4 ms·
To be fair, Epic's approach doesn't require many resources other than just money. Hell, for the longest time their store literally did not have even a "search"
by ehsankia 7y ago
To be fair, Epic's approach doesn't require many resources other than just money. Hell, for the longest time their store literally did not have even a "search" function, and I'm pretty sure it still doesn't even have a shopping cart. Software development takes time, but they mostly bypassed that and went straight into giving out free games. The games themselves already exist for PC, Epic didn't need to do much there.
The case of Stadia is wildly different, because it requires a lot more engineering, both from Google and the developers. They also need a lot more resources per user, as each active user basically has their own dedicated cloud instance running the game. Scaling that up and giving that out for free isn't as trivial, even if money wasn't an issue.
So I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison here. We'll see what the demo looks like once Stadia actually releases it, what we have so far is really more of an early access to test out the infrastructure.
- meheleventyone 7y agoNo wonder they’re having a hard time finding games then! A lower margin platform, with less customers and that requires significant engineering work is not at all attractive. It also shows a lack of understanding about the games industry.
- Mindwipe 7y ago> To be fair, Epic's approach doesn't require many resources other than just money. People massively underestimate the business affairs aspect of getting people to come onto your platform. It requires really good people, and a lot of them. Google seem to have made the same mistake.