test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Star Trek Online and Stadia

2»

Comments

  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    lordmerc22 wrote: »
    gaevsman wrote: »
    Guys, this is a tread about the merits of porting this game to Stadia, if google dont kill it at the first year, no STO2, that is in the FTC, so, to avoid closing the tread, keep on topic, please :wink:

    Given Google's past patience and determination on past efforts for innovation, its a given google will shut it down within 1-2 years
    Yeah. The failure of Google's gimmicks has become a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. Everybody knows they never last, so they won't get support.
  • equinox976equinox976 Member Posts: 2,267 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    lordmerc22 wrote: »
    gaevsman wrote: »
    Guys, this is a tread about the merits of porting this game to Stadia, if google dont kill it at the first year, no STO2, that is in the FTC, so, to avoid closing the tread, keep on topic, please :wink:

    Given Google's past patience and determination on past efforts for innovation, its a given google will shut it down within 1-2 years
    Yeah. The failure of Google's gimmicks has become a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. Everybody knows they never last, so they won't get support.

    I don't know what is wrong with companies these days, they pump out stuff that is high quality, but with no long aim to support it.

    That's why I don't bother to watch ANY Netflix 'originals' any more. Even the good ones get cancelled after a few seasons for seemingly bizzare reasons (good viewing figures and good reviews do not seem to make a difference).

    Getting back on topic, Google seems to follow this trend too, they pump a huge amount of money into producing good quality products such as google glasses (which also had a good critical reception), and then just drop it like a hot potato. Strange days!
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    I still don't understand the point of Stadia. More than that, though, I don't understand why anyone thinks streaming STO is a good idea. It is hard enough for the game to offer a smooth connection as it is, and you want to add more latency to it?

    Stadia provides the ability to play your games wherever you want without the need to carry your desktop, console, or laptop around and it removes the need to ever spend $400 to $4000 to get the new console or upgrade your gaming computer ever again. Assuming that Stadia doesn't fail miserably, the Stadia equipment bought now can still be used to play games 10 years from now. Of course, that might change if Stadia offer VR games, but there is the Oculus Go and Oculus Quest for VR without a gaming computer. However, there will always be a new and better game streaming service even if Stadia fails miserably.

    In a few years, the only people that would not benefit from something like Stadia is people that want the best gaming experience, want to keep their privacy, or have lousy internet. Now if only Stadia removed mandatory subscription and a larger "free" library for those who subscribed.
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,190 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    I still don't understand the point of Stadia. More than that, though, I don't understand why anyone thinks streaming STO is a good idea. It is hard enough for the game to offer a smooth connection as it is, and you want to add more latency to it?

    Stadia provides the ability to play your games wherever you want without the need to carry your desktop, console, or laptop around and it removes the need to ever spend $400 to $4000 to get the new console or upgrade your gaming computer ever again. Assuming that Stadia doesn't fail miserably, the Stadia equipment bought now can still be used to play games 10 years from now. Of course, that might change if Stadia offer VR games, but there is the Oculus Go and Oculus Quest for VR without a gaming computer. However, there will always be a new and better game streaming service even if Stadia fails miserably.

    In a few years, the only people that would not benefit from something like Stadia is people that want the best gaming experience, want to keep their privacy, or have lousy internet. Now if only Stadia removed mandatory subscription and a larger "free" library for those who subscribed.

    I can do that with my PC right now with Parsec Gaming, so i can connect anywhere with a good internet connection and play with very little lag... on my own computer.... i really dont see any advantages in Stadia, of course if they emulate consoles, then thats different
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
  • davefenestratordavefenestrator Member Posts: 10,501 Arc User
    gaevsman wrote: »
    I can do that with my PC right now with Parsec Gaming, so i can connect anywhere with a good internet connection and play with very little lag... on my own computer.... i really dont see any advantages in Stadia, of course if they emulate consoles, then thats different

    No, every game that runs on Stadia needs to be ported to it, it isn't like XCloud that runs Xbox games or PSNow that runs Playstation games. Sony, Nintendo and MS have no reason to share their first-party titles with Google.

    What you get right now are less than 50 games total (Half of them Tomb Raider ;) ), and at least with Borderlands 3 the version lagged behind the console and PC versions by 2 months. That's not a good sign for frequently updated games.

