Google Stadia ***Update: Google shutting down the service***

[Madmick]

I don't think google expected it to be a hit, the technology isn't quite ready yet.

It was just a market test to see what they need to do differently for version 2. The scary thing about this technology is that once it works, consoles will be obsolete overnight.

This, although it has failed harder than was ideal for the long haul, and Stadia users are losing patience with Google's sluggishness. They still haven't added chat capability, for example. They've botched the launch so badly that it's damaging enough they might not be able to salvage the brand. That can't have been their aim, and their reputation for dabbling is becoming problematic as others have observed:

The biggest deal breaker though is that this is Google we are talking about. You would have to be a fool to have confidence they will continue to support this product, given their track history. If they pull the plug on this the money you spent will have been wasted.

Their greatest obstacle has been building a user base from almost nothing as they attempt to build enough revenue inertia to bridge in other Android/Chromecast devices. Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft are developing competing services that carry the bonus of allowing you to download the files locally, and they already have user bases that are over 45 million deep a piece. Ultimately, they're headed in the same direction, and are trying to figure out how to shrink the consoles so they don't have to bother selling them every several years, and can also encourage millions more to buy their device for a lower upfront cost. Future revenue is all about "services", and not just for phone companies.

So make no mistake. This is the future of gaming, and in fact is already becoming the present. We're all just waiting to see who delivers it first, and if that contest produces the incredibly rare emergence of a new power player in gaming. Discounting smartphones, the last time that happened was when Microsoft usurped Sega.

So the cards are all stacked against Google becoming a player in gaming, they always were, but the tension is in the fact that services are growing and fracturing similar to TV services (cable, satellite, HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Disney+, Apple+, CBS All Access, etc.) when in that world device exclusivity is effectively nonexistent. For example, if a Fire TV stick only supported one or two of those services it would be worthless, and nobody would buy it. Gaming is chasing that market only because the demands on gaming are greater, so they lag, but it's the same course.

Presumably, for the consoles to survive, they will have to accommodate all the different services on their platform that are bound to rise in the gaming world; however, that's mutually exclusive to the original concept of the consoles which were designed to control content delivery wholly. EA's Game Pass is an early success, and this is probably the most important reason that despite getting clobbered this generation, Microsoft is well-poised with their marriage of the Xbox to the open-source PC landscape to do better in the coming generation. Microsoft is open for business. This new technological landscape we're entering seems less friendly than ever before to those who resist open markets.

Because people aren't going to "buy" games, anymore. They aren't going to buy powerful local hardware, either. Not even a decade of that left. Those ways of doing things in entertainment is over. People will buy subscriptions, they'll buy Smart TVs. Netflix changed the world.

Great potential, but the problem for Google is that Stadia appears stillborn.

 

[Strychnine]

Did they shut It down?

With xCloud and Sony's game streaming I don't see why anyone would go for Stadia tbh. They have massive libraries already. Many of which are exclusive games.

Sony is even working WITH Microsoft on their streaming. iirc Sony uses Microsoft's streaming infrastructure

This^

 

[strebitel86]

It failed as hard as Google+.

 

[Swing]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-than-10-stadia-timed-exclusives-by-july-2020

Following Epic's lead, Google will be pursuing timed exclusives. LOL. Fuck off, Google.

 

[louiscyphere]

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-stadia-early-adopters-giving-up-2020-1

BREAKING NEWS!

Google drones struggle to cope with the fact that they fell for the marketing campaign.

stadia is shit....SHIT.

 

[JohnSAFTAHess]

I'd never buy a digital only system. If that was the only option I'd have I'd just start flea market and pawn shop shopping for old games even harder and upgrade the fuck out of my PC to cover my gaming needs.

The system seemed half baked and the technology not ready yet, from reviews I've checked out. I never thought it was a good idea, but was curious about how it launched.. seemingly very poorly.

 

[blaseblah]

Their greatest obstacle has been building a user base from almost nothing as they attempt to build enough revenue inertia to bridge in other Android/Chromecast devices. Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft are developing competing services that carry the bonus of allowing you to download the files locally, and they already have user bases that are over 45 million deep a piece. Ultimately, they're headed in the same direction, and are trying to figure out how to shrink the consoles so they don't have to bother selling them every several years, and can also encourage millions more to buy their device for a lower upfront cost. Future revenue is all about "services", and not just for phone companies.

So make no mistake. This is the future of gaming, and in fact is already becoming the present. We're all just waiting to see who delivers it first, and if that contest produces the incredibly rare emergence of a new power player in gaming. Discounting smartphones, the last time that happened was when Microsoft usurped Sega.

