Tag Archives: google stadia

The Video Game Industry Can’t Go On Like This

At about this time next year, we’ll have a pretty good idea of what the next generation of video games will look like. New consoles will likely be shown off, bold new streaming initiatives will begin to launch, and we’ll see all the wonderful kinds of games they will bring us. All these new things will come, and we’ll close the book on a generation that saw the industry that makes games come under greater scrutiny than ever before, as studios shuttered, developers burned out, and toxic work culture fostered environments hostile to marginalized people.

These are not problems that have been resolved, but the wheels of the games industry keep turning, in spite of the strain. So how much bigger can video games get? Video games are only getting more costly, in more ways than one. And it doesn’t seem like they’re sustainable.

There’s the human cost, which Kotaku has chronicled extensively. Contract workers are continually undervalued and taken advantage of, as Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 developer Treyarch is reported to do. Artists who work on gory cinematics integral to games like Mortal Kombat suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Unrealistic demands and lofty investor expectations lead to disastrous development cycles for video games like Anthem, which in turn leads to developer crunch. Every week, news breaks about the toll video game development takes on the people who make them, and we carry on as if it’s all going to be fine.

Mortal Kombat 11
Image: NetherRealm Studios (Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment)

Advertisement

That’s only the start of it. When you adjust for inflation, the retail cost of video games has never been cheaper, and it’s been this way for some time. The $60 price point for a standard big-budget release has held steady for nearly 15 years, unadjusted for inflation even as the cost to make big-budget video games has risen astronomically with player expectations. (Here’s some math that gives you an idea of just how absurdly expensive games are to make.)

Since changing the price point seems to be anathema, we’ve seen the industry attempt to compensate with all manner of alternatives: higher-priced collector’s editions, live service games that offer annual passes or regular expansions a la Destiny, microtransactions, and free-to-play games. Then you have loot boxes, which in many cases boil down to slot machine-style gambling inserted into retail and free-to-play games alike—something that is coming under increased legal scrutiny that might potentially cut off what has quickly become a major source of revenue in the industry.

Advertisement

These aren’t all necessarily responses to thinning profit margins in the face of rising inflation. Game publishers are often publicly-held companies, with investors that need to be shown endlessly increasing profits that are then used to justify ridiculously large executive paychecks. Perhaps that’s a problem that needs solving, too.

Because of all this, $60 is often just the minimum buy-in, the ante in the pot, for some of the biggest releases. If you want every character in a game’s roster, or every map in its playlists, you’ll have to pay more, and increasingly, you have to. Big-budget single-player games that deliver a single-serving experience with minimal strings attached have largely disappeared from the lineups of major third-party publishers.

Advertisement

Sea of Solitude.
Image: Jo-Mei Games (Electronic Arts)

Let’s run down the Big Three. We’re more than halfway through 2019, and Electronic Arts has only published one single-player game, the indie Sea of Solitude. Last year was much the same, with two indies as its only single-player releases: Fe and Unraveled 2. Activision’s portfolio of single-player games looks even thinner: Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice is the only exclusively single-player, non-remake game that the publisher has released since 2015’s Transformers: Devastation—which itself is no longer available, thanks to an expired licensing agreement.

Advertisement

Ubisoft is an exception, regularly releasing entries in single-player game franchises like Far Cry and Assassin’s Creed. But it buttresses them aggressive microtransactions and extensive season pass plans. (And the occasional diversion like Trials Rising and South Park: The Fractured But Whole.) The big-budget single-player experience is now almost entirely the domain of first-party studios making marquee games for console manufacturers, which bankroll games like Spider-Man and God of War. The economics of first-party exclusives are totally different—they’re less about making money by themselves and more about drawing players into the console’s ecosystem.

This is worth considering, because as big publishers prioritize live, service-oriented games, the number of games on their schedules has dropped. If you look at the Wikipedia listings for EA, Ubisoft, and Activision games released by year, you’ll get a stark—if unscientific—picture of how each big publisher’s release slate has thinned out in the last five years, relying on recurring cash cows like sports games and annualized franchises and little else. In 2008, those three publishers released 98 games; in 2018 they released just 28, not including expansions.

Advertisement

Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice
Image: FromSoftware (Activision)

In short, the single-player game was not sustainable. So why should we think the current model is?

Advertisement

The smaller release slates make for a precipitous state of affairs where too much is riding on too little, a shaky foundation for big-budget game development to rest on. Granted, there are other publishers, like those in Japan, that are still very interested in single-player games. Independent games have also filled the single-player void and achieved greater visibility than ever before. But each of these alternatives face their own challenges in a volatile market, one where just five years ago conventional wisdom held the Japanese games industry was dead. Independent developers, meanwhile, continue to fight for the smallest slice of an impossibly crowded market. No matter where you sit on the games industry ladder, stability remains elusive.

That’s the present of video games. Let’s talk about the future. The intersecting trends of games-as-a-service and the increased emphasis on streaming mean an increased reliance on off-site computing with data centers and server farms distributed across the globe.

Advertisement

Microsoft’s Project xCloud wants to use the company’s data centers to provide high-end console and PC gaming to anyone with a good enough internet connection. Google Stadia is a service that pitches something similar if not even more wide-reaching, angling for the big-budget video game experience in a web browser. And Sony already offers a streaming service, PlayStation Now, which is likely to expand in the next generation.

A 2016 study from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory gives us an idea of the sort of things to consider in this arena. The outlook gives reasons to both be alarmed and also be hopeful.

Advertisement

The foremost takeaway is that while data centers are growing in number, their energy consumption is starting to plateau out of necessity, as the dramatic increase in cloud computing has actually forced tech companies to become more efficient. The biggest companies, according to the Berkeley Lab report, are actually remarkably efficient.

Data center efficiency is measured by power usage effectiveness (PUE) rating. PUE is found by measuring a facility’s total power delivered divided by the power used by its IT equipment. Under this rating, the platonic ideal is a PUE of 1.0: power input and output perfectly balanced. Google, then, is in pretty good shape as far as this standard goes, with the average PUE of all its data centers currently at 1.11.