    Stadia *might* take off once the free version is available, since it might let you game at 1080p on a laptop PC with weak intel graphics. At least until you hit the bandwidth cap for your ISP. Streaming real-time 1080p gaming is going to use more bandwidth than pre-recorded Netflix content that can be pre-compressed much more efficiently.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    gaevsman wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    I still don't understand the point of Stadia. More than that, though, I don't understand why anyone thinks streaming STO is a good idea. It is hard enough for the game to offer a smooth connection as it is, and you want to add more latency to it?

    Stadia provides the ability to play your games wherever you want without the need to carry your desktop, console, or laptop around and it removes the need to ever spend $400 to $4000 to get the new console or upgrade your gaming computer ever again. Assuming that Stadia doesn't fail miserably, the Stadia equipment bought now can still be used to play games 10 years from now. Of course, that might change if Stadia offer VR games, but there is the Oculus Go and Oculus Quest for VR without a gaming computer. However, there will always be a new and better game streaming service even if Stadia fails miserably.

    In a few years, the only people that would not benefit from something like Stadia is people that want the best gaming experience, want to keep their privacy, or have lousy internet. Now if only Stadia removed mandatory subscription and a larger "free" library for those who subscribed.

    I can do that with my PC right now with Parsec Gaming, so i can connect anywhere with a good internet connection and play with very little lag... on my own computer.... i really dont see any advantages in Stadia, of course if they emulate consoles, then thats different

    But you have to upgrade your computer every few years to keep up with new games. Game streaming services would remove that need. Another advantage might be Epic Exclusives won't be restricted from game streaming services. Personally, I won't touch any game streaming service for at least a few years until all of the kinks are worked out.
  • equinox976equinox976 Member Posts: 2,267 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    But you have to upgrade your computer every few years to keep up with new games. Game streaming services would remove that need. Another advantage might be Epic Exclusives won't be restricted from game streaming services. Personally, I won't touch any game streaming service for at least a few years until all of the kinks are worked out.

    You would not need to upgrade your PC if you are connecting to a cloud based gaming service, as the remote server would do all the work, all the PC needs to do is display the image. Most likely even a 10 year old PC has higher spec hardware than the stadia 'receiver'.
  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    I think this Stadia & a couple of other companies attempting the same or similar applications of the technology are the wave of the future, but the refinement isn't there yet & it only seems to get decent/good play under ideal circumstances.
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,190 Arc User
    edited January 2020
    starkaos wrote: »
    gaevsman wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    I still don't understand the point of Stadia. More than that, though, I don't understand why anyone thinks streaming STO is a good idea. It is hard enough for the game to offer a smooth connection as it is, and you want to add more latency to it?

    Stadia provides the ability to play your games wherever you want without the need to carry your desktop, console, or laptop around and it removes the need to ever spend $400 to $4000 to get the new console or upgrade your gaming computer ever again. Assuming that Stadia doesn't fail miserably, the Stadia equipment bought now can still be used to play games 10 years from now. Of course, that might change if Stadia offer VR games, but there is the Oculus Go and Oculus Quest for VR without a gaming computer. However, there will always be a new and better game streaming service even if Stadia fails miserably.

    In a few years, the only people that would not benefit from something like Stadia is people that want the best gaming experience, want to keep their privacy, or have lousy internet. Now if only Stadia removed mandatory subscription and a larger "free" library for those who subscribed.

    I can do that with my PC right now with Parsec Gaming, so i can connect anywhere with a good internet connection and play with very little lag... on my own computer.... i really dont see any advantages in Stadia, of course if they emulate consoles, then thats different

    But you have to upgrade your computer every few years to keep up with new games. Game streaming services would remove that need. Another advantage might be Epic Exclusives won't be restricted from game streaming services. Personally, I won't touch any game streaming service for at least a few years until all of the kinks are worked out.

    Well, i change my video card (really, the CPU business is not advancing that fast anyway) every 2 years, and the CPU every 3 or 4, in that way, i can sell the old ones, that are not that much dated for a very good price, so changuing my computer is usually half of what would cost if i let it age too much. Also, you dont need to buy the latest generation, prices dorp quite fast when a new generation of GPU or CPU gets on the market, you really get a lot of savings by buying the previous one!, and is not a that a big loss in performance, but a lot of savings in money!
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,482 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    I still don't understand the point of Stadia. More than that, though, I don't understand why anyone thinks streaming STO is a good idea. It is hard enough for the game to offer a smooth connection as it is, and you want to add more latency to it?

