Google Stadia Connect - June 6th 9am PDT - Launch info, price, game announcements + more

[Remij 4,687]

2 minutes ago, Team 2019 said:

Anyways back on topic of Google, the pricing is key. I think MS will push their shit in with Game Pass's pricing model.

 

Thats one thing MS got right for this audience.

Back on the topic of Google..... Microsoft will.....

 

 

 

[Playstation Tablet 1,729]

Well the one thing that Streaming WILL probably have (We'll know in 3 days) is an added sub price above what you currently pay. You're renting a fully interactive high powered server, not buffering some netflix video.

$20 a month minimum like PSNOW.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Team 2019

[Playstation Tablet 1,729]

I can't wait for Stadia to launch then have youtube videos of people hitting a brick wall of reality of their wifi router latency.

[Goukosan 2,258]

1 hour ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Every company is dependent to a degree but it's fiscally impossible for Sony to develop their own infrastructure. They're a relatively poor company, it's out of their pay grade. 

 

They are 100% reliant on others, if no one did business with them they would die. They have no network, they have a service on someone elses. 

MS is 100% dependent on others for the hardware inside of Xbox "If no one did business with them Xbox would die"  

 

It's like you're clueless to how business works 

 

 

[Goukosan 2,258]

1 hour ago, Remij_ said:

Did I say something that wasn't true?  Did I say Netflix failed?  Did I say Apple failed?  I never said Sony depending on other companies makes would them a failure...  In fact... I never said ANY of these companies was a failure.  I can't tell if you're just stupid and misunderstood, or are purposefully being stupid just to argue... 

 

Oh wait.. I can tell.  You've been doing the same acting like a bitch for a while now.  

"In many ways it IS a failure. "  

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

Just now, Goukosan said:

MS is 100% dependent on others for the hardware inside of Xbox "If no one did business with them Xbox would die"  

 

It's like you're clueless to how business works 

 

 

And guess what? If Microsoft so felt the need they could develop their own hardware from the ground up and afford to do it. 

 

Sony is a company that can't self-sustain in this market, they're out of their depths. Only Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft can. 

 

Having someone else do something for you doesn't equate to reliance on them, they're not the same thing. Sony is reliant on others, Microsoft chooses to do business with others.

[Goukosan 2,258]

1 hour ago, Teh_Diplomat said:

I don't know how you guys can think streaming isn't going to be the future. It's where the majority of gamers will migrate to, once the service can be delivered. Regardless of how you feel about the service and its ability to deliver smooth gaming.

 

You have to understand, gamers who discuss games, consoles & their values, as well as predictions for the next generation are the minority - and a very small minority. The majority of gamers are going to go where the industry funnels them like cattle.

 

Sure, there will be still be a market that exists for physical copies, traditional consoles - much like how you can still buy physical copies of music; but let's be honest here, the majority (and by a wide margin) of people are on a streaming service now.

Oh.. not disputing if streaming is the future...it's just not the immediate future. 

 

7 to 8 years for streaming to fully take over and replace native games. 

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

3 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

Oh.. not disputing if streaming is the future...it's just not the immediate future. 

 

7 to 8 years for streaming to fully take over and replace native games. 

Oh yeah, I don't dispute that simply because it exists, and Console makers are pushing for it, that it becomes the norm. I mean look how long it took for us to go from Apple's iTunes, to Spotify becoming the leader in streaming music.

 

I think iTunes launched in 2002, and was just recently shutdown. So streaming could be a while - a long while; before it becomes the norm. Much like how digital sales of games began in 2004'ish, but it still has a long way to go before people completely stop buying physical copies.

[Goukosan 2,258]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

And guess what? If Microsoft so felt the need they could develop their own hardware from the ground up and afford to do it. 

 

Sony is a company that can't self-sustain in this market, they're out of their depths. Only Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft can. 

 

Having someone else do something for you doesn't equate to reliance on them, they're not the same thing. Sony is reliant on others, Microsoft chooses to do business with others.

No they can't develop it from the ground up with their own components because they do not have the factories, engineers, divisions, patents or market share in those fields.   They would take a huge loss if they did..... spend billions to lose billions... lol

 

hence why businesses carefully decide which markets they create new ventures in. 

 

Instead of MS building the components themselves... they use other well established businesses to provide the components for them. 

 

That's how business works. Sony choosing Azure simply means they got a better deal than what Amazon or another company offered.  Businesses work with other businesses. 

 

Every single business in existence (especially tech businesses) depends on another business to provide them a service in some shape or another.   

 

No business is 100% self reliant on itself. 

 

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

4 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

No they can't develop it from the ground up with their own components because they do not have the factories, engineers, divisions, patents or market share in those fields.   They would take a huge loss if they did..... spend billions to lose billions... lol

 

hence why businesses carefully decide which markets they create new ventures in. 

