4 ms·

> They are definitely committed to it. Google on Stadia: October 2019 - "It is a long term view that Google is taking" November 2020 - "roadmap of about 400

by mvdtnz 3y ago

> They are definitely committed to it. Google on Stadia: October 2019 - "It is a long term view that Google is taking" November 2020 - "roadmap of about 400 games in development right now from 200 developers [...] 2023 is really kind of where we’re aiming our sights" February 2021 - "building Stadia into a long-term, sustainable business [...] remain committed to Stadia as a platform" September 2021 - "gaming is an incredibly important vertical at Google" November 2021 - "eager to continue working on bringing the best games and new features to our community of players so that we can help build a bright future for cloud gaming" February 2022 - "we are still focused on bringing great games to Stadia in 2022 [...] more feature goodness coming to Stadia too - stuff we can’t talk about just yet" September 2022 - "You might have seen one last game arrive on Stadia today. It's a humble :heart: thanks :heart: for playing from our team." https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/30/23378757/google-stadia-commitments-shutdown-rumors https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/30/23378757/google-stadia-co... Bonus comment from Google regarding Inbox: "With respect to the upcoming Gmail announcement, there are no changes to Inbox by Gmail. It remains a great product for users with specific workflows and one in which we test innovative features for email."

Alupis 3y ago
It's not entirely a fair take, since nobody figured out how to make cloud gaming feasible. They have all given up, or are in the process of giving up.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  Huh? Microsoft and nVidia (and I think Sony? not sure) are continuing to run their cloud gaming services as we speak.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    The market is tiny (relatively) for all of these players. Motley Fool estimates the entire cloud gaming industry is ~$2.5B in total revenue for 2023. Many of the current services are likely running at a loss, hoping for the hype-train to get people into it. The reality is, most people wanting to play AAA titles either have a console, or a gaming computer already The cross-section of people with a 10 year old macbook, that want to play the latest AAA title, have expensive high-bandwidth internet, and are willing to pay ~$30+ a month is just not that large.
    - mvdtnz 3y ago
      I'm sorry what does any of this have to do with Google's lies with regards to their commitment to cloud gaming? All gaming platforms run at a loss in their early days. > The cross-section of people with a 10 year old macbook, that want to play the latest AAA title, have expensive high-bandwidth internet, and are willing to pay ~$30+ a month is just not that large. This is frankly an idiotic summary of what you believe to be the cloud gaming addressable market.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        > I'm sorry what does any of this have to do with Google's lies Google is not a charity. If something is not working out financially, or the market has failed to grow at the pace Google initially thought, it is in their best interest to exit that market and re-allocate resources. You know... like any rational business. > This is frankly an idiotic summary Well then perhaps you can enlighten us on why the market has failed to materialize? $2.5B for 4+ industry-heavyweights to fight over is pathetically small. The R&D costs alone to deliver this type of service likely outweigh several years of total industry revenue... yet each of these companies is trying to blaze their own path more-or-less independently. In short, there is no addressable market, and the numbers clearly tell us that. Do not be surprised when more of the players exit this market as well. Just because you love a service doesn't make it a reasonable or sustainable offering.
        mvdtnz 3y ago
        > If something is not working out financially, or the market has failed to grow at the pace Google initially thought, it is in their best interest to exit that market and re-allocate resources. Correct, Google can't be trusted to commit to a product long-term. Even a product with paying customers. > Well then perhaps you can enlighten us on why the market has failed to materialize? Because like I said, it's a young market. It has absolutely enormous upsides for those that can win it. > there is no addressable market This is laughable. You're a clown. > Just because you love a service None of the cloud gaming vendors have ever even offered the service in my country. I have no dog in this hunt.
- mattferderer 3y ago
  Didn't Microsoft just spend a year in court with their top VPs & CEO fighting against the UK & US governments over cloud gaming so that they could buy Activision for roughly $70 billion? I believe they had to make concessions with the UK to somewhat outsource the cloud gaming aspect of the deal so that it could go through. This was something they didn't seem to want to do but also forced them to extend their merger & pay additional dividends to shareholders of Activision.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    It may have been a component, but no, the fight was over Call of Duty becoming an Xbox Exclusive Title, instead of being generally available on all platforms, including Playstation.
- notyourwork 3y ago
  It is 100% fair because it supports a trend. Amazon didn’t have to continue support for a myriad of AWS products yet still do and maintain backwards compatibility.
danielmarkbruce 3y ago
Yup, hence the "Many things are actually experiments and shouldn't be marketed as more than that" and/or "random little things".
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  Google very clearly stated in no uncertain terms that Stadia was a real product that they were committed to for the long term. Stating, after the fact, that it was "actually" an "experiment" or a "random little thing" is not just dismissive - it's pure revisionist history.
  - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    What folks at google think and what they say publicly aren't the same thing. It's naive to think otherwise. Look to what actually makes sense for them to do and you'll have your answer. Internal folks knew google would walk away in a few years if it didn't work. Stadia was largely a group of people out of the failed and left behind Daydream (VR) project.
    - white_dragon88 3y ago
      "Internal folks" who gives a rats ass about what they think? A company's reputation has little to do with how people on the inside perceive it, its actions and track record do the talking. Stadia was a classic reason I couldn't trust GCP or any Google product aside from Gmail cause I've been using it so long, because unlike you I'm NOT in the know, I just see a bunch of stuff spun out, hyped (calling it 'little stuff' is a highly subjective assertion) and axed without warning. And I won't mention what an absolute mess the android development journey has been, a related symptom of a haphazard, disorganized product strategy. These things are uniquely Google, and it's a terrible look.
      - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
        Agree, nobody cares. But it was pointed out in response to a suggestion it's revisionist to say it was an experiment. It was correct (ie it was an experiment), albeit not understood by people who believe at face value what companies say. I haven't been in the know for years, but I learned enough - don't look at what they say, look at where the money is. It's the same for almost every company. Product strategy is a mess at most companies. The developer experience sucks for most products. Stripe built a multi-billion dollar business off of developer experience because the standard experience sucks so bad.

