5 ms·

It really doesn't! The common responses you hear in these types of threads include "I didn't even try it; because I knew it would get killed." And of course, th

It really doesn't! The common responses you hear in these types of threads include "I didn't even try it; because I knew it would get killed." And of course, this results in lower turnout, and eventual death of the offering. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. So what's Google to even do? * They could burn money and keep the offering afloat to "prove" they are serious (seems to be the case with Stadia). * They can pivot/transition the offering (see Google Glass). * Or they can use new offerings for R&D (and in some cases, like that of Stadia, be paid for that R&D), and then fold that technology/data somewhere else (see Wave) - this seems like the path most taken. If we remember Google's core competencies, the revolving door of offerings as feeder into their larger services makes sense on paper, but I do agree that it's hurting consumer confidence and there is a hidden cost to that.

Sebb767 4y ago
What should the consumer to do? Donate their money and time to the service in the hope that this time will be different? (not to mention that Stadias pricing was pretty bad) So yes, it's Google's turn to show commitment and keep their services running. Plus, the possible loss with keeping Stadia up should also be weighted against this cementing their reputation.
- jfoster 4y ago
  Exactly this. How could Google even expect any of their services to be successful now, besides by attracting sufficiently gullible customers?
- wrayjustin 4y ago
  > So yes, it's Google's turn to show commitment and keep their services running. Plus, the possible loss with keeping Stadia up should also be weighted against this cementing their reputation. Agreed. The ball is in Google's court. Consumers should (and clearly do) cast a vote of "no confidence" with their wallet.
- prmoustache 4y ago
  > What should the consumer to do? Don't use cloud streaming services and purchase your copies if you don't believe in cloud streaming services. It is as simple as that.
Lutger 4y ago
Google seems to shut down services mostly on the basis of adoption being too low. For its scale, tens of millions of users could mean a failure. However, those services could be profitable, just at a smaller scale. They could keep them around and exploit them without too much investments. This is what other large companies do, they won't break the experience for their customers because they value them. Google has another approach.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  Maybe Google's problem is that as a company they are set up to run products of google-scale. They could start a subsidiary company that gets all of the "too small for google" products, keeping them alive build customer trust and maybe even turn a profit
  - baq 4y ago
    They can’t! Their monorepo, build system and internal deployment infrastructure makes it technically and legally very expensive, thus politically impossible. It’s so much easier to just shut down anything not making enough insert metric instead of spinning it off. Disclaimer: haven’t ever worked at Google, so just guessing
sascha_sl 4y ago
Selling games directly on Stadia might just be the wrong business model. Selling access to a machine on demand seems much more appealing. GeForce NOW, despite initial problems with publishers, will always leave you with the option of moving to a different service or building your own machine to run the games you own.
liaukovv 4y ago
They could offer something you can't get anywhere else that would force consumers to come. I mean game exclusives, not technology. In the end it's all about games
petesergeant 4y ago
> So what's Google to even do? Spin off non-core companies as soon as humanly possible with some investment and simply be a (majority) investor in them instead.
Aunche 4y ago
The problem is that Stadia isn't a scrappy startup. Google has over a hundred billion in cash, so this really just seems like a fun side-project for them. Microsoft spent $2.5 billion just to purchase a single game. I'd be surprised if Google spent even 10% of that on Stadia. Very few people are going to be interested in gaming on the cloud just to play some lightweight indie games. If Google paid the big bucks to get AAA Stadia exclusives, then more people would be interested and everyone would know that it's something that they're actually committed to.
kingaillas 4y ago
>So what's Google to even do? If they were serious about Stadia, Google should have worked to provide experiences only Stadia could allow. That was one tagline of SG&E before it was canned a mere 18 months in - clear failure on Google's part because you can't develop a game that fast. As for what could have gone differently - cut deals with smart TV manufacturers to include the Stadia app on the TV, making it easy for millions to try it out. Instead, the Stadia app wasn't even on the Chromecast initially. (OK, memory vague here but I remember having to fiddle around and after upgrading from the Chromecast that came with the Cyberpunk 2077 bundle to Google TV with Chromecast or whatever they were calling it, it was still a while before the Stadia app was there or left beta). I also thought Google should have done a sports game tie-in, or perhaps F1 racing, to essentially let viewers replay something they just watched. Kind of a live replay, where YOU control the offense/defense/car. Say you're watching a soccer match and team X scores. During a break, advertise Stadia's version of FIFA, click a button and replay the scoring play where you control one of the teams. Can you also score, or can you defend?? Yes this would be complicated licensing and software between TV ads, game maker, license holders, etc. but it would have showcased an advantage Stadia had over traditional consoles/pc gamers - immediacy, play right on your TV in response to something you just watched. Brady just score a touchdown - can you do it to, or play defense and stop it (pick up Stadia controller, click some buttons or whatever and get dropped into that scenario, ready to play)?? I think this would have had insane appeal among sports fans, building excitement, etc. But no, Stadia just crapped itself and cancelled their in-house studio and basically tread water for the rest of the time.
chaostheory 4y ago
They’re past the point of it being “hidden”. At this point Google cancel culture is a popular meme for consumers. That’s a major reason many people refuse to even try Stadia. Due to their history with consumer product cancellations, everyone just assumes a cancellation is around the corner. Other companies like Amazon and Sony are also no stranger to product cancellations. The major difference is that when Amazon or Sony cancels a product, they will refund early adopters the cost of the product. Google isn’t willing to do that.