    Stadia provides the ability to play your games wherever you want without the need to carry your desktop, console, or laptop around and it removes the need to ever spend $400 to $4000 to get the new console or upgrade your gaming computer ever again. Assuming that Stadia doesn't fail miserably, the Stadia equipment bought now can still be used to play games 10 years from now. Of course, that might change if Stadia offer VR games, but there is the Oculus Go and Oculus Quest for VR without a gaming computer. However, there will always be a new and better game streaming service even if Stadia fails miserably.

    In a few years, the only people that would not benefit from something like Stadia is people that want the best gaming experience, want to keep their privacy, or have lousy internet. Now if only Stadia removed mandatory subscription and a larger "free" library for those who subscribed.

    Yeah that's the point I don't see. Where am I going that I would want to be back home playing computer games when I get there?

    Also you're talking to the wrong person about upgrading. My computer is 7 years old now and the GPU is 6. It runs everything I want, to my satisfaction.
  • spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 4,248 Arc User
    lordmerc22 wrote: »
    sthe91 wrote: »
    I like it how it is now. Also, if you change it, it would affect those who have lower-end laptops and computers. No to STO2. What I would be in favor of is optimizing the engine that Star Trek Online uses and straightening out the spaghetti code. Yum! Spaghetti! :) With that said and the ire I have noticed from a lot of console players, not sure it would be a good idea to port it to Stadia as well. Just my thoughts on the subject. Thanks. :)

    I think an engine upgrade to a modern engine could make it easier for them to also hire people who know to work on it. Expertise is always a problem on old engines
    Porting a game to another engine isn't something that is done easily at this point it would probably be easier to current coding issues with STO then try to port it to an unfamiliar engine.

    Also isn't STO's engine an in-house engine so I suspect for the most STO developers are familiar with the engine but the engine is just the foundations not the whole game.

  • postagepaidpostagepaid Member Posts: 2,899 Arc User
    Google wanted a foot in the door for making money off games but were always going to be struggling vs established players like sony, microsoft and nintendo or breaking into the PC market due to the need for devs to port to another platform. Even more of a struggle when they only wanted to stream existing titles rather than putting out the stadia with a new and exclusive ip to sell the system.

    Network infrastructure is the main stumbling block which is likely why gamepass is the focus for microsoft as the bandwidth is only needed during the download process and only a real issue for the bloated AAA's. Likewise sony have been far more conservative about their boasts, such as stadia using the magic 4k tag that get the graphic junkie "gamers" salivating.

    Stadia is a gimmick for those who want to justify the broadband package they're paying for. For the rest of us who've got used to buffering videos or streams it has even less value than an ouya.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    I still don't understand the point of Stadia. More than that, though, I don't understand why anyone thinks streaming STO is a good idea. It is hard enough for the game to offer a smooth connection as it is, and you want to add more latency to it?

    Stadia provides the ability to play your games wherever you want
    That's backwards. You can play games on a computer or regular console anywhere. Stadia only works in locations with reliable high-speed internet.
    it removes the need to ever spend $400 to $4000 to get the new console or upgrade your gaming computer ever again.
    Replacing it with a need to spend $120 a year to keep using the one you already "bought."
    Assuming that Stadia doesn't fail miserably, the Stadia equipment bought now can still be used to play games 10 years from now.
    Assuming (and that's a very big assumption) that Stadia doesn't fail miserably, there will be "new" and "improved" hardware released regularly to keep people paying, most likely with periodic end of service for old versions to make sure. Just like every other kind of electronic devices.

    Furthermore, modern consumer electronics are cheaply made and unlikely to physically last 10 years in constant use.
    However, there will always be a new and better game streaming service even if Stadia fails miserably.
    Which will suffer from the exact same problems. And if Stadia vanishes and takes people's "bought" games with it, nobody will ever trust another like it again.
    In a few years, the only people that would not benefit from something like Stadia is people that want the best gaming experience, want to keep their privacy, or have lousy internet.
    I'd expect most gamers would fit into all of those categories. And then there's also wanting to actually own the stuff you buy, instead of having to rely on a capricious service provider that could pull the plug on the stuff you thought you "bought" at any time.

    Something like Stadia would realistically work best for MMOs, which by definition have most of the same drawbacks to begin with. But not as long as the platform requires proprietary hardware and mandatory subscriptions.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    I still don't understand the point of Stadia. More than that, though, I don't understand why anyone thinks streaming STO is a good idea. It is hard enough for the game to offer a smooth connection as it is, and you want to add more latency to it?

