvP games, but it worked perfectly for other stuff. In order for streaming to take off streaming has to work like this for more people.


Immediate_Dust_1303 t1_iu4kylg wrote

They arent going to make data centers right next to all gamers houses just for gaming streaming. Thats fantasy

Yeah, like you said Stadia works surprisingly well, and it still failed spectacularly


GhostalMedia t1_iu4nhe0 wrote

Worked well for ME. The point is that results varied wildly for different broadband users in different locations.

As broadband continues to improve, these connectivity barriers will slowly go away for more people and a reliable streaming business will be easier to attain.


Immediate_Dust_1303 t1_iu4olsx wrote

Broadband getting faster isnt going to make one bit of a difference at all. Latency is ALWAYS going to be an issue.

And it worked well for many people not just you. Stadia didn't have a massive drop of users. People just werent interested to begin with. that was the problem.

Console hardware is more popular than ever. Gaming streaming is always going to have latency and will be laggy


GhostalMedia t1_iu4v032 wrote

Are we talking about the sub 100ms lag that folks experienced when conditions were right, or are we taking about seconds when things were not ideal?

My entire point is that way too many people experienced the latter, not the former. As ISP and hosting infrastructure continues to evolve more end users will be setup for success with streaming.

Streaming may always have too much latency to make hardcore PvP players happy, but when it works well, it totally shines for games like RDR2, Cyberpunk, etc. Problem is that too many people had completely unplayable experiences.


DirtyPolecat t1_iu44n4s wrote

Yes, just wait for some new tech to somehow exceed the speed of light..


GhostalMedia t1_iu4gz5z wrote

My point isn’t that latency doesn’t exist. My point is that many streaming services straight up don’t work over many broadband connections.


[deleted] t1_iu23qkw wrote



GhostalMedia t1_iu276lt wrote

Yeah, but xCloud doesn’t have nearly the reliable coverage that stadia has. It’s terrible in my area, and I’m in the area on fiber. Stadia wasn’t.


caverunner17 t1_iu2o9fi wrote

Same. The few XCloud games I tried were almost unplayable on my 300/10 connection. Low-resolution messes with some times when there'd be a noticeable lag.

I only tried Stadia once, but it was way more smooth.


codars t1_iu2455k wrote

Is your comment supposed to be a poem?


ITsupportSuperHero t1_iu2hati wrote

People have been crapping on cloud gaming since it was announced. But honestly, there are huge advantages - they just don't work unless you have good internet all the time.

Cloud gaming is something that I do think has the potential to overshadow classic console and pc gaming. But for that to happen, you need extremely reliable low latency internet AND it needs to be mobile as well. Also, and this is key, offered by 1 of the big gaming companies as an alternative to their physical console.

The number one complaint I heard from people online was that this would never work with THEIR internet. Either the download/upload speed was too low or their latency was too inconsistent. So who is this service for (in the U.S.) if the look of your game was garbage due to sub 20Mbs download speed? To those people, this was a complete failure and they openly ripped cloud gaming a new one in every comment section because it was useless (to them).

Big companies saw the potential of rising beyond the limitation of using the same console for 7-8 year lifespans and being able to play anywhere you want to go. They saw new integrations with services - remember when they showed you could go on youtube watching a game video, then click a button in youtube to automatically bring up the game with 0 load times? What about using google home to ask for a hint at what part of the game you were on? Beyond integrations with existing tech, it would allow the development of new types of games due to all calculations being held server side. Massive 3000 player battle royales, hugely destructable online environments, things only possible due to the possible optimization of a server side platform.

So clearly the gamers would see those advantages and come to the cloud side, right? No. Google had possibly the worst reveal for a cloud "console" I have ever seen. They released it showing things like tech specs and confusing the audiences by talking about bitrates. They didn't have any AAA developer exclusive content and could only tell people to imagine the possibilities instead of presenting them at launch. A half ass attempt to become a new Playstation/XBox/Nintendo. When Microsoft earned their chair at the console table, they spent billions towards buying up developers and securing gaming rights (hello every sports game ever). Google just started running some new software on their existing cloud infrastructure. Google saw this as a low investment opportunity that could gain strength over time, but without developing a relationship with the gamers they were trying to garner and without major investment. Without major investment into new exclusive IP and a reputation for dumping projects that didn't provide easy profit, people automatically assumed this was a project doomed to fail.