Sebb767 4y ago

What should the consumer to do? Donate their money and time to the service in the hope that this time will be different? (not to mention that Stadias pricing was pretty bad) So yes, it's Google's turn to show commitment and keep their services running. Plus, the possible loss with keeping Stadia up should also be weighted against this cementing their reputation.

jfoster 4y ago
Exactly this. How could Google even expect any of their services to be successful now, besides by attracting sufficiently gullible customers?
wrayjustin 4y ago
> So yes, it's Google's turn to show commitment and keep their services running. Plus, the possible loss with keeping Stadia up should also be weighted against this cementing their reputation. Agreed. The ball is in Google's court. Consumers should (and clearly do) cast a vote of "no confidence" with their wallet.
prmoustache 4y ago
> What should the consumer to do? Don't use cloud streaming services and purchase your copies if you don't believe in cloud streaming services. It is as simple as that.

Lutger 4y ago

Google seems to shut down services mostly on the basis of adoption being too low. For its scale, tens of millions of users could mean a failure. However, those services could be profitable, just at a smaller scale. They could keep them around and exploit them without too much investments. This is what other large companies do, they won't break the experience for their customers because they value them. Google has another approach.

wongarsu 4y ago
Maybe Google's problem is that as a company they are set up to run products of google-scale. They could start a subsidiary company that gets all of the "too small for google" products, keeping them alive build customer trust and maybe even turn a profit
- baq 4y ago
  They can’t! Their monorepo, build system and internal deployment infrastructure makes it technically and legally very expensive, thus politically impossible. It’s so much easier to just shut down anything not making enough insert metric instead of spinning it off. Disclaimer: haven’t ever worked at Google, so just guessing

sascha_sl 4y ago

Selling games directly on Stadia might just be the wrong business model. Selling access to a machine on demand seems much more appealing. GeForce NOW, despite initial problems with publishers, will always leave you with the option of moving to a different service or building your own machine to run the games you own.

liaukovv 4y ago

They could offer something you can't get anywhere else that would force consumers to come. I mean game exclusives, not technology. In the end it's all about games

petesergeant 4y ago

> So what's Google to even do? Spin off non-core companies as soon as humanly possible with some investment and simply be a (majority) investor in them instead.

Aunche 4y ago

The problem is that Stadia isn't a scrappy startup. Google has over a hundred billion in cash, so this really just seems like a fun side-project for them. Microsoft spent $2.5 billion just to purchase a single game. I'd be surprised if Google spent even 10% of that on Stadia. Very few people are going to be interested in gaming on the cloud just to play some lightweight indie games. If Google paid the big bucks to get AAA Stadia exclusives, then more people would be interested and everyone would know that it's something that they're actually committed to.

kingaillas 4y ago

>So what's Google to even do? If they were serious about Stadia, Google should have worked to provide experiences only Stadia could allow. That was one tagline of SG&E before it was canned a mere 18 months in - clear failure on Google's part because you can't develop a game that fast. As for what could have gone differently - cut deals with smart TV manufacturers to include the Stadia app on the TV, making it easy for millions to try it out. Instead, the Stadia app wasn't even on the Chromecast initially. (OK, memory vague here but I remember having to fiddle around and after upgrading from the Chromecast that came with the Cyberpunk 2077 bundle to Google TV with Chromecast or whatever they were calling it, it was still a while before the Stadia app was there or left beta). I also thought Google should have done a sports game tie-in, or perhaps F1 racing, to essentially let viewers replay something they just watched. Kind of a live replay, where YOU control the offense/defense/car. Say you're watching a soccer match and team X scores. During a break, advertise Stadia's version of FIFA, click a button and replay the scoring play where you control one of the teams. Can you also score, or can you defend?? Yes this would be complicated licensing and software between TV ads, game maker, license holders, etc. but it would have showcased an advantage Stadia had over traditional consoles/pc gamers - immediacy, play right on your TV in response to something you just watched. Brady just score a touchdown - can you do it to, or play defense and stop it (pick up Stadia controller, click some buttons or whatever and get dropped into that scenario, ready to play)?? I think this would have had insane appeal among sports fans, building excitement, etc. But no, Stadia just crapped itself and cancelled their in-house studio and basically tread water for the rest of the time.

chaostheory 4y ago

They’re past the point of it being “hidden”. At this point Google cancel culture is a popular meme for consumers. That’s a major reason many people refuse to even try Stadia. Due to their history with consumer product cancellations, everyone just assumes a cancellation is around the corner. Other companies like Amazon and Sony are also no stranger to product cancellations. The major difference is that when Amazon or Sony cancels a product, they will refund early adopters the cost of the product. Google isn’t willing to do that.