Stadia Could Be Priced At $15/Month If It Launches With 500+ Titles, Says Analyst

IDC analyst Lewis Ward also feels that at least 50 new games should be added each month.

[SuperSonic91]

Phil Harrisson said he worked for Google for more than a year. Its probably enough time to get most Android and HTML game devs and publishers on board Stadia before launch.
500 games at launch and 50 a month seems feasible.

[WhiteyFox]

remove.

[Crazyglues]

50 a month is a complete fail, I'm sorry but 15 a month is a stretch but 50... LoL (I'll just stick to my PS4)

Look people already pay a crazy cable bill a month, Netflix, PlayStation Plus, and you want me to add another 15, to play the stuff I'm already playing on PS4... LMAO... Good luck with that plan... The lower the better, but at 50 that thing is dead in the water...

No way in hell I'm paying 50, you crazy, would much rather just buy a Playstation game every month

[Atom666]

??

This rumor or analysis is 50 GAMES added a month, not $50 a month.

[porkChop]

Dude, the description clearly says 50 games added per month. Nowhere has anyone said $50 per month.

[NXFather]

I just wanted the police to you were depending on to come out and say they would arrest me before my ascension and not run from me. Instead of saying I was the only one with any proof of anything ever and that you guys failed to win one time. So that now they aren't going to say that. Secret that much.

[TacoTaco]

Crazyglues seemed the crazy one until whatever the heck happened in NX's life an hour ago

[SuperSonic91]

You did not rread 50 games a month...

By Android standards that seems feasible

[Crazyglues]

@ SuperSonic91

Yes I just read Supersonic91 comment, and I read it wrong, I was just having this talk earlier and someone said it might be 30, so when I read SuperSonic91's comment I thought he was saying 50 and I was like what? what the hell? ... My bad, read that wrong

Thank you for pointing it out, I guess I was just upset because I want to get this but the price will indeed be the main factor... Sorry for the miss-read -- and thank you to the people who pointed it out in a nice comment without insulting (Atom666, porkChop, SuperSonic91 ) or going crazy... that was my error, Yes I'm human I make mistakes, really glad it's not 50... :) still waiting to see what it will be though.

[GtPawnSacrifices]

[insert Ron Burgundy gif]
“I.. Don’t believe you!”

[SuperSonic91]

* 50 games a month seems feasible
Sorry my bad.

Update:
Google Stadia registration itself will be free.
FFXV will be on Stadia

[Mystogan]

It... It really isn't.

Unless they're all Android games.

[MajorLazer]

If Stadia is good enough, it could replace FOR SOME PEOPLE what they pay for PS+ or Xbox Live right now. I personally won't but I can see some doing it. PS+ is £7 right now a month, Stadia could be £10 a month and that'll cover online access as well as providing hundreds of titles

[KickSpinFilter]

...

[rainslacker]

If they're going to license all that content, they must be expecting huge subscriber counts to pay for all of those new games. Or they'll also be removing a good number of games every month too. While I understand content can get removed from any service, it shouldn't be so frequent that one has to look to see if something will be available before they start playing. Should just be one of those rare occurrences for any given individual.

If Google is going to rely on mobile and HTML games, then why bother with a service like this? People can already do that on their mobile, and they don't need to stream the games. You can play mobile games on PC already without much effort. HTML games run on almost everything except TV"s and consoles as is.

I think around 200 games at launch is more feasible. It's a good round number, and gives them room to grow, since they'll likely have a surge of new games to make press releases over the course of a year. 500 games after one year is quite possible. 50 games a month....I say that's unlikely, and really too many. Smaller numbers work just as well, as you can focus in on the better titles that there are to offer. I think offering better titles, over more titles is the way to go. Don't need 20 different lego games, or 15 versions of Angry Birds.

[Elda]

15 a month doesn't seem bad. I'll have to see what games they have & I might try it out just to experience some titles running at 4k/60fps,anything much higher I'll pass.

[SuperSonic91]

Rumor has it that Stadia will be free. There will be tons of F2P games and also the games with price tags on them.

[Sono421]

Rumor has it Stadia will make consoles obsolete, launch with 6,000 exclusive games all developed by naughty dog, and cure cancer. It can all be yours for the low price of 60 cents a month, or if you're a veteran or student it will be $400 a month. DISCLAIMER If you miss a payment or cancel your subscription you will be returned your cancer.

