![Quote](images/technidev/modern/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
owen
First dude said the internet is owned by Google. lol. These are people who are totally dependant on online services for their income so their opinion is hedged against these services getting widescale adoption. aka shills. i play most of my games offline. None of these new games are good enough for me to spend money to get them. I dont even play mobile games because they are designed to waste your time. People who say stadia is going to change gaming have not finished a game in 10 years - they probably spend all their time dieing constantly in fortnite (thinking they are having fun but really are only addicted to the game loop like cocaine). This guy has no clue why people buy expansive computers to play games with more graphics.
Good points, Owen.
PS I recently got a XBOX ONE S as a gift and a few AAA games. I have a Nintendo Switch with nearly ALL the popular games, and I have a few legit PC games, as well and a AMD RX 570. The last mobile app game that I played was UNO and I was addicted to that. It has been a while since I have played mobile games, maybe years. I guess that I am busy these days. However, my son does. Also, children tend to play a lot of mobile games. Who buys the Android tablets. Adults. And for their kids.
Any new-console owner knows the high cost for games. No boot legs. And the frustration in having Mortal 11 on the switch and then can't play that cartridge on a PC and so on. Even though you legally own the game.
I agree that some games are a straight waste of time. But even a simple game like Fifa 2018, I have much fun with in 2 vs 2 local play. I can see people having fun with this in true 10 vs 10 online play.
At the end of the day, we know it is a money making thing, but would it be cheaper for the gamer, with better content?
I believe the concept is to stomp out piracy. If exclusive AAA games are available on Stadia only, then bootleggers would have to pay. (This is the concept with all most of the online play games). Google may introduce a monthly fee on stadia to play any content. But will it benefit the gamer. Not for common Jamaicans.
Maybe the government can use any (offered?) Google business VR service to use it to train fire fighters in quad-copters and building rescue without paying for much simulation hardware
![Quote](images/technidev/modern/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
owen
VR games on a whole are trash which is why they are so few good VR games. Having a full 360 view is good for a few scenarios but bad for input speed. The Wii has better VR games. It is not going to get any cheaper because it requires a high frame rate, like 90 frames a second at least. You can hope and pray.
Yes internet speed needed seems to be next to godlike bandwidth. Consoles still rule. Different tech for different countries.
I have never played a VR game, but I think the concept is great. Just like watching a 3D movie where the view looks immersive, I can imaging a VR game could be just as immersive.
![Quote](images/technidev/modern/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
owen
If you can afford to pay for the internet bandwidth required to get a game running smoothly then its all good. But I would rather not be totally dependent on internet services for my entertainment. Google as an advertising company will certainly drop adverts directly into your games like it has done with youtube videos.
I figure Google would not target people without hard core internet. But it is sad that common FLOW internet will not be fast enough.
Definitely ads in free games and demos.
Let's act on what we agree on now, and argue later on what we don't.
Black men leave Barbeque alone if Barbeque don't trouble you