5 ms·

Stadia was wild. I got the Cyberpunk 2077 bundle which came with the game, controller and a chrome cast. Gaming with a little HDMI WIFI puck and a WIFI contro

Stadia was wild. I got the Cyberpunk 2077 bundle which came with the game, controller and a chrome cast. Gaming with a little HDMI WIFI puck and a WIFI controller felt very “cyberpunk” itself. Like buying some new tech to hack into the mainframe. The Stadia version of Cyberpunk 2077 was basically the PC version which was far less glitchy than consoles. Years later they issued a full refund for the bundle and unlocked the controller. The controller upgrade process was something I never imagined a browser could do. Thank you OP for reverse engineering and preserving things! And thank you Google for pushing the cutting edge. Crazy to think how much went into Stadia only to be abandoned.

kccqzy 3y ago
As always, there was (and still is) so much technological marvel inside Google and so many highly talented people working inside Google that I felt sorry that these marvel never gets to see the light of day and efforts by these folks ultimately wasted by inept management and terrible marketing. Years ago Google was the coolest place to work at because of the tech and the people, and Google did so many things that everyone could find the most interesting thing to them. Nowadays the list of cool companies is a lot longer and more diversified. And switching companies is a bit more friction than switching teams. I sometimes wonder if more cool tech could emerge faster if there was a new Big Tech with old Google values, with better management and a new coolness.
- coldpie 3y ago
  > terrible marketing Remember when they said their product will follow in the historic tradition of E.T. for Atari 2600, the Power Glove for NES, and the Sega Dreamcast? I guess they were more right than they knew. Google is a laughingstock. I can't imagine working there if you have any pride or passion for your work. https://www.gamingbible.com/news/games-gamers-recall-when-google-marketed-stadia-using-three-failed-products-20210209 https://www.gamingbible.com/news/games-gamers-recall-when-go...
  - philistine 3y ago
    The VGHF helped with setting up the display for that event. Frank Cifaldi, founder of the VGHF, has explained the sordid tale of that display on some podcasts. Basically, the VGHF was hired to make a display. They provided a draft version. Google's people came back and were adamant that the display had to have those failed products as well. The VGHF repeatedly warned Google of the horrible optics of showing those products. Google went ahead. To this day, Frank does not know why Google wanted these products. My guess? Those products had great SEO on Google Search and YouTube. Lots of people watched videos about them. The managerial class at Google was uninterested by the fact those products had tons of searches and views because they sucked!
- emodendroket 3y ago
  I don’t think you can have a big company that behaves like a small company no matter how much everyone from employees to owners of big companies fondly cherish the idea.
  - a_vanderbilt 3y ago
    As a whole big companies don't. In my experience, unless the company has a skunkworks or a guerrilla team on something emergent you aren't going to find the culture that fosters innovative things with commitment. Problem is at some point (usually when something viable comes out) those teams get cannibalized or subsumed by management.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      Even then I would say that such teams still have a different feel from a true startup.
marklar423 3y ago
The Stadia tech was so much further ahead of others, it's such a waste it didn't get time to flourish. They could have really changed the paradigm if it had better management. One example of an intriguing idea I heard discussed on a podcast - imagine you're watching a streamer on YouTube and think the game is cool. If it were integrated with Stadia then with one click, you could be playing the game! In browser! Maybe even playing with the streamer (for multiplayer)! So much potential wasted...I can only shake my head.
- SXX 3y ago
  Latency, total DRM, games completely disappear on whim of copyright owner, no modding. Nope, I dont want this potential. Good riddance.
- cavisne 3y ago
  This idea was actually in the launch keynote! Along with a bunch of other cool ideas that never shipped. Maybe someday someone will explain what went wrong. My guess is that competitors were quicker to market than they expected, and had unique advantages (Microsoft owns windows and Xbox, nvidia owns … nvidia).
  - a_vanderbilt 3y ago
    It's a cultural problem. Google fails to follow through after the initial shiny has worn off. In Google, you are rewarded for shipping not maintaining. That's why they have a gorillion messaging apps instead of one really good one. They weren't willing to commit the engineering time to implement those features because the interest wasn't there.
- broast 3y ago
  Then again, Stadia's streaming performance and graphical capabilities were subpar compared to established competing services like GeForce Now, Xcloud, and ShadowPC. If it were better it might have been worth it.
  - deadmutex 3y ago
chewmieser 3y ago
Same fate with OnLive before it, which was super cool back in the day. Only Microsoft & NVIDIA have been able to build successful products out of cloud gaming but even then Microsoft doesn’t just sell the cloud part separately. Not sure why it’s such a tough sell. Most games feel flawless through it, even back in OnLive days…
- lostmsu 3y ago
  A bit of a self-plug: https://Borg.games https://Borg.games My p2p take on Stadia
Nextgrid 3y ago
I wonder if it's some kind of selection bias - techies all praise how good it was but I can imagine that the experience for the general public with the typical combo of overloaded Wi-Fi backed by shitty ISP-provided router was much different and this may have contributed to its downfall.
philistine 3y ago
If Stadia was strictly a subscription service, I bet it would still exist. People have already forgotten, but you had to buy the games on the service. On top of that there was a subscription to increase your stream's resolution. The pricing was already too complicated and the thing was brand new! With customers already aware of the fickle nature of Google, nobody wanted to buy something that only gave you access to a game on Google's servers. It's actually surprising that Google reimbursed everyone. Nobody expected that, and nobody bought anything on the service because no one expected Google to reimburse when they inevitably shut it down.
- depressedpanda 3y ago
  This. I also bought the Cyberpunk bundle, which was great bang for the buck. I was also quite impressed by how well the Stadia tech worked. However, due to Google's reputation I refused to spend any more money on the service, and would not recommend it to anyone, as it would all be wasted once they inevitably would shut Stadia down. That said, I was pleasantly surprised by how well they handled the shutdown. If I'd known they'd refund people I would have been more willing to spend more money on their service. I wonder why nobody at Google seems to realize or care that their poor track record is hurting their bottom line?
  - VoidWhisperer 3y ago
    > wonder why nobody at Google seems to realize or care that their poor track record is hurting their bottom line? If I had to guess, these things are incredibly tiny compared to their main source of income (ads). As a result, atleast from a monetary perspective, it would basically be a negligible effect on their bottom line. From a PR perspective, it might have a slightly higher impact as they gain a reputation for shutting stuff down, but with ads and the like being their main source of revenue, this doesnt necessarily have a massive impact
- doctorpangloss 3y ago
  > Stadia was strictly a subscription service I don’t know. Xbox Pass or whatever it’s called, you know, it’s the same thing as Stadia, better in every way, people pay for it. But who cares. At the end of the day it makes no sense to stream FPSes. If they focused their product development on features for innovative games exclusively practicable with streaming, they’d still be around. Instead they made VP8 accelerators for YouTube, and called a field trial for libwebrtc some sort of time-traveling latency compensation method. I mean they were demoing ControlNet with GANs (https://blog.research.google/2020/11/using-gans-to-create-fantastical.html?m=1 https://blog.research.google/2020/11/using-gans-to-create-fa...) 3 years ago, way before the current AI craze, and seemingly no one GAF. It was very cool but all their product development didn’t make sense in the context of “games that are only practicable with streaming.” Usually that means “you’re an indie developer with $2 and you want to make great assets and physics driven networked multiplayer” - two things you can actually uniquely achieve with streaming - but Google was fundamentally disinterested in that. They were so focused on Assassin's Creed, because that’s a game that the PMs were fond of, a multi million dollar production which makes no sense to stream, and some indie platformers which god bless them, made more sense to sell as Humble Bundles than streams. It wasn’t a lack of imagination, they had imagination, I think they just actively rejected the folks who are trying to make things for $2, that’s the real thing that is incompatible with Google’s ethos and it’s why Google failed.
kelnos 3y ago
> The controller upgrade process was something I never imagined a browser could do. There's some (minor) controversy around this. WebUSB/WebHID are web standards that Google has pushed, and essentially gives a website similar access to USB devices as a native app running on your computer (which can of course do things like upgrade firmware on the device). Mozilla refuses to implement WebUSB or WebHID, citing security concerns. I tend to side with Mozilla on this (your average non-technical user will click past most warning dialogs, just wanting things to work), but I can see the appeal: otherwise Google would have to release completely separate Windows and macOS tools to accomplish this, and then Linux users like me would probably be left out in the cold, waiting for someone like OP to reverse-engineer the process. Of course, if I had one of these controllers and wanted to switch it to Bluetooth mode, I would then be grumbling that I'd have to install Chrome in order to do the switch...

