Stadia - Google's game streaming service announcement from GDC 2019

[Isgrimnur]

The Verge

The short version: Google Stadia will launch in November, in 14 different territories including the US, UK and Canada, with at least 31 games from 21 different publishers, for an initial “Founder’s Edition” price of $130 for a hardware starter kit with three months of premium service, and $10 a month afterwards. There’s a separate free tier coming in 2020.

Pre-orders for the “Founder’s Edition” are now open, and I’ll explain what it is in a tad, but there’s something important you should know first.
...
While Google intends to eventually have a back catalog of free games included for your $10 monthly fee, Stadia is not primarily a subscription service. The subscription only includes a single game as of today — Destiny 2. Primarily, Google tells us you should expect to buy, not rent cloud games for the same retail prices you’d find on other platforms like PlayStation Network, Xbox Live, and Steam.
...
Buser says that the just-announced Baldur’s Gate 3 will ship simultaneously on Stadia and PC, in fact — and that those two platforms will be the only ways to play it.

Nevertheless, that list of games doesn’t necessarily have a killer app, Google isn’t talking about its own internally developed Stadia-exclusive titles quite yet, and the quality and reliability of Google’s service is unproven in the wild.

Game list at the link.

[hitbyambulance]

it's the way of the future, but no way am i signing up for any more Google services, ever.

(i should probably deprecate my gmail account...)

[YoungGrumpyMan]

Would have been interested in trying out Baldur's Gate III for sure on Stadia, at least, since I don't have any interest at the moment in building a PC or even upgrading my old laptop. However, Stadia isn't releasing in my country in 2019, so whatever, Google. By 2020, maybe xCloud will already be out, and next-gen alongside it.

Enviado do meu SM-N960F através do Tapatalk

[naednek]

what's keeping me besides that I just built a new computer, is the bandwidth. Playing the highest settings was going to consume 1 TB in 65 hours. That's not including anything else using the internet.

[YoungGrumpyMan]

Today in my country and in several countries in Europe (Spain, Italy, France), there was an internet outage from Vodafone, both Wi-Fi and mobile data. It lasted 1 hour and a half or so. Were I streaming on Stadia at the moment, it would be completely inaccessible to me during that time, and this right here scares me about the streaming future. Yeah, it's just one hour, and these occurrences are rare, but still, I don't like not playing when I want, being completely left out because the internet is down doesn't sound all that great to me.

Enviado do meu SM-N960F através do Tapatalk

[Isgrimnur]

Tom's Guide

Google wants to predict player moves in order to speed up Stadia — its streaming video game platform. In fact, Google believes that it will beat any local gaming platform.

Talking to Edge magazine, the VP of engineering for Google Stadia Madj Bakar said that Google Stadia will outperform any current or future game console or PC thanks to artificial intelligence.

“Ultimately, we think in a year or two we'll have games that are running faster and feel more responsive in the cloud than they do locally, regardless of how powerful the local machine is.”
...
Google believes Stadia can beat the PS5, Xbox Project Scarlett and any gaming PC or gaming laptop by using artificial intelligence. One of the tricks that Bakar described is “negative latency”.
...
To avoid this and enable 4K and 8K resolutions without any lag, Google wants to use AI that predicts what a user will click next. That way, a server in the cloud will basically be able to pre-render ahead of your actual action, delivering these frames in advance so, when you actually click, you will get the right frame.

[stessier]

It'll be cool to sit down and watch how you would have played the game.

[Rumpy]

what's keeping me besides that I just built a new computer, is the bandwidth. Playing the highest settings was going to consume 1 TB in 65 hours. That's not including anything else using the internet.

I have to wonder if these streaming services are all going to end up costing more in the long-term than a new PC. Cost of high-speed internet access + cost of the streaming service which I'm going to assume is going to be per-month, and it's going to quickly add-up. I guess it's like renting a PC on the cloud. I've yet to really see any indication from gamers that they really want this, yet the industry is really pushing it as the next big thing.

[Lorini]

what's keeping me besides that I just built a new computer, is the bandwidth. Playing the highest settings was going to consume 1 TB in 65 hours. That's not including anything else using the internet.

