Google Stadia Pricing & More Revealed

Source: https://kotaku.com/google-stadia-pricing-leaks-will-have-both-subscriptio-1835294433/amp

Summary: -Base subscription is $11.99 CAD a month which gives you access to most games in the lineup at 4k 60fps

-You will have to individually buy newer games

-In 2020 there will be a Stadia Basic plan that's free but limited to 1080p

-There will be a Stadia Founders Edition including 3 months subscription, chromecast ultra, a controller, and Destiny 2 for $169.99 CAD.

-Doom, tomb raider trilogy, odyssey, and the division 2 are part of Stadias launch lineup

-10mbps download and 1mbps upload is the minimum requirement

-Stadia launches in November

EDIT: According to our own @FireEmblem_Man, Stadia can use 1 TB of data in 65 hours. Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/stadia-4k-streaming-will-use-up-1tb-of-data-in-65-hours/.

A moment of silence please for Stadia users with data caps.

This thing is gonna flop so hard. Google and execution LOL

It’s streaming so that’s an automatic pass for me no matter the price.

I am scratching my head over this one

Sony and MS has been doing streaming for sometime, what is so special about this?

It goes without saying, I am skipping this one.

It's up on their website

$9.99 USD/mo for 4k/60fps

$129 for founder edition

Nope!

Did say you would never get new AAA games, developers cannot make money through cheap streaming shite.

Onlive 2.0.

What an awful presentation all around. Felt like I was watching something from Hooli get totally botched

You still need to pay for games so this thing will fail... Who is going to Pay $60 for a game on a digital only platform but doesn't have enough interest to buy a PC or gaming console?...

Also 9.99 for 4K/60 option that requires 35Mb... Again who is this for?... Someone who can afford a 9.99 subscribtion that has a 4K TV and a 35Mb connection who is willing to buy a $69 controller and pay $60 for a game but doesn't have a high end gaming PC or X1X/Pro?... I am confused to who they are targeting.

If this was a subscription only gaming service it would do serious damage but as it stands right now Stadia is confusing as f***.

I don't think I could be any less interested in this thing.

There are some gamers on other forums preferring the buy the game separate option. But yeah, everything you say is true.

Ouya just called, they want their flop back.

So, they're using Destiny 2 as their flagship title for the Founder's Edition, that's not enough to convince me to spend $129.99 for a weak service.

"Its not for me so it will fail" ??

I will buy a game on the platform and get a 1 month Pro sub when it comes out because I love tech and am curious to how it will be.

That said Its borderline DOA because I just can't see a audience for it what so ever.

To me as a gamer the biggest issue is the CLEAR lack of support they actually have they throw up the logo's just like Nintendo has been doing for the past 3 generations but show nothing... If they had all that support then why is there no killer app or exclusive?... Trouble is that its Linux based and not every game on PC is supported even un-released games, so why would someone invest in a platform that is digital only and build a library where there is a chance that you will still need a PC or console if you want to play all the Multi-platform games?!... Its baffling.

If they came out with Cyberpunk announcement and say it will run on the Stadia Pro service at 4K/60... I would be all over it, but they have yet to fully go in detail as to how the frame rate works will every game run at 4K/60 guaranteed?...

Imagine thinking Stadia has a chance.

Who is it for then?... Not trolling or mocking you I am genuinely curious as to who has:

• 4K TV
• 35Mb connection
• is willing to pay $60 for a game
• is willing to pay $9.99 a month

But isn't interested enough in gaming or see's no appeal in a PS5 or a PC?...

Even if you go with the free service...

• 1080p in 2019
• $60 a game
• 20Mb connection

But doesn't have enough interest in gaming or see's no appeal in a PS5 or PC?...

Now I know what your thinking why am I asking if the person isn't interested in a PS5 or PC if they are interested in Stadia?... Well its simple if you had a gaming PC or PS5 why would you want a Stadia?

I want to want this, but something doesn’t feel right. $129 is a good price for a 3 month trial for me and a buddy though.

Doesn't the US have data caps? Streaming 4K will eat that in no time.

@Random_Matt: I have a 1TB cap and go over it a few times a year as it is. If Stadia is only requiring 35mbps for 4K there must be something going on to keep the packet sizes real small.

Its an interesting concept, but internet infrastructure in this country is still too weak, data plans still are shit for most people, and therefore is completely inaccessible for a huge number of people.

