5 ms·

There was recently an article about Stadia where a developer from a decent sized studio claimed they were approached by Google for Stadia. What did Google offer

There was recently an article about Stadia where a developer from a decent sized studio claimed they were approached by Google for Stadia. What did Google offer for the developer to bring the game to Stadia? Almost nothing. The figure was in the tens of thousands. For reference when Microsoft/Epic approaches the studios for games on their platforms they front the entire development cost. Sometimes millions of dollars. Google is just cheap and won’t invest in their own platform. Direct quote: "We were approached by the Stadia team," one prominent indie developer told me. "Usually with that kind of thing, they lead with some kind of offer that would give you an incentive to go with them." But the incentive "was kind of non-existent," they said. "That's the short of it." https://www.businessinsider.com/why-are-so-few-games-on-google-stadia-2020-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-are-so-few-games-on-goog...

Jare 6y ago
> when Microsoft/Epic approaches the studios for games on their platforms they front the entire development cost We once had a Microsoft rep come visit us to get us to publish our upcoming mobile games for Windows Mobile Tablet notreallysurewhatwasthatanymore. When we asked what kind of support they were ready to provide, they offered to lend us a device for a few weeks. Of course it's not representative of how things should happen, but for every big partnership or exclusive you read about, there's a dozen dumb wastes of time.
- lrae 6y ago
  Yeah, not sure where the idea comes from that Microsoft fronts like the entire development cost for ... for what even? As a publisher? Sure, maybe. For games coming to Game Pass? No. Same for the EGS, it's not like they front all those games. (Most exclusivity is bought way later in the process.) But the original comment is pretty much Windows Phone back then. To this day I have no idea why Microsoft was so cheap and didn't even try to get developers on their platform. Rip Lumias, some of you were some great devices.
  - wronglebowski 6y ago
    My point of reference here is from this twitter thread. https://twitter.com/RaveofRavendale/status/1309473405603909635?s=20 https://twitter.com/RaveofRavendale/status/13094734056039096... "With Nowhere Prophet, it was an interesting case because we were also launching on Xbox Game Pass at the same time, which had essentially already secured financial success for the console versions" Not exclusive, still got a significant chunk of cash.
    - lrae 6y ago
      Having the money to port a game to console is great, but usually not comparable to fronting the full development of a game. There might be a couple where Epic might have done that (kind of, I know they saved some games), but I don't think Microsoft funded any development for a gamepass game so far. (From a third party, not published by Microsoft.)
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Epic exclusives have generally been provided in the form of a revenue guarantee on projected sales, I believe. Essentially, they're not paying much of anything if the game is successful and profitable on it's own, but if it tanks, the developers still get paid as if it did not. For an indie developer, this basically means worrying about whether the game will succeed a non-issue prior to launch.
  - stordoff 6y ago
    > How do you pay out developers? I’m a developer, I make a game, I say I’m going to put it in Game Pass, a customer pays [you] $14.99 a month. How do you decide how much to pay me, the developer? > [Phil Spencer, head of Xbox:] [In] certain cases, we’ll pay for the full production cost of the game. Then they get all the retail opportunity on top of Game Pass. They can go sell it on PlayStation, on Steam, and on Xbox, and on Switch. For them, they’ve protected themselves from any downside risk. https://www.theverge.com/21611412/microsoft-phil-spencer-interview-xbox-series-x-launch-decoder-podcast https://www.theverge.com/21611412/microsoft-phil-spencer-int...
- HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
  OK, but... was that the end of the discussion? Was there, you know, pushback like "we want 10 devices each of the two most popular sizes, and exclusivity for xxx months, and, and..." Or did everything just fizzle out after "well, we'll lend you the unit I have in the back of my car?"
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  As an independent person without a company, Microsoft gave me a free Windows Phone just for expressing interest in developing an app for it. These sorts of developer incentives kinda come and go, depending on the platform and how much they're investing in it.
  - lozaning 6y ago
    When I was in college, you could show up to their 'Make an app day' and as long you successfully uploaded your own version of their slot machine app you'd be entered into a drawing for a bunch of really nice hardware. Microsoft was terrible at promoting these events, so everytime I went there where more prizes than people.
rodgerd 6y ago