I have to wonder if these streaming services are all going to end up costing more in the long-term than a new PC. Cost of high-speed internet access + cost of the streaming service which I'm going to assume is going to be per-month, and it's going to quickly add-up. I guess it's like renting a PC on the cloud. I've yet to really see any indication from gamers that they really want this, yet the industry is really pushing it as the next big thing.

As desktop computers become harder to find and less in demand, I think there's a space for this type of service. A ton of people only play console because they don't want to deal with all the crap that comes with desktop computing. The anti virus, the graphic card, the memory, the OS. And while the cost could add up, the time you spend researching all of these other factors counts as well.

[Blackhawk]

But many of the benefits that come with PC gaming would vanish. The ability to play offline, which most games still offer. The ability mod games. Possibly the ability to configure settings, such as video settings, to preference. Stadia adjusts the graphics on the fly to maintain performance, so it is likely that most of the settings will be unavailable to the user (hope you like head bob, fixed FOV, and motion blur, and you can't decide between performance and appearance.) Also, many people who play competitive games prefer lower graphics settings, as higher quality graphics tends to make important things harder to pick out.

And then there are those data caps. With a family of four and the current Comcast data caps, I'd get about 20 hours of Stadia per month before I'd hit my cap, as the family already uses up a huge chunk of what's available. I'd get 40 hours a month if I set everything to their minimums. At the minimums that's 10 hours per week. I've been known to blow through that much in a single day if I'm really involved in a game.

[Isgrimnur]

The anti virus

I look forward to the first streaming console device getting captured in a botnet.

[Asharak]

I have to wonder if these streaming services are all going to end up costing more in the long-term than a new PC. [...] I've yet to really see any indication from gamers that they really want this, yet the industry is really pushing it as the next big thing.

I think it's safe to say that the industry is not investing as much money into this as it clearly is in an effort to save us money.

- Ash

[Rumpy]

Stadia adjusts the graphics on the fly to maintain performance, so it is likely that most of the settings will be unavailable to the user (hope you like head bob, fixed FOV, and motion blur, and you can't decide between performance and appearance.)

Or at the very least, adjusted for baseline performance. Because if you think about it, bandwidth goes both ways; the user needs to receive it, but the data center also needs to process and send out that data, and that can't very well be cheap, so I wouldn't doubt it if they'd try to squeeze out as much low-end bandwidth as they can rather than going for highest resolution settings possible, including textures.

In the future, I could maybe see it being a tiered pricing structure based on optimal game settings, because I wouldn't put it past them trying something like that.

[Isgrimnur]

ars technica

Today, Google announced 12 games that will be available for individual purchase and streaming when Founders Edition pre-orderers get their hands on Google Stadia starting November 19. The games are:

• Assassin's Creed Odyssey
• Destiny 2: The Collection (included with Stadia Pro subscription)
• Gylt
• Just Dance 2020
• Kine
• Mortal Kombat 11
• Red Dead Redemption 2
• Rise of the Tomb Raider
• Samurai Shodown
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition
• Thumper
• Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition

Fourteen additional titles are promised to launch on Stadia before the end of 2019:
...
Of the 26 titles planned for Stadia release this year, Tequila Works' horror game Gylt is the only one that won't be available on other platforms concurrently (though Google has an internal development studio working on more exclusives in the coming months and years). Darksiders: Genesis is due to launch simultaneously on PC and Stadia on December 5.

[Alefroth]

Stadia adjusts the graphics on the fly to maintain performance, so it is likely that most of the settings will be unavailable to the user (hope you like head bob, fixed FOV, and motion blur, and you can't decide between performance and appearance.)

Or at the very least, adjusted for baseline performance. Because if you think about it, bandwidth goes both ways; the user needs to receive it, but the data center also needs to process and send out that data, and that can't very well be cheap, so I wouldn't doubt it if they'd try to squeeze out as much low-end bandwidth as they can rather than going for highest resolution settings possible, including textures.

In the future, I could maybe see it being a tiered pricing structure based on optimal game settings, because I wouldn't put it past them trying something like that.

What needs to be streamed back to the data center? I'd assume it's only controller input.

[Blackhawk]

Also, graphics settings shouldn't affect bandwidth. Resolution and compression would (which is why they list their requirements in terms of bandwidth relative to sound channels and resolution), but the quality of the anti-aliasing, shadows, and texture detail would not. They're essentially streaming you video, not geometry and textures.