    Stadia provides the ability to play your games wherever you want
    That's backwards. You can play games on a computer or regular console anywhere. Stadia only works in locations with reliable high-speed internet.

    Can you take your console or desktop computer with you when you travel to another country? Finding reliable high-speed internet is currently a concern, but it will become harder and harder to find areas with lousy internet.
    it removes the need to ever spend $400 to $4000 to get the new console or upgrade your gaming computer ever again.
    Replacing it with a need to spend $120 a year to keep using the one you already "bought."

    It is not a sustainable business practice. Either Stadia will have to allow a wide variety of games for free with its subscription service without the need to purchase additional games or remove the subscription service.
    Assuming that Stadia doesn't fail miserably, the Stadia equipment bought now can still be used to play games 10 years from now.
    Assuming (and that's a very big assumption) that Stadia doesn't fail miserably, there will be "new" and "improved" hardware released regularly to keep people paying, most likely with periodic end of service for old versions to make sure. Just like every other kind of electronic devices.

    Furthermore, modern consumer electronics are cheaply made and unlikely to physically last 10 years in constant use.

    Future games might require new hardware like Stadia VR, but any game playable on Stadia now should be able to be played on the same equipment 10 years from now. However, it will still be cheaper to play Cyberpunk 2077 3 on Stadia or another game streaming service than it is to purchase the PS 7 or a new gaming computer.
    However, there will always be a new and better game streaming service even if Stadia fails miserably.
    Which will suffer from the exact same problems. And if Stadia vanishes and takes people's "bought" games with it, nobody will ever trust another like it again.

    And how many streaming services do we have to own just so we can watch our favorite shows? A game streaming service is just the logical extension of the current reality of streaming. A new game streaming service will learn from the mistakes of Stadia and have better technology to rely upon so those problems are less likely to happen.
    In a few years, the only people that would not benefit from something like Stadia is people that want the best gaming experience, want to keep their privacy, or have lousy internet.
    I'd expect most gamers would fit into all of those categories. And then there's also wanting to actually own the stuff you buy, instead of having to rely on a capricious service provider that could pull the plug on the stuff you thought you "bought" at any time.

    Something like Stadia would realistically work best for MMOs, which by definition have most of the same drawbacks to begin with. But not as long as the platform requires proprietary hardware and mandatory subscriptions.

    And these are all reasons to not get any of the current video streaming services. Less and less people are buying new movies on DVD or Blu-ray and more likely to watch it on a streaming service. Streaming services can just cut off service at any time that they want. Just think about the last time that you rented a movie or game from the video rental store. The last video rental store in my city went out of business 2.5 years ago and it has been years since I last bought a DVD and likely even longer since I have bought a computer game from a Brick and Mortar Store.

    Even digital distribution systems like Steam, Origin, GOG, and Epic are at risk of losing all the games that we paid for. Consoles are not as bad, but they still require patching which would no longer be present if the console company is shut down. Any new game is at risk of "a capricious service provider that could pull the plug on the stuff you thought you 'bought' at any time." So games will eventually suffer the same fate as movies.

  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,459 Arc User
    edited January 2020
    How many streaming services do we need to watch all the shows? The answer is increasingly too many.

    The entertainment distribution industry is in a bubble that is fracturing the market, and that cannot continue indefinitely. People are too invested into the major streamers like Netflix, Amazon, and (to a lesser degree) Hulu to leave them for others and the others do not have enough content anyway for the most part, so shows get fewer and fewer viewers each because household budgets only allow for so many services and potential viewers end up on the wrong side of the paywall as the market is carved into ever smaller domains.

    And the argument that you can get a whole lot of streaming services by dropping cable service just does not apply to millions of people (in the US at least) since a lot of people have no broadband access besides those cable TV services, and the "creative pricing" policies many of those companies use means that you pay the same whether you use their TV service or not, so there is no saving whatsoever to use for streaming service subscriptions.

    And that is assuming that you can get broadband at all (the government estimate in 2019 said over 21 million people cannot get broadband of any kind in their homes). Very many rural and semi-rural areas have no access to broadband, and those that do usually only have a high-latency or just slow overall "broadband" service. For example, a friend of mine lives about fifty miles from two major cities, and an internet backbone literally runs along a road about a mile away from their house, but the only ISPs they have available offer only a "fringe area" DSL which runs about the speed of two dialup lines put together, or very expensive WiMax service that has excruciating latency (and costs five times what I pay in the city for cable-based ISP).