[subtenko]

google play has f2p games and f2p online games

[spicelicka]

@Sono421 LOL

[Spartacus10]

If you want to experience 4k, a compressed stream where the quality and sharpness has been compromised isn't the way to go.

[StormSnooper]

At 15 a month I don’t know why I would choose their service over others. Not that I’m even slightly interested in their gaas.

[opc]

If you already have a console or a gaming PC this isn't aimed at you.

Imagine if you didn't want to spend 300-400 on a console or more for a gaming PC because you only have the time for 3 games a year. Suddenly this service comes along and allows you to play the newest Doom or Assassin's creed or whatever on your browser with a kb/m... you could sign up for 2 months, play the games and cancel and you've only spent $30. When another game comes out, you sign up again when your schedule opens up and you play again.

If I had to buy a bluray player and disc to watch Game of Thrones, I would never watch it. Instead I subscribe to HBO for two or three months a year, and they get a bit of money from someone that otherwise would have not paid at all. I don't care that I don't get to keep each episode, I just want to watch them and move on.

[rainslacker]

Can't pay $300-400 for a console, but $180 a year(@$15/month) where you don't own anything of value, is the option people are going to go for? I know $15 a month is more palatable to some, but at the same time, if they are only playing a few games a year, then chances are, games aren't high on their list of priorities, and likely will still just buy a console, or use an older console if they have it.

For me, with GoT, I just buy the Blu-Ray set when it comes out. Then I don't have to worry about it anymore, because I have the physical copy. I may watch this season at my cousins house though.

[nucky64]

"If I had to buy a bluray player and disc to watch Game of Thrones, I would never watch it." - i don't get this statement. i own/watch MANY series (like GoT or band of brothers) not to mention lots of blu movies. is it really that hard to put a disc in the player ?
edit: i agree with everything rainslacker said below me.

[opc]

It's only 180 a year at 15/month if you subscribe for 12 months. If I only play games in the winter, then I'm only paying $45 a year.

What is there to get about not wanting a blu-ray player and a shelf of discs that I will never watch more than once?

[spicelicka]

I think a big factor will be whether you need to pay for online. If $15 includes online play then that's a big deal.

[jznrpg]

F Google

[PhoenixUp]

For a streaming service that has to have all the latest multiplats day one it can’t reasonably be that cheap

[Ausbo]

There’s no way there will be 500 games. It’s not like it’s copy and paste console games. Each game needs to be specifically developed for stadia. I doubt they get that support at launch

[badboyz09]

Gamefly Lowers Price to $10 a month. Than What?

Wayyy bigger Library and I don't need a Internet.

[badboyz09]

Who ever Disliked F** you.

[opc]

It's an entirely different service type of service.

[Inzo]

No thanks, I prefer being in control of my own content. I also think the Stadia is more inline to compete with MS than with Sony but if the Stadia isnt going to have exclusives then Google might as well pack up now. The other problem is like with MS, Google might well just pump out mediocre games to save time and money to have on their store.

[chris235]

nice if true

[lelo2play]

No thanks.

[AK91]

Again we aren’t addressing the elephant in the room the ridiculous Internet speeds required in order to do this.

[Fishy Fingers]

Ridiculous? I personally dont know anyone with sub 30mg connections. Virgins (UK) slowest package is 54mg.

Clearly it's not the case for everyone but there's certainly enough people out there that hit the requirement.

[rob-GP]

You're thinking of your area and a certain provider (which not everyone can have). The average speed in the UK is 16 and USA is 18 - when you take into account that there are a few providers who over 30-50 or more with no issues, that means there's a lot of people who have much lower in order to drag this down.

The service supposedly drops to 720p if you drop below 15MB/s and that's when the latency issues and lag will begin to kick in, along with artifacts and other issues. Not saying it won't work, but until the actual details are out and common people have tried it - nobody can tell for sure what it's going to be like.

[rainslacker]

Up until last year, I only had 10-15, and I was lucky to actually get that. Plus, the wireless router they provided me was complete crap. Now I have 25mbps, and while I often do get that, it's not consistent, and usually stays steady around 18-19, which is acceptable for me. The wi-fi router they provided me really sucked.

ATT at my old home was pretty good, although I don't remember the speed, although their router had terrible wi-fi lag, but fast speeds, as they provided their cable service over it too. Time Warner in the US sucks balls pretty much everywhere from what I understand, and they're the 2nd biggest provider behind Cox, who sucks balls anyplace they don't have competition, and generally people say they suck at least half a ball where they do have it.