Advertisement

Efficiency, however, can remain good as power consumption increases, and consumption is going to remain a problem.

Data center energy consumption has been a concern for some time now, particularly in the United States, where data center energy consumption dwarfs that of the rest of the world at 1.8 percent of all energy used in the countrySmaller data centers, which estimates say make up 60 percent of data center energy-use, are inefficient compared to the biggest players, and with no legal standard or universal benchmark, there’s no way to ensure that efficiency gap is closed.

Advertisement

A Google data center in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
Photo: Google

Making this problem even more dire is our current political climate, where developing sources of clean, renewable energy is an idea met with hostility by countries like the United States throwing their weight behind fossil fuels, even outside of its own borders. That doesn’t even account for the ways games contribute to the world’s electronic waste problem. E-waste is toxic, and only 40 percent of it is properly recycled.

Advertisement

And all that is before you even start to think about climate change, and the urgent action needed to avert a major crisis in our lifetime.

Video games cannot do this forever. If any of these things were to collapse—the people who make them, the economy they’re sold in, the ecosystem we’re all a part of—it would be catastrophic. All of them at once? That’s a disaster we need to talk about, openly. Because there are solutions to these problems.

Advertisement

Some of them are small, like making sure you know how to properly dispose of e-waste, should you need to throw out a busted console or peripheral, and doing what you can to live sustainably, even though climate change certainly requires the sort of large-scale action that only governments can enact To that end, you can take more involved action, like calling your local congressperson or government representative and asking if climate change and environmental concerns are on their agenda, and keeping apprised of any legislation up for voting in local elections.

Other solutions are harder to parse. How do we account for the data center sprawl of tech companies and their energy consumption? Is it ethically sound to use a service like Project xCloud or Google Stadia or Playstation Now, knowing all this? Should we push for a global green tech agreement of some kind, so companies that contribute to server sprawl and energy consumption do so in a sustainable way? A carbon tax seems like a good start, but this is a problem in need of many answers, not one.

Advertisement

Some solutions are thankfully, underway. Labor practices have come under scrutiny and developers are beginning to discuss organizing in earnest. Unionization is not going to solve every problem, but it can lead to meaningful progress in a lot of ways that trickle outward into other arenas. More equitable practices can mean the relentless pace of development is slowed down, which could make for fewer, better games and a course correction in supply and demand. Or it might only make things marginally better.

Advertisement

Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all have stated sustainability initiatives and reports, but these programs are all buried in corporate sites and paperwork—a better approach would be to make sustainability as big a talking point as load times or ray-tracing. Something we could look at and compare to the previous year, and make note of how better off we are.

These are big, insurmountable seeming problems, but like all incredibly big projects—like, say, game development—they’re things that can be done, slowly, a little bit at a time. We just have to start.

Advertisement

It’s unlikely that video games will ever truly go extinct. We’ll probably always have something called “video games,” but what those games will look like is still very much in flux. There’s no guarantee that the way games are currently made will remain viable for another 10 years—games aren’t even made today the same way they were 10 years ago. They will look different. They will change because they can, and because they must. Hopefully, all the ways games change will be on our terms—otherwise disaster will change them for us.

Source: Kotaku.com

Good Luck Stopping Students From Playing Stadia Games In Class

If Google Stadia games work as advertised, it’ll become all too easy for students everywhere to play video games on their school-issue laptops instead of listening to their teachers’ lectures. On this week’s Kotaku Splitscreen, we answer questions from listeners, including one from a high school teacher about how much of a pain Stadia will be, on top of all the other typical distractions that students already battle in the classroom.

First up, we talk about the games we’re playing; I’ve finally got the hang of flying in Outer Wilds, Jason is playing Dragon Quest Builders 2 for a future review, and Kirk has fallen in love with fixed beat mode in Cadence of Hyrule. After that, we open up the mailbag (22:32) for discussion of Stadia in schools, our personal processes for reviewing games, and how bizarre the release schedule for Final Fantasy VII Remake will be. Lastly, we get into off-topic talk (1:20:18) about Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, Veep, and more before Kirk’s funky music pick of the week.

Get the MP3 here, or read an excerpt below.


Writes Joe:

Dear Maddy, Jason and Kirk,

I’m a high school teacher with a question about Stadia and corporate responsibility. As a person who loves video games, the idea of being able to take games wherever I go (with an internet connection) sounds wonderful. However, as a teacher, I am terrified. It is already challenging enough to get students to read an article, write a paragraph, or complete any kind of academic task when their rapid dopamine-producing technology is always right there at their fingertips, whether through their personal phones or on iPads or Chromebooks (in an ironic twist) provided by schools—and that’s just from basic mobile gaming, watching Twitch, and social media apps.

But now, they’ll be able to instantly play actual good games, like Apex: Legends or Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey on their phones? I mean, I’d actually empathize with my students at that point: even as an adult who understands responsibility, there are times I’d far rather be playing video games than working (but thank god that I can’t even make that bad choice because my PS4 with Bloodborne is safely at home). Now, for my students, that all changes.

As teachers, yes, it’s our classroom. Yes, we can try to moderate what students are doing with their time. Yes, we can attempt to ban counterproductive technology. But this is so much easier said than done: teens inevitably find ways around the barriers that teachers and school technicians put in place. What I’m asking is this: does Google have a responsibility to—at the very least—develop tools that empower educators to make sure students don’t make the bad choice of playing games when they shouldn’t be? Surely Google, one of the most powerful companies in the world, can, if it devotes the resources, do something positive and helpful here. Otherwise, I fear that many teens, who can’t see in the long-term, will choose the escapism of video games and suffer destructive personal consequences, than engage in the difficult work of being a student.

Advertisement

Kirk: …So, I was on faculty at a high school. I taught many classroom sessions, I subbed for classes, I ran classrooms. I’m at least familiar enough with this and was in all the faculty meetings where this was constantly talked about.

