4 ms·

I've seen this comment a few times now across HN and article comments. Can you say more about why you hold this opinion? It seems clear to me that Google decid

I've seen this comment a few times now across HN and article comments. Can you say more about why you hold this opinion? It seems clear to me that Google deciding not to focus on game development is showing a level of awareness we should want to see. In fact, by redirecting those resources they are directly investing in the platform instead of content for it that, let's be honest, probably would have flopped. I've been a happy Stadia Pro subscriber for about six months and in that time all I've heard from the community is "we want AAA, we want game x, y, and z" and with Google's decision, they're likely freeing resources to do just that.

yodon 6y ago
You need to put yourself in the shoes of the game developer, not the shoes of the consumer. As a game developer, you have a range of platforms you could potentially target, and because you run a business your decision of what platform(s) to target is a purely financial calculus. Each platform you target involves significant costs (including not just engineering but marketing, support, QA, etc.). As you make decisions about which platforms to target you are thinking both about how many copies can I sell per year at what price and what is the risk that platform ceases to exist before I recoup my porting costs. With new platforms, the later risk is statistically very high (not just re:Google) so you look closely for any signals you can find before going that route. A heavy investment in first party titles by the platform owner is traditionally one of the strongest signals of commitment to a platform. Without seeing that commitment, most professional game developers will conclude the risk of platform shutdown is too high to justify the costs. Unity3d is arguably the counter example, but at this point their market presence is strong enough to provide other signals to potential developers. Absent that strong first party commitment, most game developers will only port to a platform if they are paid to do so, and while Google almost certainly did that in the beginning the signals that they are continuing to do so are weak, again suggesting little reason to belief game sales will remain strong on the platform and little reason to believe the platform itself will remain alive.

yodon 6y ago

You need to put yourself in the shoes of the game developer, not the shoes of the consumer. As a game developer, you have a range of platforms you could potentially target, and because you run a business your decision of what platform(s) to target is a purely financial calculus. Each platform you target involves significant costs (including not just engineering but marketing, support, QA, etc.). As you make decisions about which platforms to target you are thinking both about how many copies can I sell per year at what price and what is the risk that platform ceases to exist before I recoup my porting costs. With new platforms, the later risk is statistically very high (not just re:Google) so you look closely for any signals you can find before going that route. A heavy investment in first party titles by the platform owner is traditionally one of the strongest signals of commitment to a platform. Without seeing that commitment, most professional game developers will conclude the risk of platform shutdown is too high to justify the costs. Unity3d is arguably the counter example, but at this point their market presence is strong enough to provide other signals to potential developers. Absent that strong first party commitment, most game developers will only port to a platform if they are paid to do so, and while Google almost certainly did that in the beginning the signals that they are continuing to do so are weak, again suggesting little reason to belief game sales will remain strong on the platform and little reason to believe the platform itself will remain alive.