Its remarkable to contrast with, say, GamePass; while there's not a lot of disclosure around what that entails precisely, a few small developers have suggested it pretty much floats their studio financially (and doesn't require a re-write, as Stadia does). From a customer perspective, it gets the game on streaming, Xbox, and Windows PC.
madrox 6y ago
Having been approached by Google for these kinds of projects, I 100% believe this. I was leading a team approached by them to do something similar for Google Glass. There was no real incentive there except the privilege of being an early glass partner. The entire process of working with them was a nightmare and we decided to bow out. I'm short on any attempt Google makes at being a media company.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  Just to add general interest info to this strain of the conversation: I had to work with Apple in ensuring content for the launch of News+ in Canada after they bought out Next Issue/Texture, and they were very involved and the incentives were substantial. It makes a real-world difference, there's no doubt about it. Hell, this is why governments issue arts funding. The return has virtually limitless potential in more than just the financial aspects. But it does take commitment, perseverance, and often, patience.
  - canada_dry 6y ago
    > commitment, perseverance, and often, patience Despite these being crucial attributes to being a good developer, it's shocking how few (people and tech organizations) exhibit them.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      Namely, Google.
- krick 6y ago
  I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not. On one hand, it kind of fits my mental image of Google perfectly, I don't know why. On the other: doesn't Google have a shitload of money and doesn't Google burn it so often by starting hundreds of projects it just kills after a couple of years of development?
  - sgift 6y ago
aeturnum 6y ago
Given Goog's history on this, I read this announcement as them soft-killing Stadia. They aren't going to admit defeat, but unless they put real resources behind paying people to use it, they aren't going to see any use of it as an API and are effectively mothballing it.
- Reason077 6y ago
  I hope not. The Stadia platform is fantastic: the best streaming user experience out there. It’s just that much of the Stadia Pro content is mediocre, and the paid titles tend to be expensive. (Compare to GeForce Now with it’s awkward, clunky UX but near-unlimited library of content via Steam)
  - aeturnum 6y ago
    Yah...I just don't see that developers have much incentive to use Stadia? Like, you can't rely on an established 'Stadia playerbase' right now, so there's no natural incentive for studios to integrate with it. Other platform owners solve this by paying for exclusivity or something, but as mentioned above, reports say that Google wants to pay insultingly small sums of money for that work. Unless that changes...no one is gonna use it.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  The article says that they’re reassigning 150 people who worked on internal games. If they were betting the future of the platform on the number and quality of games that can be turned out by 150 people, then this never made any sense. Major game studios are hundreds or thousands of people, so this is just Google admitting that nobody in-house can come up with any good games. I don’t think it says much about the future of the platform one way or another.
  - CaptainZapp 6y ago
    I'm not sure that I would invest significant cash to buy games for a platform, which may be killed on a whim. That's apart from all its other disadvantages, namely a lack of choice. > I don’t think it says much about the future of the platform one way or another. We probably disagree here, but to me that's an ear piercing yell about the confidence Google puts into Stadia and its future.
hnburnsy 6y ago
Thanks, from that same article proof that the Google Graveyard is hurting Google... >This concern — that Google might just give up on Stadia at some point and kill the service, as it has done with so many other services over the years — was repeatedly brought up, unprompted, by every person we spoke with for this piece.
BoorishBears 6y ago
> For reference when Microsoft/Epic approaches the studios for games on their platforms they front the entire development cost. This is so painfully misleading. You're either describing situations where Microsoft or Epic have become the publisher for the game, or you're describing situations where extremely large titles are paid to exclusively release on a platform where they will then recoup costs from as the sales have to go through their platform.
ehsankia 6y ago
1. What's the effort required for the port? If a game already has Linux support, it basically is compatible with Stadia, whereas if you have to port it to Xbox, that requires a lot more time and resources. 2. Was the offer to be a timed exclusive like with Epic, or just to add integration for Stadia? I would assume the offers money to be very different depending on that. 3. Are we comparing similarly sized games? "one prominent indie developer" is kinda vague. Again not sure how comparable it is with Epic/Microsoft deals.