On top of that Google has to try targeting what is probably an extremely narrow audience of people who have extremely high quality, high end TV's, internet access, and are interested in gaming but also for whatever reason don't want to spend money on a PC, Xbox or Playstation.

I wonder if there is some kind of contingency plan for those who buy each game individually if this thing shuts down. I’d really hate to be someone who buys a bunch of games and Stadia ceases to be a thing for whatever reason.

On Googles own Chrome browser on YouTube which is also Google a 4K/60FPS video is eating 55-60mbps... So I have a feeling they are lying about the requirements or its severely compressed.

I have a PC that can run any game (used primarily for work) and a PS4 for multiplats and the occasionaly exclusive (only bought GOW) and a Switch. I could definitely get behind a viable alternative to having a brick of hardware in my home just to play Ghost Recon or Assassins Creed. It looks like they'll be selling games in an online store aside from the free offerings, that will have to change for this to work, I'm not paying for a cloud game. They solve that issue and it plays smoothly, then they can sneak in there, no more buying 400+ dollar machines that take up space. Minimalism baby.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: You are falling to the folly that because it isn't for you it's for no one. People like you have to grasp the concept that not everything is catered to you. You may not see the value or the market for this service does not equate that there isn't.

Its not a issue... Its how it works, you can't expect to get free AAA games on a free platform.

The real issue is game support, it won't have every game so if you are a gamer and next generation rolls around PS5/PC and X4 will still have Multi-platform games on them that aren't available on Stadia due to them being a Linux based platform.

Oh, okay then. But no thank you.

I'm still skeptical of the Cloud performance of Stadia. If this is going to all streaming, that streaming better be on point for many games. If this is what they're advertising, I don't want to hear "Oh sorry we have technical difficulties at the moment. No games this week."

I see MK11 on their list. If Google can make a fast-paced fighting game like that run smoothly at 4K, and there isn't a single frame drop and hiccup, and even pro tourney gamers approve, then this Stadia may not be a complete failure. Because if it survives that test, it should fare well with other games (unless Assassins Creed Odyssey runs slow because it's open world?)

If Google throws in discount sale prices here and there so that not every game is $60, and I can see some people enjoying Stadia's "play anywhere" feature that is making the Switch popular. According to Google, any Smart TV and device with access to a Chrome browser should be able to play your games. Also, Xbox One owners don't have to buy the Stadia controller, as Stadia is compatible with Xbox One controllers and most other USB controllers out there.

They're going to have to offer discounts on those games. If they leave it stuck at $60.00 forever, I could see Stadia flopping.

It's cool that it's a Free membership for 1080p/60fps at least, but you still need to buy games. And if every single one is $60.00, screw that. A lot of those games on their list are OLD. Many of them should be $20-$30.

Also, they said Stadia works with Xbox One controllers, and most USB controllers. So you don't have to buy the Stadia controller.

My problem is I own all these games or will buy the newer ones on PC. And convenience isn't a factor because I have at least one console at every TV in my house. So as exciting as new tech is, I literally have no use for this. I already own Destiny 2 and would rather play all of the other titles on Xbox One X or PC. I'm a person who buys EVERYTHING and yet I can't find a use for Stadia. Maybe if it were a straight subscription service instead of charging $60 I could find a reason... I'm kinda bummed :(

Sweetheart that's like saying a Professional photographer not being interested in a new Canon L lens has no weight to it.

I am a gamer with a with a £1600 PC, 4K QLED TV, PS4 Pro and Switch with a 364Mb fibre connection... I am their audience, who else is going to pay for a 9.99 service for 4K gaming and still pay for a $60 game that has a fast internet connection?... A console gamer who moans about a $599 console release?... Behave your self.

You are not equivalent to a professional photographer. Photographers create you just consume. Know your place.

LOL. You literally confirmed what I stated in my comment perfectly. No one cares about you specs. None of that changes the fact you that you cannot accept when something is not for you. Time for you to grow up son and realize this reality.

Don't want this. Don't want a company the size of google getting another foothold in another industry. Want it to fail.

Google Stadia is shit.

/thread

I disagree... Googles controller connects through Wifi direct to their servers and there is a reason for that, any other controller would add input lag. So yes you don't have to but if your already going to invest in buying games on the platform I am sure you will end up buying it at some point and it could be right after you realise how much you need it when you press jump in MK11 and notice lag.