The school that I taught at, the Urban School of San Francisco, is this super ahead-of-the-curve amazing school in San Francisco. This was in the 2000s. They were one of the first schools to have a one-to-one laptop program. At the time, all the kids had Macbooks, and they could get online. There was basically no restriction…

Advertisement

So, yeah, I do think that it’s Google’s responsibility, and it’s all these companies’ responsibilities to give teachers and give parents tools. But at the same time, I’m sure a lot of parents will also tell you that while it’s nice to have parental restriction on content, it’s also really hard; if a kid really wants to see something or do something, they can probably find a way to do it.

One thing they would do at Urban that was really funny was, Howard — his name was Howard, he was a really brilliant guy who was in charge of technology. He was the czar of all the computers. He had the ability to get and look at anyone’s screen on the network—of the students, not the faculty. He never did this. He was a really busy guy; he was doing all kinds of stuff. But he had the ability to, and as a result, the kids were always scared that they would be playing a game or something during class when they weren’t supposed to be — because this was a thing back then, even. Kids wold play Halo on their Macbooks; they would download freeware copies of games, and then they’d all be playing against one another. And they would be like, “Oh god! Howard’s gonna know!” Which I thought was really clever psychological warfare. Because of course Howard 99.99% of the time was not looking at your screen. But it only took him doing it once to one kid, and like walking into class out of nowhere and just busting them for whatever they were doing.

Advertisement

Maddy: That becomes the urban legend that all the other kids tell each other. “Oh, Howard can find you at any time! He’s always watching!”

Kirk: Also, coincidentally, Urban Legend? The name of the school paper at the Urban School of San Francisco.

Advertisement

Maddy: Great name!

Kirk: So that was one thing that kinda worked… [but] I don’t think that Stadia’s actually going to be — like, Maddy you mentioned social media. Social media is just as much of a distraction.

Advertisement

Maddy: And addictive!

Kirk: There are so many things that can potentially distract a student who is supposed to be paying attention in class. And you go back to when we were students, and it was even stupider. More basic things, like calculator games, or tic-tac-toe on a notebook.

Advertisement

Maddy: Or passing notes, which was our equivalent to social media back then. But still distracting.

Jason: I’m sure kids today are still passing notes, too, by the way.

Maddy: Oh, sure, because they aren’t allowed to take out their phones in class, usually, from what I hear.

Advertisement

Jason: Or they get them taken away.

Kirk: That’s definitely one good restriction: you have to be on your computer, your computer’s on the network. I think there are even more advanced ways now, to block access to certain sites. People’s work does this too. Like, you can’t get on YouTube at work, so you just can’t do it.

Advertisement

Maddy: There’s also the old school thing my math teacher did, which was physically walking around the classroom every time she did a lecture — up and down every row — to make sure nobody was playing games on their calculators. Just literally looking at everyone’s screen over everyone’s shoulder. All 40 students, or however many. I went to a big a public school.

Jason: That’s actually smart. That’s a good way of teaching, also, to not stand in one place. Kirk, I’m curious to hear — do you think that Google has any responsibility? Or do you think it’s a school-by-school, teacher-by-teacher, parent-by-parent responsibility here? And the onus is on them to make sure that their classrooms are behaving?

Advertisement

Kirk: To zoom it out from Google, just because Stadia doesn’t even exist yet. That’s, I think, a concern but all of these companies can be lumped under one umbrella. Just ethically, I do think that they do. I think it would be nice if they did that. But, at the same time, if they’re not creating software for the Department of Education to use, or something like that, then in the end, it’s just not really their responsibility in the same way that it would be if they were actually making teaching tools. This is just software that they’re making. There are a million things that can be misused by students in the classroom, and it is hard to draw a line and say, “Well, you all have a responsibility, in addition to treating your end-user, to make it so that students can’t abuse this in a classroom.” There’s just a practical fact that it’s going to come down to the teachers and the students. That’s where the buck is going to stop.


For much more, listen to the entire episode. As always, you can subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts and Google Play to get every episode as it happens. Leave us a review if you like what you hear, and reach us at splitscreen@kotaku.com with any and all questions, requests, and suggestions.

Source: Kotaku.com

Is Stadia Already Screwed?

Photo: Sam Rutherford (Gizmodo)

We finally have the major details on Stadia, Google’s big push into gaming and at a glance it looks great: Crossplay with Xbox and Windows 10, a wide variety of recent and upcoming games, and the ability to play those games on any device with a solid internet connection. I’m writing this on an 200 Mbps internet connection so Stadia’s requirement for just 35 Mbps for the highest quality stream seems wonderful.

But it might be a rough start for Stadia.

Just to be clear I haven’t tested Stadia out apart from a very controlled demo at GDC back in March, so there is the possibility Stadia could and will be everything Google has promised. A truly new era in gaming that finally untethers us from consoles and powerful PCs.

Advertisement

But the internet requirements for Stadia are a major red flag. Back at GDC Google Stadia chief Phil Harrison told our sister site Kotaku that you’d need just 25 Mbps download speeds be able to play games in the highest available quality (4K, 60fps, HDR, and 5.1 surround sound). This week Andrey Doronichev, Director of Product Management on Stadia, told me that the requirement for the highest quality had increased.

“We have an updated guidance here,” he said. “You actually need 10 Mbps to stream at least 720p, but actually, it could be higher depending on specific details of the kind of network situation or your game. And then to comfortably stream 4K—the best experience—we recommend 35Mbps.”

That means you need 10 Mbps more than originally anticipated for that top tier experience. That’s not good! Google didn’t improve performance since the announcement. It just got more realistic about what delivering high quality would require.