[Rumpy]

Stadia adjusts the graphics on the fly to maintain performance, so it is likely that most of the settings will be unavailable to the user (hope you like head bob, fixed FOV, and motion blur, and you can't decide between performance and appearance.)

Or at the very least, adjusted for baseline performance. Because if you think about it, bandwidth goes both ways; the user needs to receive it, but the data center also needs to process and send out that data, and that can't very well be cheap, so I wouldn't doubt it if they'd try to squeeze out as much low-end bandwidth as they can rather than going for highest resolution settings possible, including textures.

In the future, I could maybe see it being a tiered pricing structure based on optimal game settings, because I wouldn't put it past them trying something like that.

What needs to be streamed back to the data center? I'd assume it's only controller input.

I think there's a bit more to it than that, such as position of character, enemies, NPCs, physics calculations and any wandering people in crowds such as in the Assassin's Creed series. That's quite a lot of data to keep track of, and there's latency to think about. We're so used to thinking of it being done locally because we're used to it, but with this it will all be done remotely and will be out of our control. Because that choice was made to offload that processing power to the cloud.

[coopasonic]

Stadia adjusts the graphics on the fly to maintain performance, so it is likely that most of the settings will be unavailable to the user (hope you like head bob, fixed FOV, and motion blur, and you can't decide between performance and appearance.)

Or at the very least, adjusted for baseline performance. Because if you think about it, bandwidth goes both ways; the user needs to receive it, but the data center also needs to process and send out that data, and that can't very well be cheap, so I wouldn't doubt it if they'd try to squeeze out as much low-end bandwidth as they can rather than going for highest resolution settings possible, including textures.

In the future, I could maybe see it being a tiered pricing structure based on optimal game settings, because I wouldn't put it past them trying something like that.

What needs to be streamed back to the data center? I'd assume it's only controller input.

I think there's a bit more to it than that, such as position of character, enemies, NPCs, physics calculations and any wandering people in crowds such as in the Assassin's Creed series. That's quite a lot of data to keep track of, and there's latency to think about. We're so used to thinking of it being done locally because we're used to it, but with this it will all be done remotely and will be out of our control. Because that choice was made to offload that processing power to the cloud.

That doesn't have to go back and forth. Basically on the user end is the monitor and the controller so all that has to travel back and forth is the video output to the user and the user input back to the data center.

[Rumpy]

Ok, but I still think that's going to require quite a lot of bandwidth that will really add up over time, especially if it has to update the image constantly based on user input. And that's just for one person. I just wonder how attainable it will all be.

[Alefroth]

Ok, but I still think that's going to require quite a lot of bandwidth that will really add up over time, especially if it has to update the image constantly based on user input. And that's just for one person. I just wonder how attainable it will all be.

Video streaming services have already figured out how to stream lots of video to lots of people.

[coopasonic]

"based on user input" just means that latency is more of a factor than with local compute, but like Alefroth said, streaming the display is not really different than what Netflix or Hulu are doing today. Hopefully they have data centers close enough to users to minimize that latency. I wouldn't suggest using it over your mobile hotspot through a VPN on another continent.

[Rumpy]

Ok, but I still think that's going to require quite a lot of bandwidth that will really add up over time, especially if it has to update the image constantly based on user input. And that's just for one person. I just wonder how attainable it will all be.

Video streaming services have already figured out how to stream lots of video to lots of people.

Right, but the number one difference between that and gaming is that the videos aren't interactive. That would mean each frame would have to be more accurate.

[LawBeefaroni]

Stadia adjusts the graphics on the fly to maintain performance, so it is likely that most of the settings will be unavailable to the user (hope you like head bob, fixed FOV, and motion blur, and you can't decide between performance and appearance.)

Or at the very least, adjusted for baseline performance. Because if you think about it, bandwidth goes both ways; the user needs to receive it, but the data center also needs to process and send out that data, and that can't very well be cheap, so I wouldn't doubt it if they'd try to squeeze out as much low-end bandwidth as they can rather than going for highest resolution settings possible, including textures.

In the future, I could maybe see it being a tiered pricing structure based on optimal game settings, because I wouldn't put it past them trying something like that.

What needs to be streamed back to the data center? I'd assume it's only controller input.