    The US has not only made little progress in expanding broadband, it is actually falling behind in access compared to other countries, a trend that has been going since 2000. And with the trend of city population dropping as people move further and further out that means even fewer people have access on top of that. Unless the government steps in and has companies installing fiber into areas where it is not considered profitable enough to bother with the situation will only get worse.

    And that is just the physical end of the problem, the loss of net neutrality means it is only a matter of time before ISPs and backbone companies start playing their own games with access speeds to rake in more profits.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    I still don't understand the point of Stadia. More than that, though, I don't understand why anyone thinks streaming STO is a good idea. It is hard enough for the game to offer a smooth connection as it is, and you want to add more latency to it?

    Stadia provides the ability to play your games wherever you want
    That's backwards. You can play games on a computer or regular console anywhere. Stadia only works in locations with reliable high-speed internet.

    Can you take your console or desktop computer with you when you travel to another country?
    I could if I wanted to. But if I'm traveling, I do expect to have better things to do than play videogames.
    Finding reliable high-speed internet is currently a concern, but it will become harder and harder to find areas with lousy internet.
    People have been saying that for decades. All that ever happens is the standard for what counts as "lousy" internet goes up.
    it removes the need to ever spend $400 to $4000 to get the new console or upgrade your gaming computer ever again.
    Replacing it with a need to spend $120 a year to keep using the one you already "bought."

    It is not a sustainable business practice. Either Stadia will have to allow a wide variety of games for free with its subscription service without the need to purchase additional games or remove the subscription service.
    I agree.
    Assuming that Stadia doesn't fail miserably, the Stadia equipment bought now can still be used to play games 10 years from now.
    Assuming (and that's a very big assumption) that Stadia doesn't fail miserably, there will be "new" and "improved" hardware released regularly to keep people paying, most likely with periodic end of service for old versions to make sure. Just like every other kind of electronic devices.

    Furthermore, modern consumer electronics are cheaply made and unlikely to physically last 10 years in constant use.

    Future games might require new hardware like Stadia VR, but any game playable on Stadia now should be able to be played on the same equipment 10 years from now. However, it will still be cheaper to play Cyberpunk 2077 3 on Stadia or another game streaming service than it is to purchase the PS 7 or a new gaming computer.
    Remains to be seen.
    However, there will always be a new and better game streaming service even if Stadia fails miserably.
    Which will suffer from the exact same problems. And if Stadia vanishes and takes people's "bought" games with it, nobody will ever trust another like it again.

    And how many streaming services do we have to own just so we can watch our favorite shows? A game streaming service is just the logical extension of the current reality of streaming. A new game streaming service will learn from the mistakes of Stadia and have better technology to rely upon so those problems are less likely to happen.
    In a few years, the only people that would not benefit from something like Stadia is people that want the best gaming experience, want to keep their privacy, or have lousy internet.
    I'd expect most gamers would fit into all of those categories. And then there's also wanting to actually own the stuff you buy, instead of having to rely on a capricious service provider that could pull the plug on the stuff you thought you "bought" at any time.

    Something like Stadia would realistically work best for MMOs, which by definition have most of the same drawbacks to begin with. But not as long as the platform requires proprietary hardware and mandatory subscriptions.

    And these are all reasons to not get any of the current video streaming services. Less and less people are buying new movies on DVD or Blu-ray and more likely to watch it on a streaming service. Streaming services can just cut off service at any time that they want. Just think about the last time that you rented a movie or game from the video rental store. The last video rental store in my city went out of business 2.5 years ago and it has been years since I last bought a DVD and likely even longer since I have bought a computer game from a Brick and Mortar Store.
    No video streaming service I've used invoved buying any titles (renting, sometimes), so users don't have anything to lose if they go out of service. But Stadia does and I bet nobody will get refunds if/when it goes bye-bye.
    Even digital distribution systems like Steam, Origin, GOG, and Epic are at risk of losing all the games that we paid for. Consoles are not as bad, but they still require patching which would no longer be present if the console company is shut down. Any new game is at risk of "a capricious service provider that could pull the plug on the stuff you thought you 'bought' at any time." So games will eventually suffer the same fate as movies.
    No store I've ever bought games on can delete games from my system. And I would never buy games on a store that could.