General rule of thumb for the US at least. Most ISP's suck big time. Sometimes, in some places, you can find good services, and get them cheap for a while, but without fail, once that introductory contract is up, they jack the price up to something unreasonable. ATT was charging me around $90 a month for intenernet, which was the "Discounted" package price. If Time Warner weren't so bad with both cable and internet there, I would have gone back to them, and I left them because they jacked up the price after a year. I have spectrum out in the country now, and it's pretty decent, but I hear they jack up the price as well. I have a two year contract with them though, and their regular price for the service isn't unreasonable.....so we'll see in about 15 months.

It's not even about being near a major city. Before I moved, I lived outside Raleigh, NC, which is pretty much the east coasts silicon valley, and one of the largest areas for IT development outside California. Google Fiber was supposed to come, but don't think it ever did. Plenty of competition. Completely upgraded lines around the whole area, and a major hub for data routing on the east coast. One could get good service, but it wasn't usually cheap, and depending on the company, wasn't even reliable.

So I laugh at the people who say that it's easy to get good, fast internet, or say, "Who doesn't have good internet these days". Because my personal experience is that while it may be easy, fast doesn't always mean good.....and almost never means cheap.

[Spartacus10]

Virgin media throttle your internet speed. I used to notice (and test) my speed get capped before I even finished downloading a 50gb game, the last few GB's would be painfully slow reminding me of my internet connection 10 years ago.

If Stadia streaming takes less data, I'd question the quality of the stream, and if it takes more data, you'll get throttled.
Long story short, you're fucked either way.

[WelkinCole]

You obviously have not traveled much

[Neonridr]

didn't they say you only needed like 5mbps? I mean that's pretty un-ridiculous speeds to me.

[optimus]

yes they did, but people choose to ignore that part and just look for what games it will have and how much it will cost. also, everyone seems to think that it will lag all day as if google would be willing to put out a non playable platform to compete with the rest.

[opc]

the beta required 25mbps. that's still not ridiculous

[rob-GP]

30 for 4k/60 at a decent quality - 1080p will be around 20-25 - supposedly it drops to 720p at 15Mb/s

[Neonridr]

my bad guys.. thanks for clearing it up. Still definitely attainable in most developed regions.

[MajorLazer]

In this day and age why are we still complaining about internet speeds ffs. 5G is right around the corner and home broadband speeds are very fast right now and will become even faster. Hell, I pay £45 a month for 352Mbps broadband and unlimited calls landline

[KickSpinFilter]

Looks like you live in UK? USA internet infrastructure is garbage in many areas.

[Scatpants]

Playstation Now ran fine for me on a medium level internet connection. I'm sure this will be no different.

[v3nny]

It's far too early for video game streaming to bear any fruit. This is going to flop harder than OnLive.

[Livingthedream]

Not too early, north America, and Europe are the biggest gaming markets it could really take off, it's all about marketing. The mobile gaming space is really taking off, so who knows. Although $15 a month seems a bit high IMO.

[MajorLazer]

We'll see how well this comment ages. Not everyone has ancient internet speeds

[gunnerboy8]

No way you will get third party AAA games on release day if you're only paying $15 per month

[opc]

what if they're 3-4 years old

[Imortus_san]

I rather download my game and have 0 extra lag.

[rob-GP]

Technically, if you have a 4k tv then that generates lag, the console has it's own lag, the controller interface has a bit of lag, any electrical devices around the console can cause lag etc... DF tested it and the latency is around the same as an Xbox one X/Ps4 Pro locally - but that's a best case scenario

[Imortus_san]

DF tested PS Now and it adds 60ms of input lag to the game when runmning at its best, because all streaming services add lag to the normal lag that you already have, 60ms in a 60fr game = 4 frames input lag, when the net is lagging it adds even more, playing on PC with the PS4 controller using blue tooth adds 40ms of input lag, also tested by DF, so if you are using PS Now on PC with DS4 its a hopping 100ms of input lag on top of original input lag by the system it self.

Just like I said, I rather play my games locally so there is no extra lag.

[rainslacker]

The lag introduced by a 4KTV is insignificant compared to the lag introduced by streaming an image over the internet. Oh....and display lag isn't the same as input lag....which I'll get into later. Doesn't matter how fast one's service is, it still takes longer to stream data, and convert it, which then still has the display lag if it's on the same TV, it's still going to be additional lag.