Advertisement

The troubkle is that internet speeds in the U.S. is garbage. As I’ve noted a number of times only 1 in 5 households have 25Mbps. It’s estimated that 162.8 million Americans don’t even have access to internet better than 25Mbps. Did you watch the Stadia stream today? Did it hiccup for you like it hiccuped for me? That’s likely what you’ll get with your video games too, only instead of just seeing a blurry stream you’ll lose an hour of gameplay because you couldn’t see the bad guy and died because your stream was all blurry.

That, at least, is the experience I’ve had with the streaming services already available from Nvidia and French company Shadow. In ideal settings, they’re pretty good. But when I try to play when my roommate is home and watching Netflix, the experience rapidly deteriorates, and so far the only thing we’ve heard from Google on how it’s different is that it has a big infrastructure in place and algorithims that will make its game streaming platform better than competitors.

Maybe there’s something to those claims. Google having datacenters all over the U.S. will absolutely make the experience better, and as we’ve seen from Google Search (and sometimes YouTube) the company can perform wizardry with a well-designed algorithim. It could, theoretically, pull this off.

Advertisement

But I just don’t think it can completely get around the bandwidth requirements. There are a lot of Americans who just don’t have good internet access. Particularly those in rural areas where ISPs may only provide crummy 3 Mbps DSL for the majority of residents, or they may offer faster speeds, but the connection is much more inconsistent. So you might get 25Mbps down at 1 p.m. when everyone in a 5-mile radius is at work or school, but things slow to a crawl from 6 p.m. to midnight when all those folks saunter home and hit the Netflix button on their Rokus.

When I asked Doronichev how Stadia was supposed to work for that wide group of Americans who just don’t have the good stuff his response was wonderfully optimiostic, but also struck me as deeply naive.

The good news is that ISP have a long history of adjusting to the growing demands from users. And you know this has been happening over the history of the internet. As we move from text to web from web to video and now we’re moving to real-time gameplay we’re relying on incredible technical infrastructure by Google that’s been delivering billions of search queries and videos on YouTubeand have been evolving over many years. So you know I’m pretty sure we’re going to get there.

Advertisement

I like that Doronichev is sure we’ll get there. Too bad Google has been pulling out of the ISP game and the current FCC seems content to let ISPs run roughshod over consumers. Stadia could very well be magic, but as long as it’s streaming over a broken internet, it’s fucked.

Source: Kotaku.com

Everything We Learned Today About Google Stadia [UPDATED]

The upcoming streaming platform Google Stadia won’t just follow the Netflix model, as many fans had hoped. It will instead have both a subscription and games for sale individually, as Kotaku previously reported. Here’s everything we learned today during Google’s “Stadia Connect” stream.

Stadia, which was announced in March, is a streaming platform designed to let you play games without a high-end console or computer. If it works as promised, it’ll let you plug a Chromecast into your television and access games through the cloud, no hardware required. The base subscription price is $10/month, with a free version planned for next year, and a Founder’s Edition bundle available for $130 this November when Stadia launches.

It’ll be a slow rollout, Google says—you’ll need that Founder’s Edition to play in 2019—the platform won’t open up further until 2020. You won’t be able to subscribe to the standard Stadia Pro subscription until next year, either.

In an official stream today, Google detailed the pricing, game lineup, and other specifics. First of all, here’s how your connection will correlate with your Stadia resolution:

Advertisement

Some other announcements:

  • Google announced Baldur’s Gate 3 and Ghost Recon: Breakout for Stadia, the latter with a new trailer. (Don’t worry—the former is also coming to PC.)
  • Other games announced include Gylt, an adventure game from developer Tequila Works, and a multiplayer Overcooked-style game called Get Packed from Moonshine Studios.
  • The Division 2 will be there, too. Ubisoft overload!
  • Stadia Pro is the official service, at $10/month, which will give you access to the service’s games at 4K resolution/60 frames-per-second. This won’t include all the games, though—newer ones will be purchasable separately.
  • The controller is $70 standalone.
  • The Stadia Founder’s Edition will launch later this year for $130. It comes with a Chromecast Ultra, a Stadia controller, a copy of Destiny 2 (along with the new Shadowkeep expansion), and a three-month subscription along with a three-month buddy pass.
  • Other Stadia games include Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, Doom, Doom Eternal, the new Tomb Raider trilogy, Final Fantasy XV, Darksiders Genesis, Metro Exodus, and many others.
  • Google says it’ll be one user per Stadia account, tied to your Google ID—you can have a guest account for splitscreen, but other than that, no sharing. (Update (2:43pm): A Google spokesperson reached out to say that family sharing is coming in the future.)
  • “At launch, if you’re a Stadia user, you can play Stadia exclusively on Pixel 3 and 3a devices. However, you’ll be able to create your account and make subscription and game purchases from any Android M+ or iOS 11+ device that has access to the Stadia app.”

Advertisement

Note: This post has been updated with official Google Stadia news following a leak this morning.

Source: Kotaku.com

Sources: Destiny 2 Is Coming To Google Stadia, Getting Cross-Save

You’ll soon be able to transfer your Destiny 2 progress between multiple platforms: Xbox, PC, and the streaming service Google Stadia, on which the popular loot shooter will launch this fall. PlayStation 4 remains up in the air.

Right now, switching from console to PC for Destiny 2 means starting from scratch, as there’s no way to transfer your characters or progress. But this morning, data-miners discovered an image with “cross-save” on it, getting fans’ hopes up that Bungie’s online shooter will allow players to move characters across platforms soon. It’s true, and it will be announced tomorrow during a Bungie livestream at 1pm ET.

We’ve heard all this from four people familiar with Bungie’s plans, two of whom confirmed that Bungie will announce cross-save tomorrow during its Destiny 2 livestream. Those two also said the company wasn’t yet sure whether PS4 would be part of it. (Sony didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Google Stadia will definitely be part of this, though. What we’ve heard from five sources, a combination of plugged-in tipsters and developers, is that Destiny 2 will be one of the big games available on Google’s new streaming platform. (We also expect Ghost Recon Breakpoint and a few other big games to get announced for Stadia.)