    Though to go further philosophical, regardless of the words used it doesn't really count as buying something in the first place, if the seller can destroy the product remotely at any time.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    In the case of Stadia, apparently you simply don't ever download the games, just the Stadia client. So the actual game data files live on the Stadia server, and you're mostly just paying for access to them.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • postagepaidpostagepaid Member Posts: 2,899 Arc User
    Buying a game on GOG gives the option to download it and keep those files backed up somewhere so that even if you can't connect to gog or the service closes down you can still play the game you paid for (although this does open it up for abuse by the peglegged gamers out there). Steam games on the otherhand need to interact with their servers (which is why steam is a form of DRM) to get them installed from backups so if there's no server connection you're out of luck.

    Stadia is asking full whack for a glorified rental, no connection or the service dies and you lost the game access.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    Even digital distribution systems like Steam, Origin, GOG, and Epic are at risk of losing all the games that we paid for. Consoles are not as bad, but they still require patching which would no longer be present if the console company is shut down. Any new game is at risk of "a capricious service provider that could pull the plug on the stuff you thought you 'bought' at any time." So games will eventually suffer the same fate as movies.
    No store I've ever bought games on can delete games from my system. And I would never buy games on a store that could.

    Though to go further philosophical, regardless of the words used it doesn't really count as buying something in the first place, if the seller can destroy the product remotely at any time.

    I was talking about if services like Steam, Uplay, Origin, etc shut down, then you can't download the games that you have payed for and some games have internet DRM. So there is likely a bunch of Steam games that are no longer playable due to their companies going under.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    In the case of Steam, it only requires a connection if that game is coded to require it.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,820 Arc User
    I do know that Baldur's Gate 3 is being made for PC and Stadia which means at least someone is making a new Stadia game (very excited for BG3).
  • westx211westx211 Member Posts: 42,206 Arc User
    How many streaming services do we need to watch all the shows? The answer is increasingly too many.

    The entertainment distribution industry is in a bubble that is fracturing the market, and that cannot continue indefinitely. People are too invested into the major streamers like Netflix, Amazon, and (to a lesser degree) Hulu to leave them for others and the others do not have enough content anyway for the most part, so shows get fewer and fewer viewers each because household budgets only allow for so many services and potential viewers end up on the wrong side of the paywall as the market is carved into ever smaller domains.

    And the argument that you can get a whole lot of streaming services by dropping cable service just does not apply to millions of people (in the US at least) since a lot of people have no broadband access besides those cable TV services, and the "creative pricing" policies many of those companies use means that you pay the same whether you use their TV service or not, so there is no saving whatsoever to use for streaming service subscriptions.

    And that is assuming that you can get broadband at all (the government estimate in 2019 said over 21 million people cannot get broadband of any kind in their homes). Very many rural and semi-rural areas have no access to broadband, and those that do usually only have a high-latency or just slow overall "broadband" service. For example, a friend of mine lives about fifty miles from two major cities, and an internet backbone literally runs along a road about a mile away from their house, but the only ISPs they have available offer only a "fringe area" DSL which runs about the speed of two dialup lines put together, or very expensive WiMax service that has excruciating latency (and costs five times what I pay in the city for cable-based ISP).

    The US has not only made little progress in expanding broadband, it is actually falling behind in access compared to other countries, a trend that has been going since 2000. And with the trend of city population dropping as people move further and further out that means even fewer people have access on top of that. Unless the government steps in and has companies installing fiber into areas where it is not considered profitable enough to bother with the situation will only get worse.

    And that is just the physical end of the problem, the loss of net neutrality means it is only a matter of time before ISPs and backbone companies start playing their own games with access speeds to rake in more profits.

    Congress managed to slip in a little addendum to the bill that removed net neutrality, enabling states to make their own laws reinstating net neutrality (which many already are working on)
    Men are not punished for their sins, but by them.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    lordgyor wrote: »
    I do know that Baldur's Gate 3 is being made for PC and Stadia which means at least someone is making a new Stadia game (very excited for BG3).

    Cyberpunk 2077 is also being marketed as a Stadia game. So deciding between getting Stadia or upgrading the gaming computer to run Cyberpunk 2077 would be something to consider if there is easy access to high speed internet.
This discussion has been closed.