7 ms·

I like NVidia's model. Basically its bring your own game to their cloud hardware, but they integrate Steam, Epic store and one or two other distributors really

I like NVidia's model. Basically its bring your own game to their cloud hardware, but they integrate Steam, Epic store and one or two other distributors really well so that it is easy for someone to move to their platform rather than replace an aging gaming PC. I'm not sure who Stadia is for or how it competes with that and PS Now, which has a ton of popular games as well as Playstation exclusives (more of a rental model like Stadia's).

pkage 6y ago
I signed up for GeForce Now, and truly the killer feature is bringing the games you already own. On Stadia, you have to buy the games separately on top of the streaming subscription, and Luna (Amazon's offering) is similar in that you can sign up for game "channels" (iirc). With GeForce Now, you can just play the stuff you already own without sinking money into games that play on a platform that might not even exist in a few years. I bet in another year or so Stadia will shut down and all those games that you paid for on the platform will disappear.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  Stadia supports the UBISoft+ channel just as Luna does. It's in beta now.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Nvidia and Luna both took the shortcut of just running a windows VM and running the game as is. Stadia is the only one that actually requires games to integrate with its API, similar to Steam with Steamworks, and this allows them to provide a far more integrated experience, with friend lists, friend invites, voice chat, achievements, and so on. None of the other services can provide that. Well GFN does but that's just running Steam. In the short term it will slow down adoption, but in the long term the experience is night and day, imo. Being thrown into a VM instance where you have to login to Steam is nothing like pressing one button and being thrown right into a game. Also, yes if you already have a huge Steam collection, the thought of buying games on a different store is not great, but I don't think Stadia is aimed at people with a PC gaming rig and 1000 steam games, it's aimed at people who don't have a gaming PC or console, and want to play the latest EA Sports or AAA game. Having to just pay 60$ is far better than paying 60$ + 500$ fo a console + waiting for shipping and installation.
  - akhilcacharya 6y ago
    >Nvidia and Luna both took the shortcut of just running a windows VM and running the game as is The customer value add of anything on top of that is proving to be extremely thin. I used Now extensively in 2017, Luna extensively this year and Stadia briefly for Destiny 2 - Luna's experience isn't worse enough to provide any benefit to the Stadia lock-in model. Stadia PM's should really consider focusing more on "Customer Obsession".
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      In the short term maybe, in the long term, having achievements, voice chat, friends and invites may be good. I personally don't play games on Epic because I like having achievements and stats tracking for example. I'm not sure what the multiplayer experience on Luna is, can you invite people to play coop games? Voice chat with them?
      - akhilcacharya 6y ago
        Voice chat is unnecessary to me and many folks, we use Discord or Skype. Local co-op is a thing in Luna, but I'm not sure about online multiplayer. But in GeForce Now I just used Steam and it worked flawlessly.
- drusepth 6y ago
  >On Stadia, you have to buy the games separately on top of the streaming subscription FWIW, the subscription is optional (with these perks [1]). You can also just buy the game you want to play and play it, no subscription needed. [1] https://support.google.com/stadia/answer/9798345?hl=en https://support.google.com/stadia/answer/9798345?hl=en
enos_feedler 6y ago
The NVidia model sounds like more hassle than it's worth. Might as well continue buying PCs. If you could afford them before you can probably still afford them. Latency will be lower and experience will be better (no waiting in a queue). The benefit of Stadia is actually it's simplicity. It's about bringing in new gamers who may have come from console world, but don't have the Steam libraries, etc. I wrote this in another post, but I think Stadia right now is for the game console user who only play 1 or 2 games. This makes for a lot of extra hardware and subscriptions just to play a game you like. Why not just rent the game as a service for as long as you want to play it? When hockey season starts every year I buy the new NHL for $60. Thats $5/mo. Why should i also buy PLaystation plus, and a hardware console just to play the game? it takes 10 minutes from turining on the tv, navigating the menus, getting into the game, finding someone to play online, etc. Chatting with people is really bad UX. Google can make all of this slicker. But the value prop needs to focus on the job at hand: playing a _specific_ game which happens to be your favorite game you play mostly. Thinking of it as some kind of a gaming platform is not the way.
- oivey 6y ago
  I’m unsure how Nvidia’s approach is worse. On GeForce now you can play games from Steam or Epic, right? Isn’t Stadia the same except you are locked into only Google’s store? That’s pretty significantly worse.
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    I'll repeat what I said: "the value prop needs to focus on the job at hand: playing a _specific_ game which happens to be your favorite game you play mostly. Thinking of it as some kind of a gaming platform is not the way." By considering Steam and Epic, you are already looking at this from the perspective of a platform. I am simply saying Stadia is better if the game you love is already there. NFL Madden is the latest Stadia promo right now. If most of your gaming time is consumed playing Madden, Stadia is probably the way to pay for it.
    - oivey 6y ago
kllrnohj 6y ago
nvidia's model is also the least likely to withstand the test of time. Once you have to pay enough for nvidia to break even much less make a profit, everyone is going to bail. At least with xcloud & stadia's approach there's both subscription fees (passive income if people don't play), as well as the 30% store cut to offset some of the cost. Although none of these are remotely close to being priced at break-even prices, so this is also likely going to end up with even more IAP-based games on these platforms if this ever "takes off" at all. Which, yuck. This is obviously a bait & switch strategy for everyone involved. Just dressed up as "subsidized during user acquisition" instead so they can feel less evil about it.

