Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hoshino

Google is cancer

Recommended Posts

People are acting like as if something got taken away from them, and they don't have something today that they had yesterday.

 

I notice alot of people in the "gaming community" start acting like children who had poison ivy in crevice of their ass when the Wii came out in 2006.

 

Nothing was taken from them, but the fact that something else existed, that was not meant for them, people genuinely started losing their shit and demanded that it be removed from this Earth.

 

I literally can't think of a less obtrusive way to offer people games. I could play one Stadia game, in a browser, and never buy another Stadia game again........and it literally cost me nothing in hardware, just the cost of the game (that I would've spent on any other platform).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to support the PS5 as it represents traditional console gaming and Switch is a big fuck you to phones and other shit solutions for portable devices

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jehurey said:

People are acting like as if something got taken away from them, and they don't have something today that they had yesterday.

 

I notice alot of people in the "gaming community" start acting like children who had poison ivy in crevice of their ass when the Wii came out in 2006.

 

Nothing was taken from them, but the fact that something else existed, that was not meant for them, people genuinely started losing their shit and demanded that it be removed from this Earth.

 

I literally can't think of a less obtrusive way to offer people games. I could play one Stadia game, in a browser, and never buy another Stadia game again........and it literally cost me nothing in hardware, just the cost of the game (that I would've spent on any other platform).

They're pushing a model which is completely and 100% publisher/distributor centric.  The gamer owns nothing, and worse yet, the gamer has no ability to own anything even if they wanted to.  Games can/will come and go like shows do on Netflix.  You can lose your whole library if banned from the service, and you lose your whole library if your internet goes down.  How does the subscription model work here too? Do I lose my library if I unsub?  Am I paying for both the games and the service?

 

The only win for the gamer here is that there is no barrier to entry.  Like you said, this is not a big deal.  It doesn't hurt anyone to be able to try/access a game with minimal effort, but this is Google we're talking about.  They aren't interested in being a companion service or an alternative.  They want to run the gaming industry.  Their motto is "The future of gaming isn't a box."

 

I don't want the future of gaming to be a shitty latency-dependent system where I own nothing and can have all my games taken away from me for reasons outside of my control.  I don't want developers to worry about making their games playable on 6" phone screens and tailoring the experience to that.  I also really don't want developers tailoring their games around the latency issues.  Quick twitch games are unplayable on this service.  Reaction time dependent genres are going to evaporate for this reason alone.  I don't want to have to live in a city with fiber internet to make any of this more enjoyable.

 

Idk if you're a car guy, but would you want the future of automobiles to be self-driving ubers and for you to lose your ability to drive and own your own car?

Edited by teh_4th
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Team 2019 said:

We need to support the PS5 as it represents traditional console gaming and Switch is a big fuck you to phones and other shit solutions for portable devices

 

+1

 

If PS5 is a traditional console with the same kind of quality/value demonstrated by PS4, it's a day 1 buy for me :pavarotti:

Edited by teh_4th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jehurey said:

People are acting like as if something got taken away from them, and they don't have something today that they had yesterday.

 

I notice alot of people in the "gaming community" start acting like children who had poison ivy in crevice of their ass when the Wii came out in 2006.

 

Nothing was taken from them, but the fact that something else existed, that was not meant for them, people genuinely started losing their shit and demanded that it be removed from this Earth.

 

I literally can't think of a less obtrusive way to offer people games. I could play one Stadia game, in a browser, and never buy another Stadia game again........and it literally cost me nothing in hardware, just the cost of the game (that I would've spent on any other platform).

im mad its called Stadia, its a stupid name that doesnt fit in video game lexicon at all:pffft:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zwarior said:

im mad its called Stadia, its a stupid name that doesnt fit in video game lexicon at all:pffft:

buh buh it's a stadium for everbuddy to play in :grimaceright:

 

Should've bought the Dreamcast trademark.  Would've been perfect.

Edited by teh_4th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, teh_4th said:

They're pushing a model which is completely and 100% publisher/distributor centric.  The gamer owns nothing, and worse yet, the gamer has no ability to own anything even if they wanted to.  Games can/will come and go like shows do on Netflix.  You can lose your whole library if banned from the service, and you lose your whole library if your internet goes down.  How does the subscription model work here too? Do I lose my library if I unsub?  Am I paying for both the games and the service?

 

The only win for the gamer here is that there is no barrier to entry.  Like you said, this is not a big deal.  It doesn't hurt anyone to be able to try/access a game with minimal effort, but this is Google we're talking about.  They aren't interested in being a companion service or an alternative.  They want to run the gaming industry.  Their motto is "The future of gaming isn't a box."

 

I don't want the future of gaming to be a shitty latency-dependent system where I own nothing and can have all my games taken away from me for reasons outside of my control.  I don't want developers to worry about making their games playable on 6" phone screens and tailoring the experience to that.  I also really don't want developers tailoring their games around the latency issues.  Quick twitch games are unplayable on this service.  Reaction time dependent genres are going to evaporate for this reason alone.  I don't want to have to live in a city with fiber internet to make any of this more enjoyable.

 

Idk if you're a car guy, but would you want the future of automobiles to be self-driving ubers and for you to lose your ability to drive and own your own car?

You already live in that world, years ago.

 

You have blu-rays of video games that may not be Version 1.00, and if something ever happens to Sony or MS and their online services, you're on your own.

 

60% of your gaming library is probably digital. Same thing applies.

 

And lastly...........this basically ensures that PC VERSIONS of games are developed by the developer. If a developer makes a game for a 10.7 TFLOP AMD gpu, running on linux and using Vulkan, that means there's no reason for that same developer to make that same exact game and put it on the Steam store.  Might increase the chances of Linux-based games and more people building computers and just installing SteamOS for Linux.

 

The question remains: what are they taking away from you that you currently have on Nintendo and Sony?

 

This practically ensures that Nintendo and Sony keep on producing high-profile exclusives.

 

There are 3rd party games that I casually play and discard away. This feels a perfectly fine way to play them. This may end up being the new video game rental service.  I can't get mad at Google because they invented a way to click a button and have game start with NO LOADING, NO PATCH DOWNLOADS and me just start playing the game in under 10 seconds. It comes with a trade-off, but as long as Sony and Nintendo do what they do best, they should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HolyAx said:

Anything that is digital/cloud based only is an instant no from me. It makes everything just more disposable.

I'm finding more and more games exactly that: disposable.

 

Do we need 2 million used copies of Madden 2017 sitting on Gamestop shelves?

 

The economy of scale could potentially make games cheaper. What if Need for Speed 2021 comes out, and EA can get 40, or 50 million people to buy it at $20 to $30 because there's 400 million PCs/Android devices out there.

 

And they don't need to commit to manufacturing X millions of discs because the game distributes itself out to paying customers as needed with no waste. 20,000 people want to play the game during the middle of the night, but 6 million are playing the game at peak hours.

 

The people at Activision and EA must be thinking that $60 is no longer going to cut it for a 10-15 hour single-player AAA game with online multiplayer. The price probably needs to go up to $70-$75. But that is based on a 'successful game" selling to 3 to 4 million people.

 

I think the pricing ecosystem is on the verge of not making sense anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×