3 ms·

The point is that instant games are frictionless so having to create an account and buy the game adds enough of a barrier that clicking the link -> playing a ga

The point is that instant games are frictionless so having to create an account and buy the game adds enough of a barrier that clicking the link -> playing a game has a significant drop off in terms of people who will actually play the game. Stadia could do that but hasn't yet. A really strong demo for them would be to let you click a link and be playing a AAA game immediately. But as the article notes you have a scale problem immediately because you still need to run expensive hardware to support that.

sofixa 5y ago
> A really strong demo for them would be to let you click a link and be playing a AAA game immediately. That's what happens, as long as you have an account. Considering most games are paid, it's entirely reasonable to expect an account-type barrier to entry. From memory, at least some Flash game sites, which is apparently the baseline, required a login.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  Right but a demo is trying to convert people from not being a user into being a user. If you require an account to run the demo you are cutting A LOT of potential customers out of your acquisition funnel. You are in effect saying "become a user to see if you want to be a user". If you can only give that experience to people that have made an account AND bought a game that's even more you've just dropped on the floor. Whereas dropping someone right into the demo/game/product with no obligation shows them the value proposition immediately. This doesn't just apply to games, building a new programming language? Embed a web playground with your hello world example in the landing page!
- stale2002 5y ago
  > entirely reasonable to expect an account-type barrier to entry. Yes, we can expect there to be a barrier to entry. But that is what I would expect this to fail. I can both expect that stadia will have this significant barrier, and also think that it is going to be harmed significantly by it.
- larsiusprime 5y ago
  The successful ones (particularly Kongregate) didn't require a login, they let you play for free as an anonymous user, and then tried to incentivize you to login after the fact. Requiring it up front cuts out an enormous amount of users.

sofixa 5y ago

> A really strong demo for them would be to let you click a link and be playing a AAA game immediately. That's what happens, as long as you have an account. Considering most games are paid, it's entirely reasonable to expect an account-type barrier to entry. From memory, at least some Flash game sites, which is apparently the baseline, required a login.

meheleventyone 5y ago
Right but a demo is trying to convert people from not being a user into being a user. If you require an account to run the demo you are cutting A LOT of potential customers out of your acquisition funnel. You are in effect saying "become a user to see if you want to be a user". If you can only give that experience to people that have made an account AND bought a game that's even more you've just dropped on the floor. Whereas dropping someone right into the demo/game/product with no obligation shows them the value proposition immediately. This doesn't just apply to games, building a new programming language? Embed a web playground with your hello world example in the landing page!
stale2002 5y ago
> entirely reasonable to expect an account-type barrier to entry. Yes, we can expect there to be a barrier to entry. But that is what I would expect this to fail. I can both expect that stadia will have this significant barrier, and also think that it is going to be harmed significantly by it.
larsiusprime 5y ago
The successful ones (particularly Kongregate) didn't require a login, they let you play for free as an anonymous user, and then tried to incentivize you to login after the fact. Requiring it up front cuts out an enormous amount of users.