I'm just not sure that doing it first is as important to gamers as doing it best. Google released a shitty product that wasn't ready. I'm sure Sony and Microsoft will take their time.

Because people aren't going to "buy" games, anymore. They aren't going to buy powerful local hardware, either. Not even a decade of that left. Those ways of doing things in entertainment is over. People will buy subscriptions, they'll buy Smart TVs. Netflix changed the world.

Great potential, but the problem for Google is that Stadia appears stillborn.

Games havent caught up with movies and we are still pretty far from that. They also take up so much more data than movies do.

 

[Madmick]

I'm just not sure that doing it first is as important to gamers as doing it best. Google released a shitty product that wasn't ready. I'm sure Sony and Microsoft will take their time.

Sure. Microsoft specifically is miles ahead in terms of infrastructure and cloud technology, but Microsoft and Sony's endgame is weaker. Google was implementing a service that ultimately would be able to run whatever games they offered on nearly anything. Chromecasts are just the start. Phones, Smart TVs, Android boxes. Also, as much as I hate how much the the telecommunications industry is hyping 5G, because for 99.9% of the world's phone users it's stupid, Stadia might actually be the one and only consumer product that will utilize it. AAA gaming on the go via wireless broadband. Even the Switch doesn't do that.

Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft have a bit of ice skating uphill to do. If they try to reduce the cost of consoles as I predict, because I think it's logical, that doesn't mean console gamers will accept the monumental shift. Downsides will split the user base. Furthermore, even with a massively reduced cost, you're still just selling a game console with its proprietary OS that runs on nothing else (at least for now, and especially for Sony who doesn't enjoy the bridge to the PC gaming world).

Stadia show a vast advantage in potential on paper. Of course, Communism looks great on paper, too.

Games havent caught up with movies and we are still pretty far from that. They also take up so much more data than movies do.

That's precisely why I said it was charting the exact same course, but on a delay. Games certainly have caught up with movies in many ways. First, the majority of gaming shifted to internet-based usage. Next, the majority of purchases became digital, and downloaded. Furthermore, console gamers maintain subscriptions just to play online, and presently, the game streaming services are already rolling out.

YouTube was terrible for the first few years, too.

 

[blaseblah]

Sure. Microsoft specifically is miles ahead in terms of infrastructure and cloud technology, but Microsoft and Sony's endgame is weaker. Google was implementing a service that ultimately would be able to run whatever games they offered on nearly anything. Chromecasts are just the start. Phones, Smart TVs, Android boxes. Also, as much as I hate how much the the telecommunications industry is hyping 5G, because for 99.9% of the world's phone users it's stupid, Stadia might actually be the one and only consumer product that will utilize it. AAA gaming on the go via wireless broadband. Even the Switch doesn't do that.

Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft have a bit of ice skating uphill to do. If they try to reduce the cost of consoles as I predict, because I think it's logical, that doesn't mean console gamers will accept the monumental shift. Downsides will split the user base. Furthermore, even with a massively reduced cost, you're still just selling a game console with its proprietary OS that runs on nothing else (at least for now, and especially for Sony who doesn't enjoy the bridge to the PC gaming world).

Stadia show a vast advantage in potential on paper. Of course, Communism looks great on paper, too.

That's precisely why I said it was charting the exact same course, but on a delay. Games certainly have caught up with movies in many ways. First, the majority of gaming shifted to internet-based usage. Next, the majority of purchases became digital, and downloaded. Furthermore, console gamers maintain subscriptions just to play online, and presently, the game streaming services are already rolling out.

YouTube was terrible for the first few years, too.

YouTube was great for the first few years. There was nothing like it.

Stadia is currently offering a service for which there is a much better alternative. Is there currently a market for playing more expensive, lower quality games that you can't play offline? I dont believe so. The technology isn't there yet and the internet speed isn't there for most people.

Trying to play actual full games on phones is an awful experience. There's nothing around that problem. Candy Crush and Clash of Clans are going to continue to rule the smart phone market. I don't see on-the-go gaming going anywhere without a dedicated handheld device.

 

[Madmick]

YouTube was great for the first few years. There was nothing like it.

No, it wasn't. It was godawful, and the video quality was abysmal. There was virtually no content, either.

Stadia is currently offering a service for which there is a much better alternative. Is there currently a market for playing more expensive, lower quality games that you can't play offline? I dont believe so. The technology isn't there yet and the internet speed isn't there for most people.

Trying to play AAA on phones is an awful experience. There's nothing around that problem. Candy Crush and Clash of Clans are going to continue to rule the smart phone market.

The technology never gets there if companies just said, "Well, the technology isn't ready, yet." Google has an impressive plan, but their heart doesn't seem to be in it.