Advertisement

If Stadia works as promised, players will be able to load up a Google Chrome browser and jump into Destiny 2 on any computer or device that supports the service. We don’t yet know how much Stadia’s services will cost, but we’ll find all that out tomorrow. (What I’ve heard suggests some combination of subscription and a la carte pricing.)

Google is holding a press conference to detail Stadia games and other details tomorrow at 12pm ET, while Bungie will hold a livestream to talk about the future of Destiny 2 an hour later. We can expect to see this news detailed at both conferences. We can also expect the developers at Bungie to lay out their future for Destiny 2, which includes the recently leaked Shadowkeep expansion.

Source: Kotaku.com

We Have Concerns About An All-Digital Future

In November of 2013, Microsoft faced blowback after revealing that their new console would require an “always online” internet connection and that game ownership would be tied to players’ Xbox Live accounts, making it harder to trade in games and even lend them to friends. Sony capitalized on that blowback with their infamous E3 dunk. But now, looking towards what seems like the final year of this console generation’s life cycle, the “always on” digital future of consoles that once worried us is basically upon us once again.

Google has announced their online-only gaming platform, Stadia, and this week, Xbox became the first major console manufacturer to enter the digital-only future with their Xbox One S All-Digital Edition. Sony also revealed details for their next-gen console this week without mentioning any “always online” catch, so we know that hardware won’t be going away any time soon. Still, with digital sales on the rise, these announcements have me a little worried about physical games eventually going the way of the LaserDisc.

I talked with Kotaku’s Heather Alexandra to raise the question: Are games headed towards an all-digital future?

Watch the video to watch our entire discussion or read a short excerpt here:


Heather: … The Capcom Home Arcade is this arcade stick with arcade games, but it’s like a handful of games. Or the new Sega console that they’re doing. There’s going to be a point where I don’t have access to those.

Advertisement

In theory, I don’t have easy access to [older games] and it’s frustrating to see companies not really maintain and provide access to their older games and curate proper libraries. And now to move our current generation of games to something that is more ephemeral and less tangible— it’s really scary.

Paul: That’s what makes this all-digital Xbox One S so fascinating to me, because we’re starting to see what’s been happening to laptops and other mobile devices for so long, which is: most people don’t use this drive, so we’re going to rip it out, make it cheaper to mass produce, and make it cheaper for the consumer. And anybody who wants that drive can buy an optional thing on the side. So I’m curious what the answer is moving forward that could replace cartridges or discs.

Heather: I don’t know. The thing that scares me about preservation and what it means to have digital games only is, I’m super afraid that companies are going to curate what they think are important games and provide access to only those things, and then that’s all we have.

Source: Kotaku.com

The Google Stadia Backlash Has Begun

While people are still grappling with the technical ramifications of Google’s Stadia platform, gamers have begun asking deeper, more troubling questions. What do mods look like in a world of game streaming? What happens to game preservation? What happens if Google dwarfs gaming the same way it has with search, browsers and advertising? And most worryingly of all, what happens if Google decides to walk away from the industry later on?

In the immediate aftermath of the Google Stadia announcement, the public discourse largely centered on the technicalities. That was the part Google had provided the most detail on, so it was natural for people to focus on broadband connections, latency, and what is possible now versus a few years from now.

There was a little bit of excitement mixed in with all of that. What’s the gaming experience like when your connection is in the same room as the dedicated servers that you’re playing on? What’s the potential level of fidelity like when games aren’t limited to the hardware in a single console, or a single PC? What experiences can you have when it’s possible to develop a game that takes players across multiple screen formats?

That’s exciting to think about. But there’s no such thing as a free lunch, especially with a company that wants to carve up a sizeable chunk of the gaming pie for itself.

The biggest complains or concerns against Stadia can be categorized into three broad aspects. The first is a backlash against Google itself. Not Google the search engine, or the presence of a company the size of Google (or its parent company Alphabet), but rather concern over how Google specifically operates as a business.

Advertisement

Google has a history of launching and then abandoning products, even ones that users really love. There’s Google+, the company’s alternative to a Facebook-style social offering that never really took off. There’s offerings like Google Reader, which fans of RSS readers still miss today. Google Health, a service to broaden access to health and wellness information, was shut down in 2012 after “not having the broad impact that we hoped it would”. Google’s Orkut social networking service found some popularity overseas, but it didn’t gain traction in the United States, so that was killed off in 2014. Google’s Allo messaging app was shut down this month.

It’s not just virtual products that Google has a history of walking away from. The most damming indictment of the company’s attitude brought up in the past week was the rollout of Google Fiber in Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville became the 12th city added to the fiber project back in 2017, and the internet conglomerate quickly set about rearranging the city’s infrastructure to offer gigabit speeds to residents.

But Google vastly underestimated the technical scope of the project. The plan was to roll out fiber using a series of shallow trenches, where fiber was laid two inches beneath the sides of roads and later covered up with asphalt. The process caused massive disruption to the city’s roads, since they had to be torn up. Worse still, the pits and asphalt were too thin, resulting in the rubber patching and, in some cases, exposing the cables and wiring.

Advertisement

Google had to recover affected areas with hot asphalt a second time, but that wasn’t the only problem they faced. AT&T and Spectrum sued the conglomerate to block a city ordinance granting Google access to electricity poles in the city. AT&T owns most of the poles in the area, but the lawsuit was really just an attempt to stall Google’s rollout, as evidenced by the company’s refusal to challenge the judge’s ruling.

But the technical challenges proved too much, and after all the disruption Google announced it was shutting down the Louisville project entirely, less than two years after signups began. The experiment hasn’t been a total failure – Google’s presence forced AT&T to roll out gigabit services faster than they would have ordinarily. But for residents who watched their city pass all the laws Google wanted, and then watched as Google tore up their streets and laid hot asphalt over everything to fix it, only to abandon the project and shut down services altogether, it’s a galling lack of respect.

