I think anyone who can afford a console i.e Xbox or Playstation, can and will be able to afford good internet connection.
It's not about the cost, it's about the fact that some areas (a lot of them actually) simply don't have access to high bandwidth internet. In the village I grew up in (i.e. where I spent my youth playing video games) the bandwidth is about 300KB/s (in the good days). It's been like that for years and won't change any time soon.
As for the rest: yes, people with low bandwidth can play but still won't enjoy the full extent of the service, that's the issue I have with this. I feel the same pain when I see my parents watch shows on Netflix, waiting a couple minutes for it to load and end up with 360p while I enjoy instant 4K for the same f****** monthly cost.
And no I don't think it's too much of a stretch to place emphasis on bandwidth exactly because there are too many things streamed today. Remember when I say my parents have a hard time watching Netflix? Guess what happens when me and my brother come home and use Spotify, Youtube or even another Netflix instance at the same time? Bandwidth isn't unlimited and relying too much on it is a problem. Sure, in my everyday life in a big city living alone with 30MB/s for myself it's all fun and games, but not all people have (or can have) that.
It IS about the cost, or more succinctly: cost constitutes a significant factor in consumers's buying decision. Stadia is very accessible precisely because of its low comparative cost ($0/mo or $10/mo USD). Not only does this not require a sizeable up-front expenditure, it also carries a reasonable competitive cost amortized over the lifetime of an upgrade cycle, and is arguably much, much more convenient.
And I think you're mistaken to assume that a product must meet the needs of the majority of the market to be successful. This is a fallacy that often prematurely stifles business endeavours. A product need only turn its owning company sufficient profit, and I'm sure Google is well aware of, and satisfied with the state of telecommunications now and/or in the projected future, and that it will support its investment in the product line. Simply put, I doubt that they would release such a product, at such a scale, unless they thought it would make money.
And hey, Google is not alone in this: Sony has already had success with its streaming service Playstation Now (despite sparse and exceptionally negative media coverage) and are likely going to upgrade their service (reports of Sony purchasing server time from MS) and Microsoft is launching its streaming service xCloud. Other players like Ubisoft also are streaming on Nintendo Switch which may see a broader distribution down the line.
Why would these companies move so aggressively if they were concerned with bandwidth? I think that game streaming is viable and that OP has the right idea.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
It's not about the cost, it's about the fact that some areas (a lot of them actually) simply don't have access to high bandwidth internet. In the village I grew up in (i.e. where I spent my youth playing video games) the bandwidth is about 300KB/s (in the good days). It's been like that for years and won't change any time soon.
As for the rest: yes, people with low bandwidth can play but still won't enjoy the full extent of the service, that's the issue I have with this. I feel the same pain when I see my parents watch shows on Netflix, waiting a couple minutes for it to load and end up with 360p while I enjoy instant 4K for the same f****** monthly cost.
And no I don't think it's too much of a stretch to place emphasis on bandwidth exactly because there are too many things streamed today. Remember when I say my parents have a hard time watching Netflix? Guess what happens when me and my brother come home and use Spotify, Youtube or even another Netflix instance at the same time? Bandwidth isn't unlimited and relying too much on it is a problem. Sure, in my everyday life in a big city living alone with 30MB/s for myself it's all fun and games, but not all people have (or can have) that.
It IS about the cost, or more succinctly: cost constitutes a significant factor in consumers's buying decision. Stadia is very accessible precisely because of its low comparative cost ($0/mo or $10/mo USD). Not only does this not require a sizeable up-front expenditure, it also carries a reasonable competitive cost amortized over the lifetime of an upgrade cycle, and is arguably much, much more convenient.
And I think you're mistaken to assume that a product must meet the needs of the majority of the market to be successful. This is a fallacy that often prematurely stifles business endeavours. A product need only turn its owning company sufficient profit, and I'm sure Google is well aware of, and satisfied with the state of telecommunications now and/or in the projected future, and that it will support its investment in the product line. Simply put, I doubt that they would release such a product, at such a scale, unless they thought it would make money.
And hey, Google is not alone in this: Sony has already had success with its streaming service Playstation Now (despite sparse and exceptionally negative media coverage) and are likely going to upgrade their service (reports of Sony purchasing server time from MS) and Microsoft is launching its streaming service xCloud. Other players like Ubisoft also are streaming on Nintendo Switch which may see a broader distribution down the line.
Why would these companies move so aggressively if they were concerned with bandwidth? I think that game streaming is viable and that OP has the right idea.