I think there's a bit more to it than that, such as position of character, enemies, NPCs, physics calculations and any wandering people in crowds such as in the Assassin's Creed series. That's quite a lot of data to keep track of, and there's latency to think about. We're so used to thinking of it being done locally because we're used to it, but with this it will all be done remotely and will be out of our control. Because that choice was made to offload that processing power to the cloud.

That doesn't have to go back and forth. Basically on the user end is the monitor and the controller so all that has to travel back and forth is the video output to the user and the user input back to the data center.

It also has to send consumer info back to the data center, along with audio/video gathered from the hidden mic and camera.

[stessier]

I thought this was a super interesting article on how latency has been solved in standard fighting games. Don't know why it couldn't work here as well. It's a long article, but I think worth it.

[NickAragua]

Stadia adjusts the graphics on the fly to maintain performance, so it is likely that most of the settings will be unavailable to the user (hope you like head bob, fixed FOV, and motion blur, and you can't decide between performance and appearance.)

Or at the very least, adjusted for baseline performance. Because if you think about it, bandwidth goes both ways; the user needs to receive it, but the data center also needs to process and send out that data, and that can't very well be cheap, so I wouldn't doubt it if they'd try to squeeze out as much low-end bandwidth as they can rather than going for highest resolution settings possible, including textures.

In the future, I could maybe see it being a tiered pricing structure based on optimal game settings, because I wouldn't put it past them trying something like that.

What needs to be streamed back to the data center? I'd assume it's only controller input.

I think there's a bit more to it than that, such as position of character, enemies, NPCs, physics calculations and any wandering people in crowds such as in the Assassin's Creed series. That's quite a lot of data to keep track of, and there's latency to think about. We're so used to thinking of it being done locally because we're used to it, but with this it will all be done remotely and will be out of our control. Because that choice was made to offload that processing power to the cloud.

That doesn't have to go back and forth. Basically on the user end is the monitor and the controller so all that has to travel back and forth is the video output to the user and the user input back to the data center.

It also has to send consumer info back to the data center, along with audio/video gathered from the hidden mic and camera.

"Hidden".

[Alefroth]

Launch list increases to 22

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
Attack on Titan: Final Battle 2
Destiny 2: The Collection (available in Stadia Pro)
Farming Simulator 2019
Final Fantasy XV
Football Manager 2020
Grid 2019
Gylt
Just Dance 2020
Kine
Metro Exodus
Mortal Kombat 11
NBA 2K20
Rage 2
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Red Dead Redemption 2
Samurai Shodown (available in Stadia Pro)
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Thumper
Tomb Raider 2013
Trials Rising
Wolfenstein: Youngblood

[Alefroth]

Launch list increases to 22

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
Attack on Titan: Final Battle 2
Destiny 2: The Collection (available in Stadia Pro)
Farming Simulator 2019
Final Fantasy XV
Football Manager 2020
Grid 2019
Gylt
Just Dance 2020
Kine
Metro Exodus
Mortal Kombat 11
NBA 2K20
Rage 2
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Red Dead Redemption 2
Samurai Shodown (available in Stadia Pro)
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Thumper
Tomb Raider 2013
Trials Rising
Wolfenstein: Youngblood

[Isgrimnur]

Forbes

I have spent the last week discovering that at least for me and my own Google Stadia set-up, the answer to that question is a resounding no.

I am genuinely amazed with how shockingly bad Stadia has performed at my home over the course of many sessions.

For context, I mostly played Stadia on the review unit Chromecast Ultra on my TV, with a few trials on my desktop PC browser (connected through wireless). My internet is solid, probably better than most people’s with wireless speed ranges between 200-350 Mbps depending on how the wind blows. Google’s own Stadia speed check tool seems to think I am well, well over the requirement to effectively stream 4K games.

Well let me tell you, something went terribly wrong here.

Across all test titles I played, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Mortal Kombat 11, Destiny 2, GYLT and Red Dead Redemption 2, I would get periodic stuttering issues with massive resolution and frame drops. Not all the time, but enough to be noticed frequently and disrupt gameplay, which is what everyone feared may happen with this kind of tech. The intensity of the game didn’t matter, it could be the graphically rich Red Dead or the cartoony GYLT. Single player or multiplayer didn’t matter, I could be playing solo as Lara Croft or playing Destiny 2’s Gambit in a pre-arranged match, the issues were the same. You could have 80% of a session be going fine, but then the last 20% would suddenly lurch you into dropping, stuttering territory. And in most games, all it takes is one hiccup to make you pay dearly.