Advertisement

Rightly so, people have questioned what would happen if Google took the same approach with games. Which feeds into the second major concern.

Image: Konami (VG Museum)

Part of the reason why emulators are so revered is because it’s the only way some older titles can be played at all. Video games are built on a long and great history of quirks and differences – different games for different regions, titles being censored or banned outright in some nations, as well as what happens to a game during the localization process.

Advertisement

In the modern era, that preservation problem has been less about functioning hardware and more about compatibility. There’s plenty of modders and gamers who have found ways to get titles that used to run on Windows 95 or Windows 98 playing just nicely in 2019. GOG and Night Dive Studios are great examples of making a living doing precisely this.

But have you ever tried to get a game that only ran on Windows 3.11 going? And that’s just the compatibility problems. Archivists also have to deal with the degradation of physical media: cartridges that no longer work after 15 or 20 years, magnetic media that becomes disoriented over time, essential data stored on EPROMs that eventually becomes unreadable.

Preserving these games is only possible because gamers have access to the original files, either through physical means or by way of being able to download them locally in the first place.

Advertisement

Cloud gaming does away with that process entirely. It’s part of why cloud gaming has any appeal at all – by not having to download and install tens of gigs worth of assets, you’re cutting out all kinds of loading and downtime that gets in the way of actually playing a video game.

But it also means you’re entirely reliant on servers for that game, or the platform holders that offer them, being online forever. And that’s never, ever the case. Even when communities have tried to keep older games online, they can run afoul of license holders and copyright issues. But at least fans can try to keep a game alive.

Advertisement

With cloud gaming, that’s not possible.

Now that might not matter a great deal for games that are being offered via traditional, local storage mediums. In the interim, things like the next Assassin’s Creed, the next Fallout, Battlefield 6 or whatever the next AAA game is will be available like that. You’ll be able to buy them digitally or on a disc, like always.

But what happens when games are designed solely around the idea of a cloud service, like the platform exclusives Google is funding?

Advertisement

And what happens to the future of mods? Some of the greatest games today exist exclusively as a result of mods: Team Fortress 2, which went on to inspire Overwatch; Counter-Strike, which the foundations of esports in the West were built on, was borne out of a Half-Life mod; and even the ways games have been improved or overhauled through the tireless work of fans, as seen in the Fallout and Skyrim communities.

Do developers have to build new systems and models to make existing mods playable in a cloud gaming context? Do new editors have to be made for people to access the files? Or does that functionality just disappear altogether?

The size of the global gaming market is part of the appeal for Google, although that’s also another bruising reality: there’s little to no money in preserving older games, let alone the effect spent to make them compatible on modern systems.

Advertisement

Part of Google’s Stadia pitch wasn’t just to eliminate frustrations for gamers, but also the technical limitations of existing hardware that frustrates developers.

Take the idea of elastic compute. Instead of relying on the power of a single console, developers building for Stadia could design around combining multiple data centers PCs, allowing games to be run at even higher resolutions, with even more fidelity, able to populate in-game worlds with more people, more things to do, and just more stuff.

That’s enticing because existing hardware will only take you so far before you run into a litany of performance problems. It might be the lower-powered CPUs in consoles that make it difficult to calculate the movement of too many NPCs at any given stage. Or memory limitations that affect how much data a client can buffer and stream at any given moment.

Advertisement

But how do you keep a game alive that was never designed to exist outside of a data center in the first place?

Nobody can answer that. And to be precise, it’s not a new problem. It’s a question people have asked repeatedly with the rise of digital platforms like Steam, and the online-only nature of gaming services in 2019 more generally. Even without cloud gaming, the push towards subscription-based services means there will be a segment of gamers who – in all likelihood – spend hundreds of dollars a year on a hobby without actually having anything tangible to show for it.

You’re paying for access, not a product. Should that company decides your money is no longer worthwhile, there’s bugger all you can do about it. And the same applies for pricing and access more generally. Australians might have access to a wealth of gaming platforms, and there’s competition on the horizon for cloud gaming too.

Advertisement

But in emerging countries and continents, where modern gaming has failed to penetrate due to a myriad of issues (socioeconomic conditions, internet infrastructure, shipping and supplier problems in getting hardware into some countries), that choice might not be available.

What happens in those places when there’s nobody to stop Google from upping prices?

The third and most instant backlash to Stadia was the technical possibility, as in whether Stadia would function at all. A lot of that conversation was dominated by the here and now. Some Australians have rightly pointed out that the spotty, broken rollout of the NBN means a service like Stadia is vastly less enticing than it should be. But the majority of criticism actually came from Americans. Google might have all the data centers, cloud platforms and internal infrastructure it needs throughout the US continent, but the quality of internet service from state to state is shockingly unreliable, so much so that it’s not unreasonable to argue that Australia has better internet – on the whole – than the continental US.

Advertisement

Google Stadia’s chief Phil Harrison told Kotaku that only 30mbps is required for streaming 4K content, with the 1080p/60fps stream for Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey needing 15mbps (although 25mbps was recommended). If you consider that most Australians tend to stream content at 720p or on smaller devices, where the trade-off of lower resolutions is more acceptable, it’s not unreasonable to think that, as of today, a solid chunk of the Australian diaspora would be capable of enjoying a smooth Google Stadia stream right now.

There’s the rollout of the 5G network to consider as well, the advancement of the NBN, and what happens with future compression technologies and next-generation video encoders like H.265/HEVC/AV1. Newer encoders offer better quality at lower bitrates, meaning users don’t have to stream as much data to get the same quality picture.

But even if we make some concessions for the practical bandwidth requirements, there’s still the latency problem.

Advertisement

John Carmack’s quip this week about gamers playing with unoptimized TVs is interesting as a reminder. Gaming is the world’s largest entertainment medium, and while there is a huge subsection that cares extraordinarily deeply about the smoothness and technical precision of some games, there are plenty of people out there who really, truly don’t give a shit.