 

Instead of MS building the components themselves... they use other well established businesses to provide the components for them. 

 

That's how business works. Sony choosing Azure simply means they got a better deal than what Amazon or another company offered.  Businesses work with other businesses. 

 

Every single business in existence (especially tech businesses) depends on another business to provide them a service in some shape or another.   

 

No business is 100% self reliant on itself. 

 

But THEY COULD... That's the difference.

 

Sony can't, you're trying to frame a $60 billion dollar company in the same light as a $1 trillion dollar company. 

 

Sony is a solar system, Microsoft is a galaxy. 

Edited June 3, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Remij 4,687]

11 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

"In many ways it IS a failure. "  

In many ways it is.  They haven't "failed" as in gone out of business... but they've had many failures.  That's how they grow.  God you're fucking clueless  

[Goukosan 2,258]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

But THEY COULD... That's the difference.

 

Sony can't.

Sony could.. but it won't be smart business.  It would take years to build up that infrastructure. 

 

Same with MS... they could start making CPUs, GPUs, Storage, power supplies, mother boards, RAM modules, IO devices etc.... but it would take years to catch up to the industry leaders in those fields, investing billions to lose billions is not smart business bro....... so instead they depend on other businesses to provide these components for them. 

[Remij 4,687]

6 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

No they can't develop it from the ground up with their own components because they do not have the factories, engineers, divisions, patents or market share in those fields.   They would take a huge loss if they did..... spend billions to lose billions... lol

 

hence why businesses carefully decide which markets they create new ventures in. 

 

Instead of MS building the components themselves... they use other well established businesses to provide the components for them. 

 

That's how business works. Sony choosing Azure simply means they got a better deal than what Amazon or another company offered.  Businesses work with other businesses. 

 

Every single business in existence (especially tech businesses) depends on another business to provide them a service in some shape or another.   

 

No business is 100% self reliant on itself. 

 

And yet one company has the ability and infrastructure to do it on their own, bolstering their own business in the process.. and the other relies on paying others to give them that ability.

 

The main thing you pointed out... is that Sony has to choose another service to compete... not their own.  

[Goukosan 2,258]

6 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

In many ways it is.  They haven't "failed" as in gone out of business... but they've had many failures.  That's how they grow.  God you're fucking clueless  

says the guy who doesn't know the difference between consumer facing business and services for other businesses. 

 

[Playstation Tablet 1,729]

Who gives a shit what backend Sony chooses. Be it Azure or AWS.

The success of the service will not depend on the backend but the actual service,  games, marketing, ease of use etc.

[Remij 4,687]

Just now, Goukosan said:

says the guy who doesn't know the difference between consumer facing business and services for other businesses. 

 

Says the guy who is either stupid as fuck or purposefully misunderstands things to build strawmans 

 

bu but applez da failur  

 

Fucking Gouko   Run along and play your little Switch begging for MS to stream xcloud to Nintendo.

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

Just now, Goukosan said:

Sony could.. but it won't be smart business.  It would take years to build up that infrastructure. 

 

Same with MS... they could start making CPUs, GPUs, Storage, power supplies, mother boards, RAM modules, IO devices etc.... but it would take years to catch up to the industry leaders in those fields, investing billions to lose billions is not smart business bro....... so instead they depend on other businesses to provide these components for them. 

A $60 billion dollar business with $25 billion cash on hand doesn't have the ability to build a global network infrastructure and data centers.

 

In terms of all of that with MS, they could buy AMD tomorrow and a number of other manufacturers with their cash on hand, have money to spare and it wouldn't impact their business in the slightest.

 

They're now fully autonomous. You don't get the difference in resources here, Sony is relatively poor on the whole and especially in comparison. 

[Goukosan 2,258]

Just now, Remij_ said:

And yet one company has the ability and infrastructure to do it on their own, bolstering their own business in the process.. and the other relies on paying others to give them that ability.

 

The main thing you pointed out... is that Sony has to choose another service to compete... not their own.  

On the consumer facing end of cloud gaming ... Sony will be MS biggest competitor... that's the point. 

 

You are comparing apples to oranges. 

[Remij 4,687]

5 minutes ago, Team 2019 said:

Who gives a shit what backend Sony chooses. Be it Azure or AWS.

The success of the service will not depend on the backend but the actual service,  games, marketing, ease of use etc.

It could... those services aren't free... and those same companies are venturing into the same service themselves.  It's a big gamble that Sony will have to take.

[Remij 4,687]

2 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

On the consumer facing end of cloud gaming ... Sony will be MS biggest competitor... that's the point. 

 

You are comparing apples to oranges. 

I never said they weren't.... wtf?  

 

In fact.. I specifically said that Sony has advantages which Google doesn't when it comes to their services with regards to streaming games.  They have IP and they have  the most established gaming brand.