Talk:Google Stadia

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Pre-release reception

I'm sure there's enough articles available to source this, but I think there needs to be a bit more in this section detailing the opinions of critics, publishers etc. in regards to the success of Stadia, some of whom have expressed apprehension and doubt, particularly for its release plans. All we have here so far is impressions of how well the hardware worked during its beta release. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I know there's writings on "its all about latency, has Google solved that", type of things, but I think that's fair concern of any stream solution and not just Stadia. I will say the last week has changed a few things (with Microsoft's various news from their London event) may have prompted a few some additional commentary worried that Stadia could be DOA, but I'm not sure how valid that is either. --Masem (t) 15:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The very first reviews are certainly overwhelmingly lukewarm to negative. Those reviews are also full of straight up provable misinformation, so should be taken with a critical eye. But in any case, I think we should let the dust settle just a bit first before we say what the reception is overall. No non-media have played yet. If they are also up in arms, and that gets reported on, then I think the initial tone is set. If player response is more positive, I would expect a second wave of reviews that perhaps are more balanced. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Provable misinformation? The valid criticism should be stated for the negative reviews. Pixel 3 and Pixel 4 have valid criticisms that are simply stated from the articles even though it can be a bit weighted. The latency, ISP data caps, the different tiers of Stadia, license policies, etc can be mentioned as criticism as well as reviews providing light to how the network works. I can easily see this being debatable for months (and years). – The Grid (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Despite making several statements in the last week about the state of Stadia, Google released a product that numerous tech sites have found problems with. Google may be able to fix those in time, but from our point as an encyclopedia, we are not going to bury or wait for better reception to come out. If Google improves Stadia that it becomes a gold-star standard platform, we can add additional reception to discuss that (akin to the situation around No Man's Sky) but we absolutely should reflect what the reviews that came out this week have said. --Masem (t) 15:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Listing as a platform in articles

Can we please get a consensus over whether it is appropriate for Stadia to be listed as a gaming platform in the infobox of articles for games available on it? Granted, I have not gone through every article to see if all include it, and if so who (if ever) has ever reverted it, but I have seen a number of edits to the Red Dead Redemption 2 article where user Masem has reverted those attempting to do so, advising Stadia is a subscription service and not a platform. If there is agreement on this, then Stadia should be unlisted from each game article's infobox. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering this as well. Why is Stadia listed but not PlayStation Now? Include everything or none at all. Blsupr (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Games for Stadia seem to be specifically ported to Stadia whereas PlayStation Now games are simply PlayStation 4 games run through an emulator. Lordtobi (✉) 19:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Second sentence

The second sentence is as follows:

It is said to be capable of streaming video games up to 4K resolution at 60 frames per second with support for high-dynamic-range, to players via the company's numerous data centers across the globe, provided they are using a sufficiently high-speed Internet connection.

"It is said" is a bit weasel worded and I'm wondering whether it has been independently verified or is a claim by Google, depending on which a citation as well as inline attribution might be called for. SITH (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to "It is advertised to be", which should address the weasel word. Regarding the claim itself, it is cited in the Features section. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2019

Google Stadia → Stadia (service) – I realize that a similar move has been proposed before, but I would like to bring this up again. The proper name of the platform is "Stadia", without the "Google" prefix. The artificially amalgamated title returns zero results when searching for it on the service's website, and the move that got us here has was never explained. Since "Google Stadia" fails WP:OFFICIALNAME, it would consequently also fail WP:NATDIS. Also, both titles appear at roughly the same frequency in reliable sources (which might or might not be fuelled by this article's title), wherefore neither is more common than the other. In general, this would allow us to fall back to the official name, namely "Stadia".

Of course and as discussed before, Stadia is not (yet?) the primary topic for the word "Stadia", thus a generic, concise "(service)" disambiguator should suffice. This move is in the same vein as Steam (service) and Origin (service), which we do not call "Valve Steam" and "EA Origin" either for pretty much the same reasons. Lastly, using parenthetical disambiguators encourges piping, leading to a more frequent use of the correct (official) title within other articles. Lordtobi (✉) 12:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. – The Grid (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Support per nomination and the argument presented. I'm going to note that I brought up the last move mentioned but it also involved moving Stadia. – The Grid (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I see the proposer's point like we do not call Steam (service) "Valve Steam". However on this occasion "Google Stadia" is the common name in reliable sources as seen here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. So we should use the common name per WP:COMMONNAME. Whereas the common name for Steam is not Valve Steam.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"Steam" not being called "Valve Steam" was just one of multiple arguments. As I stated above, it appears from an overhead view as though both versions are mentioned at a similar frequency; the usage is not uniform. You provided a handful of articles saying "Google Stadia", but one would easily be able to find reliable sources that do not, such as [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25], just to name a few. You will find that there are even discrepancies between individual articles of the same outlet. I also expressed the concern that many uses of the "Google Stadia" name in the media could pertain to Wikipedia's title for the article, as Wikipedia can pose a significant influence. Lordtobi (✉) 16:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We can also note that adding Google to the article title helps to gain views for the third party sources as well. – The Grid (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This is rather odd, I may need to investigate its usage in reliable sources further.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment I am not opposed to this move, but I do point out that within Google, Stadia also appears to be a division since they have acquired one studio and plan to acquire more. I don't know if that means there's a better name or not, or similar that (service) is the primary use with the article clearly distinguishing the history of the division from the service ... --Masem (t) 16:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You are probably referring to the "Stadia Games and Entertainment" division created in March, which Jade Raymond is part of. Since it has its own unique name, it can be naturally separated from the service article if required, or have an eponymous section in this article. Lordtobi (✉) 16:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That's right. And at least at this point, that should be under this article (it is too close to the stadia service topic to make sense as a separate entity, yet. If they grow, then maybe) --Masem (t) 16:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(And just added a quick section for this). --Masem (t) 16:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - the table below clearly indicates that the current name is in plentiful use in reliable sources, and the question of the common name appears to be a bit of a wash. As such, WP:NATURALDIS kicks in and we should retain the current title.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  NATDIS requires the name to be official, which it isn't. After COMMONNAME, OFFICIALNAME kicks in. Lordtobi (✉) 16:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Usage Table

Usage of Google Stadia and Stadia in Reliable Sources

Publication	Use of "Google Stadia"	Use of "Stadia"
IGN	[26], [27]	[28]
GameSpot	[29], [30], [31], [32], [33]
Eurogamer	[34]	[35]
TechRadar	[36]
PC Magazine		[37]
Trusted Reviews	[38]
Wired
Digital Trends	[39]
PCGamesN	[40]
Kotaku		[41], [42]
PC Gamer	[43]	[44], [45]
GamesRadar	[46]
Polygon	[47], [48], [49], [50]	[51]
Financial Times		[52]
Wired	[53], [54]
Engadget
Ars Technica		[55]
VentureBeat		[56]
Vice		[57]
VG247		[58]
TechCrunch
CNET	[59]
Rock, Paper, Shotgun	[60]
The Verge	[61]
New York Post	[62]
Yahoo! Finance	[63]

Feel free to expand the table. One thing I noticed throughout quite a few of these articles is that an article will often introduce the article with "Google Stadia" and then continue on using "Stadia" throughout the rest of the article (an example).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against having the table separate from the vote. It would be a good way to summarize the usage regardless of the outcome. – The Grid (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the sole necessity of this table (+ what I mentioned above) shows that there is no clear common name to this. Being the common name is not a matter of having a handful more mentions than the other; both appear all the time, so WP:OFFICIALNAME should apply instead. Lordtobi (✉) 18:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)