 

[blaseblah]

No, it wasn't. It was godawful, and the video quality was abysmal. There was virtually no content, either.

The video quality was awful but I have very fond memories of Numa Numa, the Star Wars kid, and all those other meme videos. Anyone who was around then does. That stuff is iconic and there was nothing like it at the time. Stadia isn't even cool now.

The technology never gets there if companies just said, "Well, the technology isn't ready, yet." Google has an impressive plan, but their heart doesn't seem to be in it.

It doesn't get there if you release a shitty product that isnt ready with no way to market it either. Google has had tons of good ideas that they have failed at implementing.

 

[Madmick]

The video quality was awful but I have very fond memories of Numa Numa, the Star Wars kid, and all those other meme videos. Anyone who was around then does. That stuff is iconic and there was nothing like it at the time. Stadia isn't even cool now.

It was garbage, and Netflix was still nonexistent in the digital space. This was 15 years ago. There were websites around like iFilm and AtomFilms that had been doing a similar thing for longer, and were much better at the time. Google won because their search engine & email services were juggernauts they used to steer people into YouTube, and because of the execution. The most significant difference here is that you have to pay something upfront. If you had to pay a subscription for YouTube back in the day it wouldn't have won.

It doesn't get there if you release a shitty product that isnt ready with no way to market it either. Google has had tons of good ideas that they have failed at implementing.

Yes. This is obviously Google's Achilles Heel. You're repeating both yourself and me.

 

[rob mafia]

madmick logic: brings up youtube, inexplicably. then states why youtube is irrelevant to this, himself.

 

[EndlessCritic]

Actually digital is taking over physical copies. What people have a problem is not actually owning the game and not having it installed in their hard drive in their console. They don’t want to pay to stream a game and not actually have it.
Streaming and digital copies are not the same.

How sure are you about what it is exactly that you "own" when you purchase a digital copy?

https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-recalls-and-embodies-orwells-1984/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...ng-itunes-movie-purchases-issue/#5775b43072b6

 

[7even]

How sure are you about what it is exactly that you "own" when you purchase a digital copy?

https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-recalls-and-embodies-orwells-1984/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...ng-itunes-movie-purchases-issue/#5775b43072b6

While that is fucked up, it’s good to have a dedicated hardrive for all your purchases to download. Hypothetically Speaking, a console with installed games can still be played after the apocalypse, If you can provide your own electricity, while a streaming device is just a box and nothing more without the internet. That’s is the gripe about paying a game to stream.

I remember before Xbox 1 launch. They actually wanted you to connect to the internet so they can GRANT YOU ACCESS to play the physical copy of a game that you OWN in your console or to play a digital copy of a game that you OWN fully installed in the hard drive. Microsoft couldn’t figure out why that would be a problem, lol.

 

[Madmick]

madmick logic: brings up youtube, inexplicably. then states why youtube is irrelevant to this, himself.

We all know who you are, so I'll talk slowly.

I cited Videos/Movies (of which YouTube is just one example) as a media industry that videogames are following in a technological paradigm shift which is revolutionizing the nature of how we consume them, and how it's easy to forget the imperfections of new technologies in their infancy. The quibble over whether YouTube and online video quality was "good" when it began (it objectively wasn't) is a sidebar. Stadia and YouTube aren't being directly analogized as services wholesale; nor is Netflix which is another example, but found the hook with the mail-in service first to build revenue.

Sometimes analogies are broken down into parts. This is about where videogames are headed as an industry. Stadia isn't likely to succeed, but just because it's bad now doesn't mean it won't be great, and doesn't mean that companies may idle instead of aggressively pursuing the profit potential. That's what matures the technology.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Google set a figure for subscribers in some room a year ago. They said, "If we get this many by this date, we'll keep pouring money into it, and pursuing it. If we don't, we'll let it languish, and revisit this idea later." It's looking like they didn't hit their target.

 

[rob mafia]

YouTube was terrible for the first few years, too.

If you had to pay a subscription for YouTube back in the day it wouldn't have won.

 

[Madmick]

That was me acknowledging the analogy was imperfect while still emphasizing that video streaming was terrible in its infancy, too, across the board, and yet one of those supposedly terrible services won.



I literally just explained this.

 

[rob mafia]

That was me acknowledging the analogy was imperfect while still emphasizing that video streaming was terrible in its infancy, too, across the board, and yet one of those supposedly terrible services won.



I literally just explained this.

you LITERALLY just explained my quip.

 

[Madmick]

you LITERALLY just explained my quip.

No, I explained how you failed the simple task of following the discussion. You didn't even comprehend why YouTube was mentioned: "inexplicably."

SMH.