Stadia is the future we want. GFN is just a lower barrier of entry to gaming as it is now (but not the future). Change my mind.

[Wolfenstein]

I have been thinking about it and Stadia is the future of game streaming that we all want. GFN is nice because you can play your existing library, but in the end it is just a remote desktop solution that only plays games. Aside from the ability to play your existing library, GFN is inferior to Stadia in every way. Consider the following:

Purchasing / Installation
Stadia: Game immediately available, be playing within 1 minute of purchase.

GFN: Log into your client such as steam, and still have to download the game (even if it is fast).


Multiplayer:
Stadia: all players hosted on Google servers. Level playing field, pretty much perfect connection between all players that allows for much larger multiplayer experiences with client connection issues. Downside is less players (for now).

GFN: Considering it is just a remote PC, you are playing against normal PC players. They have the advantage of running locally for gameplay, and issues that can arise when there are huge numbers of clients that have to talk to to each other still exist. Upside is more players (for now).

Stability:
Stadia: Google has many more servers than Nvidia. Seems to have less input lag and perhaps a sharper image, but that of course depends on many factors.

GFN: Nvidia has less resources and servers than google. Dont want to put too much of a focus on this because the stability / experience differs from person to person.

Additional Features:
Stadia: Stream connect, share save states, join in game with streamers, potential to literally click a game ad link and be trying a demo within a minute. Various other integrations with Google services.

GFN: ? Please respond with any cool features GFN has that Google does not.


This may seem biased and it probably is in some ways... I have certainly used Stadia more than GFN. In the end I am just a believer that cloud gaming is the future, and as ultra low latency connections become more available (FTH, Starlink, 5g) it will be nearly indistinguishable from local console gaming. With that in mind, I am not as fond of the GFN approach that, while being cloud gaming by definition, does not seem to have as much of a vision of the full potential of "real" game streaming which is what I consider Stadia to be. GFN is more of a "I can play my PC games without dropping the money on a new gaming PC" vs Stadia who over time is meant to be a better alternative to console / PC gaming rather than just a way to lowering the barrier of entry to an existing ecosystem.

I honestly want to hear your reasons why I am mistaken. Even if we disagree, I think all of us believe in cloud gaming as a whole and I appreciate that!

 

[Wolfenstein]

Agreed. There is room for both, especially over the next 5-10 years. At some point though game streaming will be preferable over local hardware and at that point stadia (or stadia-like competitors) will be the preferred cloud gaming provider(s) due to their additional capabilities.

 

[CoolStadia]

Hopefully they can get enough developers to work with them. The stadia platform is great for MMOs, and rts games. As long as it can do what they claimed on that orcs must die video.

 

[Destiny]

what i also like more about stadia is it's a platform and not just a cloud pc to play games you on pc.. that's a big difference to me. downside for now; not many games and games are expansive

 

[Coatsink22]

if they keep grinding and making the service better and adding games the long term direction is inevitably correct.

This is how I view a lot of their products. Except for messaging I'm tired of waiting for them to figure that one out. Granted I am using RCS now but still

 

[Bungie]

My issue with that is that different games Usually only support one or the other store. My repeated example is Kingdom Come Deliverance which is/was free on Epic Games Store. Geforce Now only supports the game on Steam.

The base idea is good but they need to evolve it to be true. I'm glad that there are multiple streaming services though, but my money will go towards Stadias platform approach.

 

[CoolStadia]

The only problem I have with GFN is this mass exodus of big publishers.

I'm not sure why Bethesda left but as for Activision Nvidia said they didn't realize the [contract only covered the beta and not full release.](https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/15/21138927/geforce-now-activision-games-pulled-blizzard-nvidia-reason) Nvidia not realizing what was in a contract with a major publisher makes me nervous of their business skills and the longevity of this service.

 

[Gamer 1]

Glad to hear it worked well. Although my point is more focused on how the services are fundamentally different and Stadia's vision is more geared towards future possibilities than GFN... But it's great to hear success stories like your own!

 

[Wolfenstein]

Exactly. This is also why Microsoft gaming head said the big threats are google and Amazon. But again, a cloud gaming solution that is effectively a remote Xbox/desktop to play your games is not as capable as something like Stadia that is exclusively in the cloud. You don't have to limit your cloud customers bases on the fact they are playing with local console gamers.

 

[stadiagames]

I've no idea what you're saying but thank Google for figuring out an awesome service for me to pick up and play anytime anywhere.

 

[stadiagames]

I have no idea that most of that is in the last paragraph but I understand enough to get that Stadias server infrastructure is WAYYYYY better than Nvidia, right?

 

[DOOM Eternal]

A product/service doesn't necessary have to be technically superior to kill another. Monthly price, games offer, ease of use, prices on games, etc. can be really important too.
Either way, I never liked the "product"killer approach of the media... It's dumb...
There is place in the market for both and it's good to have competition instead of a monopoly.