by mvdtnz 3y ago

Alupis 3y ago

It's not entirely a fair take, since nobody figured out how to make cloud gaming feasible. They have all given up, or are in the process of giving up.

mvdtnz 3y ago
Huh? Microsoft and nVidia (and I think Sony? not sure) are continuing to run their cloud gaming services as we speak.
- Alupis 3y ago
  The market is tiny (relatively) for all of these players. Motley Fool estimates the entire cloud gaming industry is ~$2.5B in total revenue for 2023. Many of the current services are likely running at a loss, hoping for the hype-train to get people into it. The reality is, most people wanting to play AAA titles either have a console, or a gaming computer already The cross-section of people with a 10 year old macbook, that want to play the latest AAA title, have expensive high-bandwidth internet, and are willing to pay ~$30+ a month is just not that large.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    I'm sorry what does any of this have to do with Google's lies with regards to their commitment to cloud gaming? All gaming platforms run at a loss in their early days. > The cross-section of people with a 10 year old macbook, that want to play the latest AAA title, have expensive high-bandwidth internet, and are willing to pay ~$30+ a month is just not that large. This is frankly an idiotic summary of what you believe to be the cloud gaming addressable market.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      > I'm sorry what does any of this have to do with Google's lies Google is not a charity. If something is not working out financially, or the market has failed to grow at the pace Google initially thought, it is in their best interest to exit that market and re-allocate resources. You know... like any rational business. > This is frankly an idiotic summary Well then perhaps you can enlighten us on why the market has failed to materialize? $2.5B for 4+ industry-heavyweights to fight over is pathetically small. The R&D costs alone to deliver this type of service likely outweigh several years of total industry revenue... yet each of these companies is trying to blaze their own path more-or-less independently. In short, there is no addressable market, and the numbers clearly tell us that. Do not be surprised when more of the players exit this market as well. Just because you love a service doesn't make it a reasonable or sustainable offering.
      - mvdtnz 3y ago
        > If something is not working out financially, or the market has failed to grow at the pace Google initially thought, it is in their best interest to exit that market and re-allocate resources. Correct, Google can't be trusted to commit to a product long-term. Even a product with paying customers. > Well then perhaps you can enlighten us on why the market has failed to materialize? Because like I said, it's a young market. It has absolutely enormous upsides for those that can win it. > there is no addressable market This is laughable. You're a clown. > Just because you love a service None of the cloud gaming vendors have ever even offered the service in my country. I have no dog in this hunt.
mattferderer 3y ago
Didn't Microsoft just spend a year in court with their top VPs & CEO fighting against the UK & US governments over cloud gaming so that they could buy Activision for roughly $70 billion? I believe they had to make concessions with the UK to somewhat outsource the cloud gaming aspect of the deal so that it could go through. This was something they didn't seem to want to do but also forced them to extend their merger & pay additional dividends to shareholders of Activision.
- Alupis 3y ago
  It may have been a component, but no, the fight was over Call of Duty becoming an Xbox Exclusive Title, instead of being generally available on all platforms, including Playstation.
notyourwork 3y ago
It is 100% fair because it supports a trend. Amazon didn’t have to continue support for a myriad of AWS products yet still do and maintain backwards compatibility.

danielmarkbruce 3y ago

Yup, hence the "Many things are actually experiments and shouldn't be marketed as more than that" and/or "random little things".

mvdtnz 3y ago
Google very clearly stated in no uncertain terms that Stadia was a real product that they were committed to for the long term. Stating, after the fact, that it was "actually" an "experiment" or a "random little thing" is not just dismissive - it's pure revisionist history.
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  What folks at google think and what they say publicly aren't the same thing. It's naive to think otherwise. Look to what actually makes sense for them to do and you'll have your answer. Internal folks knew google would walk away in a few years if it didn't work. Stadia was largely a group of people out of the failed and left behind Daydream (VR) project.
  - white_dragon88 3y ago
    "Internal folks" who gives a rats ass about what they think? A company's reputation has little to do with how people on the inside perceive it, its actions and track record do the talking. Stadia was a classic reason I couldn't trust GCP or any Google product aside from Gmail cause I've been using it so long, because unlike you I'm NOT in the know, I just see a bunch of stuff spun out, hyped (calling it 'little stuff' is a highly subjective assertion) and axed without warning. And I won't mention what an absolute mess the android development journey has been, a related symptom of a haphazard, disorganized product strategy. These things are uniquely Google, and it's a terrible look.
    - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
      Agree, nobody cares. But it was pointed out in response to a suggestion it's revisionist to say it was an experiment. It was correct (ie it was an experiment), albeit not understood by people who believe at face value what companies say. I haven't been in the know for years, but I learned enough - don't look at what they say, look at where the money is. It's the same for almost every company. Product strategy is a mess at most companies. The developer experience sucks for most products. Stripe built a multi-billion dollar business off of developer experience because the standard experience sucks so bad.