I fell off ledges in Tomb Raider because of lag. I flat-out lost Mortal Kombat fights I would have won otherwise. I died to Destiny enemies I would roast with ease on any other platform. I managed to slog through the entirety of the Mortal Kombat 11 campaign (which I genuinely wanted to play, as I hadn’t yet) and probably at least one a match I ran into lag issues. Even if it’s just for a moment, it can cost you an entire fight in a game like that.
...
The other issue with Stadia is that even when it is working normally it’s still just a bit off from how a normal console game would feel. It might just be microseconds we’re talking about, and while I didn’t notice it much in Mortal Kombat or Tomb Raider (outside of the huge stuttering moments) where it mostly just felt like playing a console game with a Switch pro controller, I could feel it in Destiny 2, which I have sunk 1200 hours into on console, and it just didn’t feel as tight. It’s passable, certainly, but not anything I would voluntarily choose over PS4 or Xbox. The same goes for visuals, where resolution is just a little bit worse at times, the HDR a little less bright and sharp. Workable, but worse than the hardware-based alternatives. But obviously all of this pales in the face of the truly horrific lag and stuttering I experienced at Stadia’s worst moments. The only, unequivocal positive I can say about Stadia is that it has significantly reduced load times over its console equivalents, even past what my SSD-modded PS4 is capable of. So hooray.

[Rumpy]

Interesting article. I think that everyone's experiences with it are going to vary greatly. But seeing as the guy seemed to have the perfect setup for it and he's still having huge issues with it doesn't bode well for a general public that might have slightly lower spec internet setups.

One big question that has come to the surface is this: For anyone who's not into consoles or PC gaming, is the investment in this really worth it? I mean, it seems to me that when you factor in everything, you could buy a PS4 and an XBox for around the same kind of investment, and you'd have an overall better experience. Because it's not as if this is positioning itself as a cheaper alternative, and might in fact be more expensive in the end.

[coopasonic]

I mean, it seems to me that when you factor in everything, you could buy a PS4 and an XBox for around the same kind of investment, and you'd have an overall better experience. Because it's not as if this is positioning itself as a cheaper alternative, and might in fact be more expensive in the end.

What is the everything you are factoring in to the cost? Stadia will be free next year ($129 now for premiere). You'll need a controller, good internet and a supported device (chromecast, etc).

[Rumpy]

I mean, it seems to me that when you factor in everything, you could buy a PS4 and an XBox for around the same kind of investment, and you'd have an overall better experience. Because it's not as if this is positioning itself as a cheaper alternative, and might in fact be more expensive in the end.

What is the everything you are factoring in to the cost? Stadia will be free next year ($129 now for premiere). You'll need a controller, good internet and a supported device (chromecast, etc).

Yep, a controller, good internet and a Chromecast Ultra, which adds up. I doubt the controllers are cheap either.

Here's another article from Lifehacker where they test it on different kinds of connections.
https://lifehacker.com/how-well-does-go ... 1839870376

[morlac]

Interesting article. I think that everyone's experiences with it are going to vary greatly. But seeing as the guy seemed to have the perfect setup for it and he's still having huge issues with it doesn't bode well for a general public that might have slightly lower spec internet setups.

One big question that has come to the surface is this: For anyone who's not into consoles or PC gaming, is the investment in this really worth it? I mean, it seems to me that when you factor in everything, you could buy a PS4 and an XBox for around the same kind of investment, and you'd have an overall better experience. Because it's not as if this is positioning itself as a cheaper alternative, and might in fact be more expensive in the end.

Agree on last part, It is priced to not succeed. I keep getting told this is the replacement to having to upgrade a new gaming pc every 4 years. Numbers don't support that. the monthly charge for 4k streaming plus the necessary unlimited Dload cap will run me $30ish per month. Add the $75 for chromecast ultra that is required and the premium amount they charge per game and it makes zero sense not to just buy a new PC. 36 months of fees + additional bandwidth will run me $1080. That is before I pay $60 for a 1-2 year old game I can buy for $20 everywhere else.

Add in the performance issues and it makes even less sense. I suppose there is a niche but it's not me or most gamers I would think. Or really anyone who can do math

[LawBeefaroni]

It may appeal to minimalists who will put up with lower performance/higher cost in return for not having unsightly consoles/PCs in their well-planned living rooms.