There is a point where “some lag” becomes “unplayable”, and what that window looks like varies enormously for different games. Narrative adventures or episodic titles like Life is Strange should have no qualms running on any service. As long as the video quality is sufficient and the delay isn’t tectonic, most people will be happy.

Advertisement

But the whole Stadia project isn’t designed just to bring singleplayer games to the world. It’s an extension of the largest source of content creation on YouTube – gaming – and the community that exists within that. So the real test of whether Stadia works depends on how much Google can minimize the latency in multiplayer games. And some of those games have very, very small margins for error.

Fighting games are a great example. A lot of these games have extremely tiny response windows. Take the simple parry technique, a motion introduced in Street Fighter 3 that required pinpoint timing. It’s not just a neat feature, but a measure of skill that also happens to be central to one of the greatest and most iconic moments in gaming’s history:

Parrying a super like Daigo did requires 15 correct taps up or down on the stick. The window for just one successful parry is only between six and ten frames, which amounts to about one-tenth of a second at best to respond, or 100 milliseconds.

Advertisement

The average reaction time of most humans is between 210 milliseconds to 250 milliseconds for a visual prompt, around 170 milliseconds for an audio cue, and a little less than that for physical stimuli (being touched, for example).

When you factor in the time someone has to respond against the lag between a button press and that action being recorded, along with display lag and any other associated delay from the connection itself, it’s a bloody small window.

Initial tests from Eurogamer found that Google Stadia had around 166 milliseconds of lag, with display and Wi-Fi connection delay included. That’s more than double what you’d get from a PC game playing at 60 frames per second. It’s also far, far too much than what players would consider acceptable for a lot of esports titles – Counter-Strike, League of Legends, Rainbow Six: Siege and so on – and certainly enough that it would interfere with the experience of twitch-based shooters, like Apex Legends, Fortnite or Battlefield.

Advertisement

Of course, if anyone can make it work it’s Google (or Microsoft). The biggest downfall for cloud gaming services in the past has always been infrastructure, which is the biggest component in making a service like this work. The streaming element is a problem that’s already been solved. Some gamers are saying the input lag is the biggest problem facing Stadia, and while it’s certainly a huge challenge, it’s worth remembering that reducing lag was a problem that developers and game programmers were finding ways to solve in the ‘80s and ‘90s as well.

As more devs shift their focus or start investigating the cloud gaming experience for themselves – which a company the size of Google generally encourages – more solutions will be found to reduce response times and input lag across multiple devices. The Stadia controller connecting directly to data centers, rather than a Chromecast or another device, is one way of tackling this.

Advertisement

It’s also worth remembering that Stadia doesn’t have to solve all these problems. Companies are excited for cloud gaming precisely for its potential to expand the current gaming market – not necessarily its potential to subsume the existing audience. There are plenty of emerging markets that can’t enjoy gaming today due to the cost of consoles, TVs, gaming PCs and associated peripherals, and for those markets the ability to stream something through a low or mid-range phone, relying exclusively on their mobile connection, opens up a whole new world. There are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people in situations like those, and a lot of the discussion around Stadia has left them out of the loop entirely.

But that doesn’t mean Stadia is a service that should be welcomed with open arms. Google doesn’t just need to convince people that Stadia can work – it needs to convince gamers that it will stick around for the long-haul. Google’s handling of the shifting trends on YouTube certainly hasn’t engendered a lot of faith, and it’s natural for people to be concerned about what the gaming market looks like after a conglomerate the size of Google starts throwing its weight around. Google hasn’t allayed those fears just yet, and until they do, expect the backlash to continue.


This story originally appeared on Kotaku Australia.

Source: Kotaku.com

Google Stadia Boss Answers (And Dodges) Our Questions

This afternoon at GDC 2019, Google Stadia boss Phil Harrison announced the tech company’s plans to launch a game streaming service that will stream high-end games in a Chrome browser. But how good, exactly, does your internet have to be in order for Stadia to work? And do you need one of Google’s new Stadia controllers? Jason and I sat down with Phil for an interview on Kotaku Splitscreen where he answered some of our questions and dodged a few others.

Listen here:

Get the MP3 here, or read about some of the highlights below:

  • What internet speed do you need to run Stadia? “We were able to test a lot of this with our Project Stream test late last year, starting back in October. To get 1080p, 60 frames per second, required approximately 25 megabits per second. In fact, we use less than that, but that’s where we put our recommended limit at. But with innovations that we’ve made on the streamer side and on the compression side since then, when we launch, we will be able to get to 4K but only raise that bandwidth to about 30 megabits per second. So if you have less bandwidth, we’ll give you a lower resolution… We do a lot of that for you in the background, and we will only offer up the appropriate bandwidth for the infrastructure that you have.”
  • What hardware do you need to get Stadia on your TV? “Chromecast is the way that you reach TV at launch.” And, by the way, an Xbox controller won’t do the trick: “In order to reach our Chromecast, you need the Stadia controller.” You can use whatever USB controller you want on PC, though.
  • Is this just another ambitious Google project that will disappear in a few years, like Google Plus? “I understand the concern. But I think that all you have to do is look at the level of investment that we have made and continue to make in Stadia. This is not a trivial project by any means. This is a very, very significant cross-company effort that isn’t just my team, but it’s also across YouTube, it’s across our technical infrastructure and networking team. It represents thousands of people who are working on this business.”
  • What will it cost? “I’m not going to talk about it today… We will talk in great detail about that in the summer.”
  • Is that summer announcement going to be at E3? “In the summer.” Well, okay then!

We also asked Phil Harrison about the hands-off attitude that Google has taken with YouTube moderation and whether Stadia will be different (it will, supposedly), and also, what the name “Stadia” even means. In the second half of this week’s podcast, we interview Sarah Elmaleh, the voice actor behind the female protagonist of BioWare’s Anthem.

Source: Kotaku.com

Google Unveils Gaming Platform Stadia, A Competitor To Xbox, PlayStation And PC

Tech giant Google is getting into gaming in a big way with a direct challenge to the giants of console and PC gaming. It’s called Stadia.

