6 ms·

Disclosure: work at google, not on stadia Not just marketing but greater business strategy. I knew it was over when you still had to pay for the games would no

• toast0 5y ago
  You have to pay for the games and you can't take them with you and we know Google will shut this down eventually. It would be different if you could use your existing licenses, or even if you could buy on Stadia and play on something else too. License management isn't sexy, but it's the most important thing behind somehow getting my DSL connection to not have more than one frame of latency to start with.
  • akmarinov 5y ago
    There’s GeForce Now, where you still pay for the games but can take them with you (Steam) and it’s not like that’s super prosperous.
    • strogonoff 5y ago
      I heard people have to queue for a while in order to be able to play GeForce Now. The demand is very much exceeding the supply here.
      • akmarinov 5y ago
        For the free tier - yeah. The paid tier is way better on that front.
        • strogonoff 5y ago
          I saw numerous posts from paying (or so they claim) GeForce Now users being annoyed at having to queue.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    • dougmwne 5y ago
      I subscribe to Geforce Now. The tech works well but the business model is a bit niche. I pay a subscriber fee but still have to buy the games. If I already had a large game library then it's because I already had a computer that could play them. If I buy new games that my computer can't run then I will lose access to them once I stop my subscription. Not every game on my steam library is supported, in fact the library is missing a lot of the major publishers besides EA. As a business model I'd much rather have an all you can eat Netflix model like Xbox Game Pass (decent library, bad streaming tech) or a cloud gaming PC that I could install and run anything (Like Shadow but not bankrupt). Stadia had the worse business model of them all. Special hardware costs, subscription fee, pay for games at prices higher than retail, a tiny library, and know your licenses will be lost once Google inevitably shuts down the service.
    • defaultname 5y ago
      nvidia recently doubled the price[1] and have basically done zero marketing for it. They seem to be as prosperous as they want to be. When publishers tried to extort GFN, nvidia just shrugged and kept going (and have been adding dozens of games weekly). [1] - Existing "founders" can keep their current price, under the caveat that apparently if a single billing detail changes the price goes to the current market price, presumably to avoid account transfers or sales.
    • Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago
      I would use geforce now, but for some insane reason, a lot of games got removed from there. My laptop doesn't handle monster hunter well (my desktop does), i wanted to play with my wife, but the game was pulled out. This make it challenging: I have a steam library, but I can't trust what I can and cannot play. In the end it's easier to buy another desktop. Well, unless crypto fucks up the chip world. Sigh.
      • number6 5y ago
        At least I can keep the games. For me it's an alternative for a windows gaming PC.
      • fragileone 5y ago
        Publishers removed their games because they want the platform to pay them to have their games on there eg Rockstar, Bethesda, EA, etc. It's disgusting since it's depriving the end-user who has already paid for their games to play on the hardware of their choice, all because they want to double-dip.
        • lightgreen 5y ago
          Perhaps gamers should stop bending to game developers and platforms until they make the game available on their favorite platform. That’s exactly what I do: I picked a platform, and only play games available on it. Game developers and platforms refusing to publish a game on that platform are loosing my money.
    • fragileone 5y ago
      I pay for GFN because my main device is Linux, so if a game can't be run locally via Wine/Proton I can just play it on the cloud. My existing games library is decent so it makes far more sense to play my Steam games here than pay for a different subscription.
• dougmwne 5y ago
  As a consumer, I personally knew it was over when Google released the new Chromecast without Stadia support. They could have had an opportunity to shave a few more milliseconds off the lag with a bespoke device that paired with the Stadia controller for "The best streaming experience on any platform!" Instead they don't even support their own services. What a completly sad and broken company.
  • enos_feedler 5y ago
    If you are referring to Google TV chromecast, Stadia support is known to be coming in H1 this year. Stadia is a long gane play. Support is not urgent
    • birdyrooster 5y ago
      This is Google we are talking about. The company that does “moon shots” that are 20 years away but sells them off a few years later. They can’t focus on anything long term that doesn’t feed AdSense to the degree YouTube, Search, Maps and Gmail do. Stadia isn’t doing that and it will be gone in a couple years.
      • enos_feedler 5y ago
        Have you even read a Google earnings report in the last couple years? Or listened to an earnings call? Your failure to mention Google Cloud just shows how aging your perspective of the company is.
        • birdyrooster 5y ago
          Totally forgot to mention GCP. I meant to get into GCP in this thread with regard to how it's part of Google's pathology. They have a hammer and everything looks like a nail ala Stadia even when the industry is pushing compute for experiences to the edge, Google is always looking to centralize.
        • birdyrooster 5y ago
• enos_feedler 5y ago
  Knew it was over? Double knew it was over? It ain’t over. The disruption is in the distribution (no consoles) not business model. Netflix of gaming won’t work. At best we will subscribe to studio channels ex) Ubisoft+