Of course, they were right. I still believe that cloud gaming WILL, one day, be the major player that the techno-optimists dreamt it would be. But that might require ubiquitous high quality low latency internet. And it will probably come from one of the already major players. Right now, we have XCloud seeing if it can provide what Google could not. But due to internet infrastructure being what it is today (at least in the U.S.) and the cloud gaming well being poisoned by Google, it needs to be shoehorned into Gamepass until the time is right. Sadly, this might mean it won't be what it was dreamt to be for the foreseeable future - until infrastructure of the internet is upgraded and cloud gaming's infancy is forgotten.


night327 t1_iu2rp19 wrote

I'm not reading all that you care too much about an unnamed gaming platform


ITsupportSuperHero t1_iu2s1to wrote

That's cool, there's tons of stuff you don't have to read on the internet : )


ShadowPooper t1_iu274od wrote

what's going on is the shitty on demand gaming market is running up against our shitty ass 1980's internet infrastructure.



Pelo1968 t1_iu1suyw wrote

Long live the revolution !!!!


Jammintoad t1_iu23o2o wrote

I don't understand the basic business model at all. Hardcore gamers (as in people looking for an immersive exp) want low latency and for sure will notice if you don't have it. Casual gamers will just play on their phone or console, like a switch. The only real use case for stadia seems to be getting good looking single player RPGs without the hardware, but idk how big that market really is.

Whole thing stinks of someone who plays games casually trying to come up with a product for more hardcore gamers


jedi-son t1_iu2ev5w wrote

Game streaming isn't making money


goztitan t1_iu2fajm wrote

Stadia worked great for me and GFN works great for me. Hell even boosteroid runs pretty decent. It's great playing on my big screen and then hoping on my surface. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones idk. But if streaming is the future I'm excited for it.


ethanwc t1_iu2ptoh wrote

Unlock the damn controllers.


Tutipups t1_iu2ugie wrote

geforce now is actually used


No-Extreme5850 t1_iu2ygs3 wrote

Since people talking about "wifi connection" I want to know what are the average prices of fiber connection in US? Here in India we normally get 300mb/s with all OTTs subscription -18.5$ or 150mb/s with all OTTs subscription -13.5$


ShinyBloke t1_iu30tva wrote

Stadia worked far better than Geforce Now if you had the connection for it. Geforce now lacks games for the service and so it's really not that great of an option due to the constant lack of titles.


Hunglyka t1_iu3916m wrote

The next one to die?


taisui t1_iu3dg9d wrote

Having to both 1) buy the games and 2) paying for the service simply does not work. Sony had tried with their first iteration of PSNOW and eventually moved away from it. Subscription model like Game Pass is the only viable path forward.


maratejko t1_iu3kfis wrote

i know reddit is us-centric, but imagine in central europe you can get fiber for 10$/month, xbox cloud for another 10 and everything works more than fine with single player games. as a casual gamer i cant justify ps5 for 800$.


The_Frenchtopus t1_iu4su0z wrote

I'm getting tired of recent games and their marketing strategies. So older games or less ressources demanding ones are fine on my computer


Tiny-Peenor t1_iu5f6k9 wrote

The economy. Inflation on goods you need to survive means less spending money on shit you don’t need.


WildRacoons t1_iu24prw wrote

Why pay for an inferior gaming experience?


formed2forge t1_iu2acoq wrote

A word: Latency.

It will always, eventually, come down to this.


DaemonAnts t1_iu2gj0p wrote

Stadia was doomed from the start. Nothing to see there.


LastOfAutumn t1_iu2x0vw wrote

Both of them lack good advertising. Plus, Game Pass has a great platform to start, its own IPs, and a hard price to beat. It's becoming the leader in cloud gaming.


allenout t1_iu3a52f wrote

Latency, latency is too high to have a good time.


BGS1987 t1_iu45v2z wrote

ISPs suck and why would you want to stream? Steam deck exists y'all


empathetical t1_iu2ac9o wrote

A lack of interest. Practically anything that doesn't sell gets nuked or drops in price drastically.


From-UoM t1_iu4bq4v wrote

Misleading article.

Geforcenow is having a special offer sale till Nov 20. Its not a price cut