It's not free, there's a monthly fee and part of that fee should go to the publisher.

This same issue popped up when itunes became a thing and later services like Spotigy, how much of a cut of the monthly fee could a publisher expect to receive? I don't buy music when I pay my Spotify fee, I'm paying for access, same with Netflix, so it only make sense for games to follow that eventual formula, it'll just take time. I remember when Netflix streaming first happened and it was a very limited offering of content, now it's seemingly endless; the companies just have to see some sort of benefit in supporting the service.

As I said, this would be great for casual gamers of which vastly outnumber those of us that post here, and also dudes like myself that just want a cheap place to run through multiplats without having to own a console. Hey, hopefully Nintendo builds a powerful successor that can run next gen AAA games, then this won't even be an issue for me. But if this takes off, I have a viable option when it comes to next gen gaming because I can definitely live without Sony Exclusives. M$ I just need to be able to access that new Halo and Gears without having to buy a new Xbox and I'm solid.

I think it is a given that people like us who frequent a gaming forum and own multiple consoles and PCs wont find this all that useful.

I'm still interested to see how it performs and I will probably pick up a controller.

Apparently such a simple concept is beyond some folks understanding. The juvenile behavior of "I don't like so it should be made or exist" is an on going behavior trait in forums like these.

I don't think you fully comprehend the analogy. Its not about the comparison of photographer to a gamer but the opinion of one for a product/service in their field/medium.

I am a photographer by profession its why I used the analogy and how I afford all those products... Also while photographers do create we are also consumers of the tools and our opinions on the tools(cameras/lens) are as valid as a gamer's on a gaming console/service or product which is why the analogy was used but that went over your head clearly.

I asked you who is this for because I as a gamer don't want it and you circled around the question and respond with something so ridiculous that when you think about it is just stupid... You are on a gaming forum talking about a gaming service that is being covered predominantly by gaming media talking to a gamer and telling him that that service is not for him to try and downplay his opinion or the weight of it?... Stop it sweetheart.

You'll have to BUY to stream games? **** this.

You might not wanna assume that...

**** this piece of shit.

Google can go **** themselves.

Not its free... The 9.99 subscription is for the Pro service that gives you 4K/60. You can use Stadia for free but you are limited to 1080/60.

Ah, I was mistaken then. That's a pretty easy fix though, charge 10 for free plus the gaming and 20 for 4K gaming. Why would a developer scoff at yet another revenue stream?

A yes for me,Some decent launch titles and now I’m 1800p pro/ 4k30 X and 4K60 stadia ready

If it’s pay on a monthly basis like gamepass i’ll Use it for the titles I didn’t buy at launch and stream them for £9

So it seems the economics of streaming rises again...

First I will preface this with the same thing I've always said. Gaming rigs in the cloud that run 1080P games are going to cost approximately $1.25 per gaming hour no matter who you are. There will be fluctuations of course with 720P streams running around $0.75 per gaming hour and 4K streams running close to $2 per gaming hour. As well as competitor pricing, however the disparity will be measured in pennies, not dollars.

As far as the business model is concerned, it makes sense. First the free method which is relatively straight forward. You can only purchase games through the Stradia store. The typical royalty is 30% for game stores like PSN or Xbox store. On a $60 game the royalty would be around $18 which would likely be used to cover the cost of streaming it. The only issue with this approach is that there is little reason to incentive reducing game prices over time because that would also reduce royalties. I expect games to remain full price for longer if not indefinitely in order for the "free" method to remain fiscally viable.

Next the increased price for 4K access just makes sense based on the cost of server time to run those rigs. On a typical 20 hour a month gaming regiment it would add about $0.50 cost per game hour. Ultimately not a bad setup but I would need to see the "free" games offered in the subscription. If its 1-2 decent quality games per month it may be worth having a go at it. However I do not anticipate triple A titles to be offered "free".

Its the only way it can work really, think about it we pay $60 for Red Dead game and put in 40-50 hours average person roughly and that game cost how much to make?... Compared to a game like PUBG that cost 1/100 or less to make but probably has more people playing and for longer. Streaming based services pay cuts based on view counts, doing the same subscription service without charging for games would kill the high budget games or single player games in general in the long run because the incentive wouldn't be there.

Streaming is the future of gaming but games will always be paid for because its the only way to keep gaming alive and healthy.