Jare 6y ago

> when Microsoft/Epic approaches the studios for games on their platforms they front the entire development cost We once had a Microsoft rep come visit us to get us to publish our upcoming mobile games for Windows Mobile Tablet notreallysurewhatwasthatanymore. When we asked what kind of support they were ready to provide, they offered to lend us a device for a few weeks. Of course it's not representative of how things should happen, but for every big partnership or exclusive you read about, there's a dozen dumb wastes of time.

lrae 6y ago
Yeah, not sure where the idea comes from that Microsoft fronts like the entire development cost for ... for what even? As a publisher? Sure, maybe. For games coming to Game Pass? No. Same for the EGS, it's not like they front all those games. (Most exclusivity is bought way later in the process.) But the original comment is pretty much Windows Phone back then. To this day I have no idea why Microsoft was so cheap and didn't even try to get developers on their platform. Rip Lumias, some of you were some great devices.
- wronglebowski 6y ago
  My point of reference here is from this twitter thread. https://twitter.com/RaveofRavendale/status/1309473405603909635?s=20 https://twitter.com/RaveofRavendale/status/13094734056039096... "With Nowhere Prophet, it was an interesting case because we were also launching on Xbox Game Pass at the same time, which had essentially already secured financial success for the console versions" Not exclusive, still got a significant chunk of cash.
  - lrae 6y ago
    Having the money to port a game to console is great, but usually not comparable to fronting the full development of a game. There might be a couple where Epic might have done that (kind of, I know they saved some games), but I don't think Microsoft funded any development for a gamepass game so far. (From a third party, not published by Microsoft.)
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Epic exclusives have generally been provided in the form of a revenue guarantee on projected sales, I believe. Essentially, they're not paying much of anything if the game is successful and profitable on it's own, but if it tanks, the developers still get paid as if it did not. For an indie developer, this basically means worrying about whether the game will succeed a non-issue prior to launch.
- stordoff 6y ago
  > How do you pay out developers? I’m a developer, I make a game, I say I’m going to put it in Game Pass, a customer pays [you] $14.99 a month. How do you decide how much to pay me, the developer? > [Phil Spencer, head of Xbox:] [In] certain cases, we’ll pay for the full production cost of the game. Then they get all the retail opportunity on top of Game Pass. They can go sell it on PlayStation, on Steam, and on Xbox, and on Switch. For them, they’ve protected themselves from any downside risk. https://www.theverge.com/21611412/microsoft-phil-spencer-interview-xbox-series-x-launch-decoder-podcast https://www.theverge.com/21611412/microsoft-phil-spencer-int...
HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
OK, but... was that the end of the discussion? Was there, you know, pushback like "we want 10 devices each of the two most popular sizes, and exclusivity for xxx months, and, and..." Or did everything just fizzle out after "well, we'll lend you the unit I have in the back of my car?"
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
As an independent person without a company, Microsoft gave me a free Windows Phone just for expressing interest in developing an app for it. These sorts of developer incentives kinda come and go, depending on the platform and how much they're investing in it.
- lozaning 6y ago
  When I was in college, you could show up to their 'Make an app day' and as long you successfully uploaded your own version of their slot machine app you'd be entered into a drawing for a bunch of really nice hardware. Microsoft was terrible at promoting these events, so everytime I went there where more prizes than people.

rodgerd 6y ago

Its remarkable to contrast with, say, GamePass; while there's not a lot of disclosure around what that entails precisely, a few small developers have suggested it pretty much floats their studio financially (and doesn't require a re-write, as Stadia does). From a customer perspective, it gets the game on streaming, Xbox, and Windows PC.

madrox 6y ago

Having been approached by Google for these kinds of projects, I 100% believe this. I was leading a team approached by them to do something similar for Google Glass. There was no real incentive there except the privilege of being an early glass partner. The entire process of working with them was a nightmare and we decided to bow out. I'm short on any attempt Google makes at being a media company.