 

[Coatsink22]

Great input. Thanks!

 

[Coatsink22]

Exactly! But that potential is not communicated properly so people think of Stadia as being the same as GFN... And by that I mean just another way to play my PC games.

 

[stadiagames]

I respectfully disagree. The post is here because it is about Stadia and this is the Stadia sub. It's not a fluff piece... I feel it is a very fair analysis of the different use cases for Stadia vs GFN, and how GFN is really just an alternative access point for PC gaming.

Everyone with a different viewpoint is downvotes? Lol no. I am getting a shit ton of downvotes. I know you can't see that because it is displaying the net votes but every time I checked I would see it go up 3 votes then down 5, up 10 then down 3.. etc.

Now about the comments getting down voted, they tend to be completely ignorant or completely trash talking Stadia as not being powerful (objectively false) or having so much input lag that it is unplayable, or that the model is just stupid beyond comprehension. All of that is fine if they present it factually or provide well though-out arguments, but they are not like that at all. It is obvious that most of those individuals never even tried Stadia or have no comprehension about what the difference between Stadia and GFN is. I truly want to be given good reasons why I am mistaken , but I have not heard a single one. There are pretty much *two* arguments for GFN over Stadia: Plays existing game library, and is not google. That's it. Seriously. Comments pointing that out do not get downvotes. Comments saying they use Shadow are not getting downvotes. Comments saying that Google fucked up the Stadia launch and have a long way to go to provide the promised future are not getting downvotes. The ones getting all the downvotes deserve it because they come across as either trolls, completely uninformed, or just hanging on Stadia because it does not fill an immediate need for them. They are no different then the people who trash talk Xbox vs PlayStation... Who the fuck cared which one you buy? They effectively do the same thing, but tribalism results in some of the weaker minded among us to feel threatened and thus hate on anything other than what they are used to.

I'd you have a counter argument to my points, please present them. If you dont resort to trash talking or accusations then you will be heard and treated with respect. If you want a summary of what you are arguing against, here it is: GFN functions as an additional access point for PC gaming that works well for someone who has a large existing PC game library that they want to stream on the go or potentially for someone who wants to play PC games but does not have a PC (not ideal for the latter). Stadia is not just an alternative access point, it is an entirely new platform that is rough around the edges at the moment but has the potential to be the ideal future of gaming because of the ease of access and ability to do things that no local console/PC can do. This is the real future of game streaming that many of us want. I know many people cannot seem to grasp the vision of what cloud gaming could look like, but for those of us that do it is incredibly annoying to see all the comparisons that say Stadia is shit bc GFN allows you to play your existing library. That is incredibly shortsighted and illogical fo many reasons.

 

[Bungie]

Appreciate the response and I think that is fair. However, I think my point still stands that GFN serves primarily as an alternative access point to existing gaming ecosystems, whereas Stadia is attempting to set up an entirely new way to game that has the potential to support features that would be impossible on current platforms.

So maybe you are right: GFN is perfect for someone with a bunch of PC games and a good PC but they want to play their games on their phone or cheap laptop as well. But when I think of the future of game streaming I want, stadia has no competition (although it is still rough around the edges).

 

[Google Stadia]

And tbh I meet the criteria of the the of person who would support GFN... But I like stadia more in terms of future possibilities. If I just looked at my past I vestments in PC games and only considered that I would consider GFN the better option.

 

[Bungie]

Owning the games outside of GFN is pretty meaningless, I'm not sure why people make such a big deal out of this.

I buy games to play them (in the moment), not collect them.

It's likely that the best games coming down the pipe on Stadia you'll never be able to play locally on a PC, because you simply won't have the cloud hardware to pull off what Stadia does. How do you reconcile that?

When we get to the point where the AI on Stadia is better, the maps are bigger, there are more enemies on the screen, the view distance is longer than anything you can get locally than on even the best PC of the moment, this whole "but you don't own your games outside of Stadia" goes up like a puff of smoke.

The alternative is only ever having games that play as well as a local PC. I don't want to live in that reality, frankly.

 

[Google Stadia]

breakpoint has a picture in picture stream of your buddies screen which I find to be interesting for tactical-ops games and will likely become standard.

football manager and grid are both running modes that they claim are not possible on other platforms...

 

[Google Stadia]

I think Nvidia may have just recently upgraded their servers with new GPUs? But beyond that it isn't quite fair ATM because GFN is simply playing PC games that have the benefit of good optimization. Stadia is a new platform... Games have to be optimized for that platform and/or ported. Right now a lot of games have not been optimized well to take advantage of Stadia's power. The power is there... It is more powerful than the Xbox 1 X and PS4 Pro combined... Developers just have to use it well. Games will look better over time on Stadia. Input lag will continue to get better on both platforms but Google has much more robust infrastructure to support cloud gaming.