pkage 6y ago

I signed up for GeForce Now, and truly the killer feature is bringing the games you already own. On Stadia, you have to buy the games separately on top of the streaming subscription, and Luna (Amazon's offering) is similar in that you can sign up for game "channels" (iirc). With GeForce Now, you can just play the stuff you already own without sinking money into games that play on a platform that might not even exist in a few years. I bet in another year or so Stadia will shut down and all those games that you paid for on the platform will disappear.

enos_feedler 6y ago
Stadia supports the UBISoft+ channel just as Luna does. It's in beta now.
ehsankia 6y ago
Nvidia and Luna both took the shortcut of just running a windows VM and running the game as is. Stadia is the only one that actually requires games to integrate with its API, similar to Steam with Steamworks, and this allows them to provide a far more integrated experience, with friend lists, friend invites, voice chat, achievements, and so on. None of the other services can provide that. Well GFN does but that's just running Steam. In the short term it will slow down adoption, but in the long term the experience is night and day, imo. Being thrown into a VM instance where you have to login to Steam is nothing like pressing one button and being thrown right into a game. Also, yes if you already have a huge Steam collection, the thought of buying games on a different store is not great, but I don't think Stadia is aimed at people with a PC gaming rig and 1000 steam games, it's aimed at people who don't have a gaming PC or console, and want to play the latest EA Sports or AAA game. Having to just pay 60$ is far better than paying 60$ + 500$ fo a console + waiting for shipping and installation.
- akhilcacharya 6y ago
  >Nvidia and Luna both took the shortcut of just running a windows VM and running the game as is The customer value add of anything on top of that is proving to be extremely thin. I used Now extensively in 2017, Luna extensively this year and Stadia briefly for Destiny 2 - Luna's experience isn't worse enough to provide any benefit to the Stadia lock-in model. Stadia PM's should really consider focusing more on "Customer Obsession".
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    In the short term maybe, in the long term, having achievements, voice chat, friends and invites may be good. I personally don't play games on Epic because I like having achievements and stats tracking for example. I'm not sure what the multiplayer experience on Luna is, can you invite people to play coop games? Voice chat with them?
    - akhilcacharya 6y ago
      Voice chat is unnecessary to me and many folks, we use Discord or Skype. Local co-op is a thing in Luna, but I'm not sure about online multiplayer. But in GeForce Now I just used Steam and it worked flawlessly.
drusepth 6y ago
>On Stadia, you have to buy the games separately on top of the streaming subscription FWIW, the subscription is optional (with these perks [1]). You can also just buy the game you want to play and play it, no subscription needed. [1] https://support.google.com/stadia/answer/9798345?hl=en https://support.google.com/stadia/answer/9798345?hl=en

enos_feedler 6y ago

The NVidia model sounds like more hassle than it's worth. Might as well continue buying PCs. If you could afford them before you can probably still afford them. Latency will be lower and experience will be better (no waiting in a queue). The benefit of Stadia is actually it's simplicity. It's about bringing in new gamers who may have come from console world, but don't have the Steam libraries, etc. I wrote this in another post, but I think Stadia right now is for the game console user who only play 1 or 2 games. This makes for a lot of extra hardware and subscriptions just to play a game you like. Why not just rent the game as a service for as long as you want to play it? When hockey season starts every year I buy the new NHL for $60. Thats $5/mo. Why should i also buy PLaystation plus, and a hardware console just to play the game? it takes 10 minutes from turining on the tv, navigating the menus, getting into the game, finding someone to play online, etc. Chatting with people is really bad UX. Google can make all of this slicker. But the value prop needs to focus on the job at hand: playing a _specific_ game which happens to be your favorite game you play mostly. Thinking of it as some kind of a gaming platform is not the way.

oivey 6y ago
I’m unsure how Nvidia’s approach is worse. On GeForce now you can play games from Steam or Epic, right? Isn’t Stadia the same except you are locked into only Google’s store? That’s pretty significantly worse.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  I'll repeat what I said: "the value prop needs to focus on the job at hand: playing a _specific_ game which happens to be your favorite game you play mostly. Thinking of it as some kind of a gaming platform is not the way." By considering Steam and Epic, you are already looking at this from the perspective of a platform. I am simply saying Stadia is better if the game you love is already there. NFL Madden is the latest Stadia promo right now. If most of your gaming time is consumed playing Madden, Stadia is probably the way to pay for it.
  - oivey 6y ago

kllrnohj 6y ago

nvidia's model is also the least likely to withstand the test of time. Once you have to pay enough for nvidia to break even much less make a profit, everyone is going to bail. At least with xcloud & stadia's approach there's both subscription fees (passive income if people don't play), as well as the 30% store cut to offset some of the cost. Although none of these are remotely close to being priced at break-even prices, so this is also likely going to end up with even more IAP-based games on these platforms if this ever "takes off" at all. Which, yuck. This is obviously a bait & switch strategy for everyone involved. Just dressed up as "subsidized during user acquisition" instead so they can feel less evil about it.