Former Sony and Xbox executive and current Google gaming boss Phil Harrison detailed the platform today at an event in San Francisco during the Game Developers Conference, saying it would link all the ways people play games. The core of it is that it’ll be a gaming platform that runs via streaming, no console or PC needed and no games downloaded or running on a disc at the users’ end.

Harrison and a host of other presenters boasted of high-end gaming running in 4K and 60 frames per second, streamed across Google’s network to any screen you can think of.

“This new generation of gaming is not a box,” Harrison said. It will launch later this year, first in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and Europe.

Crucially, Harrison and the other assembled presenters did not say how fast users’ internet speeds would need to be to get the sky-high performance hyped throughout the event, let alone to enjoy multiplayer games that run entirely via streaming.

Advertisement

Previous game-streaming services such as OnLive have offered similar hardware-free or hardware-light propositions but didn’t hit it big in part due to users’ discomfort, distrust or dissatisfaction with connection lags. Google argues that its custom hardware network can offer high enough quality gaming to satisfy and even convert people used to buying games on disc or downloading them. The company prototyped the Stadia tech last fall by allowing users of a program called Project Stream to play Assassin’s Creed Odyssey in a Google Chrome browser. We had tested it ourselves and were impressed. That service had required users to have download speeds of at least 15 megabits per second and latency of 40 milliseconds or less.

Update – 7:25pm: A Google PR rep tells Kotaku that Google’s Project Stream was able to provide 1080p, 60fps gameplay for users with 25 megabits per second connections. “When Stadia launches later this year, we expect to be able to deliver 4k 60 fps at approximately the same bandwidth requirements,” they said.

Advertisement

Kotaku readers have shared their own experiences with Stream in the comments to this article, some saying performance was superb, others saying it was lacking. Download speeds are just one factor for having an optimal connection and those speeds and the latency of connections will be a key factor for Stadia’s viability.

At the event, Harrison walked through an example of how Stadia might work. Someone could be watching a trailer for a game, click the option to play now and be playing within five seconds. “No download, no patch and no install,” Harrison said. “Stadia offers instant access to play.” He said it reduces the friction between being excited about a game and playing it.

Stadia will work on TVs, tablets, laptops, and phones. It’ll work with existing controllers when playing on a laptop and PC. Stadia will also have its own controller. The Stadia controller, which is optional, connects to Google’s streaming data centers directly over WiFi, for limiting latency. It has a capture button that shares to YouTube and a Google Assistant button that’ll activate the controller’s microphone to provide help in a game.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Harrison said that Google has already shipped Stadia development kits to more than 100 studios and announced the creation of Google’s own first-pary development studio, Stadia Games & Entertainment. It will make exclusive content for Stadia and will be run by Jade Raymond, the longtime game producer whose credits include the creation of the Assassin’s Creed franchise at Ubisoft. Raymond said her team will also work with external studios to bring Stadia’s features to their games.

“I’m actually not a big gamer,” Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai said at the start of the keynote. But he said he leads a company full of people interested in solving hard technology problems. To that end, the presentation of Google’s platform today was angled as a way to offer an approach to gaming that is based on streaming games over a low-latency network.

Pichai showed off the company’s custom server hardware and connections.

Advertisement

The idea, he said, is “building a game platform for everyone,” removing hardware barriers.

Google is saying that is thousands of edge nodes and racks of powerful hardware can offer significant technological muscle to provide games running at high specs. For launch, they’re promising 4K gaming at 60 frames per second.

Advertisement

Stadia is being built with the help of PC giant AMD, which is offering a custom GPU for the platform’s server-side processing (remember, nothing is really happening on the device Stadia gamers use to play games).

In an interview with Eurogamer, Harrison confirmed what we’d reported yesterday that you’ll need a Chromecast dongle if you’re using Stadia on a TV.

Crucially, at the event the Stadia team didn’t immediately clarify how fast a user’s internet needs to be to get the best performance, a make or break element of Google’s plans. 

Advertisement

As for the games? The first game announced for Stadia turned out to be the upcoming Doom Eternal, which Id Software producer Marty Stratton said took a few weeks to get working on Stadia. Stratton said the game would run at 4K and 60 FPS.

Advertisement

Harrison noted that Stadia would support cross-platform play.

Some proofs of concept shown for Stadia include things like allowing couch co-up through streaming that doesn’t tax the performance of a game, the ability for multiple people to view the same game world from a range of perspectives, again without a hit on performance.

Advertisement

Q-Games founder Dylan Cuthbert (of PixelJunk gaming fame) introduced a Stadia concept called “state share,” which enables the game to code a particular moment (where the player is, what they have, a specific moment int he game) that can be shared via a link. Cuthbert said his team is making a game that is based all around this concept, but couldn’t unveil it yet.

Another Stadia feature demoed today is something called Crowd Play. They demoed it by letting people watch a stream of a game and the queue up to be next to take over the game and play it. This, YouTube Gaming’s Ryan Wyatt said, would allow YouTubers to curate a group gaming experience.

Advertisement

Harrison said Google will reveal more about the platform’s launch line-up this summer. For what it’s worth, sets of icons shown on Google’s event stream even before the game began hinted at some of the games that could be on the service.

Red Dead?

Advertisement

Civ?

We’ll share more as we find out.

While we described Google’s Stadia as a competitor to traditional console and PC gaming models, it’s also worth considering that one of those bastions of traditional console gaming, Microsoft, is also prepping a streaming-based service. Project xCloud, revealed last year, is intended to also enable high-end gaming experiences on a wide range of screens, freeing people from needing to own a PC or console to play games that would otherwise only run on those devices. In a company blog post a week ago, Microsoft said that users would be able to “test it in real-world scenarios later this year.”

Advertisement

Note: This story was updated throughout the day with more details about Stadia and its competition.

Source: Kotaku.com