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!
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!