There is no way I can accept that there wasn't extra lag on the display when streamed. It completely defies logic. A 4KTV lag is 1-3ms depending on the display. The time it takes to transmit even a 720p image is at least double, if not triple that. If this is how DF tested input lag, then they are doing it wrong. DF may not have noticed lag, since the lag for the input recognition was within the bounds of the game loop, or the game itself didn't have a strict adherence to input timing....like say a fighting game. Most games nowadays don't have such a strict adherence, which is why button mashing is still possible. I'd imagine they were testing it against a game where it wasn't important.....wasn't it AssCreed? Hell, you can press a button in that game, and not see anything happen on screen for a second to two sometimes as it's input poll is based off animation frame pacing.

Oh....and how do they know the local latency of the PS4 or X1? It's going to vary based on the game, the engine, the controller charge, if there's any interference which causes CRC errors which have to be corrected, etc. The time it takes to send the data to the machine to store it for the program isn't the same as the input lag that is perceptible to us. The time it takes both the DS4 and the X1 controller to send the signal to the machine is 1-3ms based on all the above factors according to official data sheets.....information important to know if you're writing input routines for an engine....which I do. Most people wouldn't even have a data packet leave their home network in that much time, much less travel across the internet to then be processed by a server somewhere.

But, that lag you're talking about isn't input lag, it's display lag. Input lag is the time it takes for the input to be sent to the machine, and if that time is greater than the actual game loops poll of the input register, then you are going to have noticeable lag. Uploading that input takes time. not much, but still more than what you get with wireless controllers.

[Flipflopp]

$15 a month. Where does the console come into play? The 10.7 Teraflop machine? I'm confused.

[opc]

There is no console. The machines are at Google's data centers.

[KickSpinFilter]

No machine, connect to cloud Google servers.

[optimus]

if it's 15 a month and i have access to triple A games day 1...without paying extra then i can see it being worth it, especially if i can cancel anytime...it's easy to go through a game in less than a month (not counting rpg's)....if i can get through 2-3 games within that month then the service would end up saving me money. i've reached an age where i don't really care about owning games anymore, they just take up valuable space in my living room now, collecting dust once i'm done with them.

[rob-GP]

Yet another analyst making up predictions and people are running with speculation as fact (not a surprise it comes from the click-bait Gaming Bolt either...)

If it's 15 then I imagine this will be with old games like most streaming services do - offer a monthly package and you can play older titles. The new titles will be either pay-per-game, pay-per-rental (like PSNow was actually going to be at first) or a subscription of at least double that to maybe get two or three games on release date. I can't see any major publishers agreeing to let their game go into the pennies-per-sub model.

Also, 50 games a month... doubtful. PSNow adds about 15 - 20 a month (although it added 45 in December) and GP adds about 5-10 (if that once you take into account those which are taken out of the service)

[TheHateTheyGive]

You're acting like this is going to hurt sony, love the narrative by gamingbolt, xboxone is totally safe in their eyes, sony has to worry. can they be so obvious that they are taking bribes? Now on to psnow, psnow to sony is an afterthought, its not the reason to own a playstation, if they discontinued psnow sony will still be in great shape because they invest in EXCLUSIVES that no pc or console will ever get.

I have had ps3/4 for the last 15 years and i have never had psnow. I use ps vue more than ill ever use now. CAn xboxone survive without gamepass??

[rob-GP]

Nah, I don't think it'll hurt Sony at all, just saying it's another interview with some who knows nothing about the subject giving their personal opinion to a question the site gave them. They do it all the time.

The last one was claiming that PlayStations stance on crossplay was bad from a dev doing a PSVR game, when Sony fully support full crossplay in VR.

The site twists everything to meet their agenda

[DafunkyRebel]

That’s pretty cheap. 15x12 is only $180 a year

[optimus]

looks like apple just 1up'd google with apple arcade.

[TheHateTheyGive]

Just like i thought they are going after xboxone bread and butter, gamepass. I bet google is going to offer them much more than microsoft and get their own better gamepass. This is why we stress so hard that exclusives is what sells the console, 3rd party games are mostly filler, good filler, but still filler. You cant survive depending on 3rd party games like xboxone has the past 4 years. The strongest console in the world is worthless without that epic looking exclusive to show off the power.

[Bytor]

If you think you are going to be playing all the next Jen games. For 15 dollars a month your crazy your going to be playing angry birds in 4k 60

[QuePasa87]

No thanks :)

[XxINFERNUSxX]

We don't need this crap. PS, MS, Nintendo, PC to is more than enough. Some mobile games are fine.