52-6F-62 6y ago
Just to add general interest info to this strain of the conversation: I had to work with Apple in ensuring content for the launch of News+ in Canada after they bought out Next Issue/Texture, and they were very involved and the incentives were substantial. It makes a real-world difference, there's no doubt about it. Hell, this is why governments issue arts funding. The return has virtually limitless potential in more than just the financial aspects. But it does take commitment, perseverance, and often, patience.
- canada_dry 6y ago
  > commitment, perseverance, and often, patience Despite these being crucial attributes to being a good developer, it's shocking how few (people and tech organizations) exhibit them.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Namely, Google.
krick 6y ago
I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not. On one hand, it kind of fits my mental image of Google perfectly, I don't know why. On the other: doesn't Google have a shitload of money and doesn't Google burn it so often by starting hundreds of projects it just kills after a couple of years of development?
- sgift 6y ago

aeturnum 6y ago

Given Goog's history on this, I read this announcement as them soft-killing Stadia. They aren't going to admit defeat, but unless they put real resources behind paying people to use it, they aren't going to see any use of it as an API and are effectively mothballing it.

Reason077 6y ago
I hope not. The Stadia platform is fantastic: the best streaming user experience out there. It’s just that much of the Stadia Pro content is mediocre, and the paid titles tend to be expensive. (Compare to GeForce Now with it’s awkward, clunky UX but near-unlimited library of content via Steam)
- aeturnum 6y ago
  Yah...I just don't see that developers have much incentive to use Stadia? Like, you can't rely on an established 'Stadia playerbase' right now, so there's no natural incentive for studios to integrate with it. Other platform owners solve this by paying for exclusivity or something, but as mentioned above, reports say that Google wants to pay insultingly small sums of money for that work. Unless that changes...no one is gonna use it.
dodobirdlord 6y ago
The article says that they’re reassigning 150 people who worked on internal games. If they were betting the future of the platform on the number and quality of games that can be turned out by 150 people, then this never made any sense. Major game studios are hundreds or thousands of people, so this is just Google admitting that nobody in-house can come up with any good games. I don’t think it says much about the future of the platform one way or another.
- CaptainZapp 6y ago
  I'm not sure that I would invest significant cash to buy games for a platform, which may be killed on a whim. That's apart from all its other disadvantages, namely a lack of choice. > I don’t think it says much about the future of the platform one way or another. We probably disagree here, but to me that's an ear piercing yell about the confidence Google puts into Stadia and its future.

hnburnsy 6y ago

Thanks, from that same article proof that the Google Graveyard is hurting Google... >This concern — that Google might just give up on Stadia at some point and kill the service, as it has done with so many other services over the years — was repeatedly brought up, unprompted, by every person we spoke with for this piece.

BoorishBears 6y ago

> For reference when Microsoft/Epic approaches the studios for games on their platforms they front the entire development cost. This is so painfully misleading. You're either describing situations where Microsoft or Epic have become the publisher for the game, or you're describing situations where extremely large titles are paid to exclusively release on a platform where they will then recoup costs from as the sales have to go through their platform.

ehsankia 6y ago

1. What's the effort required for the port? If a game already has Linux support, it basically is compatible with Stadia, whereas if you have to port it to Xbox, that requires a lot more time and resources. 2. Was the offer to be a timed exclusive like with Epic, or just to add integration for Stadia? I would assume the offers money to be very different depending on that. 3. Are we comparing similarly sized games? "one prominent indie developer" is kinda vague. Again not sure how comparable it is with Epic/Microsoft deals.