Initially, Google Stadia was set to go live with 12 games to choose from, to which the public wasn't too happy with, as competing services promised double or even triple the number of games upon their own launch. Google has decided to increase the amount of launch titles, now bringing the full day 1 lineup to 22 games. Those new additions include:

• Attack on Titan: Final Battle 2
• Farming Simulation 2019
• Final Fantasy XV
• Football Manager 2020
• Grid 2019
• Metro Exodus
• NBA 2K20
• Rage 2
• Trials Rising
• Wolfenstein: Youngblood

These 10 games were all supposed to be added later on in 2019, but have been pushed up a few weeks to meet the service's launch. Google Stadia's launch is imminent, with the service slated to begin on November 19th, with availability in 14 different territories including both the USA and the UK. More games are scheduled to be added to Stadia's library of games before the end of the year, and well into 2020.

Source

 

[rileysrjay]

This seems to me to very much be a last ditch effort to make stadia even somewhat appealing, especially after all the X019 xcloud news that was dropped. Why should I invest a minimum $130 in this (remember that most games are sold separately in stadia) when I can go sign up for Microsoft's closed beta that already includes 50+ games for free? Oh, and m$ already confirmed that game pass games and digitally owned games through Xbox will be playable at no extra charge for people. Why the hell should I invest into stadia when xcloud is already offering a much better value? I'm not going to even bother with the compression/input latency issues since others here summed it up pretty well.

 

[James_]

All I'm gonna say is that Stadia is most likely going to be a failure.
To be honest I don't really hate it that much, but I already know that not many people are going to use Stadia.

Also while I'm at it, remember Google Maps for NES?

 

[nikeymikey]

Im old school i will always prefer physical media for my games. Fuck all the streaming shit

 

[ElonStark]

I would only try Stadia if I could do a free trial of it first. At least for a week but preferrably for a month. I just don't trust the promises of how slick this cloud gaming is supposed to be.

 

[Deleted User]

OH MY GOD FOOTBALL MANAGER 2020!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[the_randomizer]

Remind me why people are okay with paying full retail price on games whose servers will be inaccessible one day? At least with digital downloads, you can use those offline and keep them permanently on your hard drive. This? This is absolutely asinine.

 

[Dr.Hacknik]

Remind me why people are okay with paying full retail price on games whose servers will be inaccessible one day? At least with digital downloads, you can use those offline and keep them permanently on your hard drive. This? This is absolutely asinine.

Streaming games is convenient for low-spec hardware. Solutions like Nvidia Game Streaming allows you to use your steam and other platforms for digital distribution. Stadia just seems, like a gamble to use.

 

[the_randomizer]

Streaming games is convenient for low-spec hardware. Solutions like Nvidia Game Streaming allows you to use your steam and other platforms for digital distribution. Stadia just seems, like a gamble to use.

But why pay for games you can't even download, games that will one day be inaccessible? Servers can't last forever, bandwidth caps are still a major issue, our infrastructure in the US is utter trash. Many features "promised" on launch are all too conveniently delayed till next year. Google clearly is trying to sucker people into paying for trash. Just because streaming only is a potential future, doesn't make it a good business model.

I can't wait to pay for a $60-70 game that I can't even download to my PC /s

 

[Dr.Hacknik]

But why pay for games you can't even download, games that will one day be inaccessible? Servers can't last forever, bandwidth caps are still a major issue, our infrastructure in the US is utter trash. Many features "promised" on launch are all too conveniently delayed till next year. Google clearly is trying to sucker people into paying for trash. Just because streaming only is a potential future, doesn't make it a good business model.

I can't wait to pay for a $60-70 game that I can't even download to my PC /s

I mean yeah, I don't disagree. But at least you can use your steam account with Nvidia

 

[Deleted User]

here is my Google Stadia review in one GIF.

this is on The Washington Post's Gigabit Ethernet last week. pic.twitter.com/qexEv6vyUD

— Gene Park (@GenePark) November 18, 2019

 

[the_randomizer]

https://twitter.com/GenePark/status/1196488999524802562

Wow, that's some low-latency input right there /s

 

[K3Nv2]

Wtf isnt NBA already on?

 

[Rahkeesh]

But why pay for games you can't even download, games that will one day be inaccessible?

Its exactly the same as any buy-to-play always online live-service game, of which there are a ton today, many quite successful. Aside from Google maybe being even less reliable than the industry average. I do think there will be a much bigger audience for the true "netflix of games" AKA gamepass over xCloud, but cloud-based game "ownership" has already been with us for quite a while.

 

[the_randomizer]

Its exactly the same as any buy-to-play always online live-service game, of which there are a ton today, many quite successful. Aside from Google maybe being even less reliable than the industry average. I do think there will be a much bigger audience for the true "netflix of games" AKA gamepass over xCloud, but cloud-based game "ownership" has already been with us for quite a while.

If it were a true Netflix for games, you'd just have to pay the monthly fee, and nothing on top of that. If all games were free with the service, I'd have nothing to object, but since you can't keep the games you pay for, I fail to see the appeal.

 

[Rahkeesh]

Over 13 million people bought Diablo 3 on PC, a game that can only be played on Blizzard's servers. Whether you think that's a good idea or not, it doesn't really change what the market will bear.

 

[the_randomizer]

Over 13 million people bought Diablo 3 on PC, a game that can only be played on Blizzard's servers. Whether you think that's a good idea or not, it doesn't really change what the market will bear.

Doesn't mean it's good though.

 

[nine0nine]

something being 'good' or 'bad' is not the point, it's being popular that matters.

The whole streaming concept is one that's been on the cards forever, I recall a sony exec talking about the same idea before the PS2 was released.

If Stadia is a failure, then expect the same service 5 years down the line when bandwidth issues are reduced. The days of physical media are numbered. Owning a download is almost as meaningless as streaming and even though downloads often cost more than a physical copy, people are still buying them.

I've always kept the key titles that I've played, right now there's a copy of Yoshi's Island next to Mario 64 on my shelf along with titles right up to Mario Oddysey and many of them I don't even have the console to play them anymore, but I don't think the vast majority of people could care less, for many its a disposable entertainment, play it, enjoy it, move on. For those people, Stadia makes sense.

 

[kristianity77]

Thing is, it's not really a bandwidth issue is it. 20 Meg connection or 200 Meg connection, you can't get rid of the poor latency, and that's the issue whether your looking at a compressed 720p mess or a pristine 4k image. With streaming, you get input lag. And lag ruins games.

 

[Deleted User]

I've had smoother input lag playing Pokken on livestream and using the broadcast as a monitor

 

[The Real Jdbye]

Since everyone's hating on this you can give me an invite code if you have one I'll gladly take it

I'm pretty sure you need the actual Stadia hardware (the controller connects directly to their servers through wifi so you can't use just any controller)