[Rumpy]

Agree on last part, It is priced to not succeed. I keep getting told this is the replacement to having to upgrade a new gaming pc every 4 years. Numbers don't support that. the monthly charge for 4k streaming plus the necessary unlimited Dload cap will run me $30ish per month. Add the $75 for chromecast ultra that is required and the premium amount they charge per game and it makes zero sense not to just buy a new PC. 36 months of fees + additional bandwidth will run me $1080. That is before I pay $60 for a 1-2 year old game I can buy for $20 everywhere else.

And those are in U.S prices, but if I look at it in CDN Dollars, it makes even less sense. And how much are the base consoles now? $120? So, I just look at the cost of all the extras needed to getting the Stadia working and I just don't see it. Just doesn't seem like a wise investment to me.

Even if we keep in mind that there is a free version coming out, that will be capped at 1080p, with 4k + HDR for the paid version. All the issues written up so far have been by savvy people who know what to look for. I just don't see an average user wanting to jump into this will necessarily be knowledgeable in what they need, especially if we're to believe the demographics they're aiming this at.

Another article:
https://kotaku.com/google-s-stadia-just ... 1839930224

[morlac]

It may appeal to minimalists who will put up with lower performance/higher cost in return for not having unsightly consoles/PCs in their well-planned living rooms.

Good point, but I would call them a casual gamer and if that is their target market than...HAHA.

[morlac]

Agree on last part, It is priced to not succeed. I keep getting told this is the replacement to having to upgrade a new gaming pc every 4 years. Numbers don't support that. the monthly charge for 4k streaming plus the necessary unlimited Dload cap will run me $30ish per month. Add the $75 for chromecast ultra that is required and the premium amount they charge per game and it makes zero sense not to just buy a new PC. 36 months of fees + additional bandwidth will run me $1080. That is before I pay $60 for a 1-2 year old game I can buy for $20 everywhere else.

And those are in U.S prices, but if I look at it in CDN Dollars, it makes even less sense. And how much are the base consoles now? $120? So, I just look at the cost of all the extras needed to getting the Stadia working and I just don't see it. Just doesn't seem like a wise investment to me.

Even if we keep in mind that there is a free version coming out, that will be capped at 1080p, with 4k + HDR for the paid version. All the issues written up so far have been by savvy people who know what to look for. I just don't see an average user wanting to jump into this will necessarily be knowledgeable in what they need, especially if we're to believe the demographics they're aiming this at.

Another article:
https://kotaku.com/google-s-stadia-just ... 1839930224

US... I miscalculated the Google premium fee at $15 us but is only $10 a month so technically around $725 a year for the premium plus bandwidth to take advantage of it. Or I could buy a fully 4k capable system that could play their lineup at the 30-60 fps they promise for about $1200 and it will work for 3-4 years. I just don't get their target market, the pricing, or this terrible launch. It certainly is "neat" tech and I'd totally mess around with it for about ten minutes before I got annoyed but i already did that with my $10 Steam Link.

[morlac]

More fun stats:

Tracking Google Stadia data usage
Red Dead Redemption 2 at 1080p60 on Stadia:

Duration: 13 minutes
Data used total: 1.55GB
Data per minute: 119MB
Estimated data per hour: 7.14GB

At that rate, you’ll go over a typical Xfinity 1TB cap after just 50 hours of Stadia alone.

Even the non premium model is going to eat your bandwidth something awful.

[Blackhawk]

The full article.

[Rumpy]

Even the non premium model is going to eat your bandwidth something awful.

Yeah, no kidding. And I'd hate to be the parents where the kid asks their parents to borrow their phone for some gaming, thinking it'd be some simple app, only to find out to their horror that they've maxed their data for the month. I'm thinking it will end up making a lot of expensive mistakes. Not entirely dissimilar to dialing up a long-distance number for a BBS gaming session back in the day.

Jeepers, 7 Gigs an hour is a lot of data! I think there's going to be a lot of unhappy surprises in the near future in the form of expensive bills.

[Blackhawk]

Netflix on Ultra HD only takes 7 gigs an hour, 3 gigs on 1080. What the hell kind of data are the streaming at 1080 that takes the same?