kccqzy 3y ago

As always, there was (and still is) so much technological marvel inside Google and so many highly talented people working inside Google that I felt sorry that these marvel never gets to see the light of day and efforts by these folks ultimately wasted by inept management and terrible marketing. Years ago Google was the coolest place to work at because of the tech and the people, and Google did so many things that everyone could find the most interesting thing to them. Nowadays the list of cool companies is a lot longer and more diversified. And switching companies is a bit more friction than switching teams. I sometimes wonder if more cool tech could emerge faster if there was a new Big Tech with old Google values, with better management and a new coolness.

coldpie 3y ago
> terrible marketing Remember when they said their product will follow in the historic tradition of E.T. for Atari 2600, the Power Glove for NES, and the Sega Dreamcast? I guess they were more right than they knew. Google is a laughingstock. I can't imagine working there if you have any pride or passion for your work. https://www.gamingbible.com/news/games-gamers-recall-when-google-marketed-stadia-using-three-failed-products-20210209 https://www.gamingbible.com/news/games-gamers-recall-when-go...
- philistine 3y ago
  The VGHF helped with setting up the display for that event. Frank Cifaldi, founder of the VGHF, has explained the sordid tale of that display on some podcasts. Basically, the VGHF was hired to make a display. They provided a draft version. Google's people came back and were adamant that the display had to have those failed products as well. The VGHF repeatedly warned Google of the horrible optics of showing those products. Google went ahead. To this day, Frank does not know why Google wanted these products. My guess? Those products had great SEO on Google Search and YouTube. Lots of people watched videos about them. The managerial class at Google was uninterested by the fact those products had tons of searches and views because they sucked!
emodendroket 3y ago
I don’t think you can have a big company that behaves like a small company no matter how much everyone from employees to owners of big companies fondly cherish the idea.
- a_vanderbilt 3y ago
  As a whole big companies don't. In my experience, unless the company has a skunkworks or a guerrilla team on something emergent you aren't going to find the culture that fosters innovative things with commitment. Problem is at some point (usually when something viable comes out) those teams get cannibalized or subsumed by management.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Even then I would say that such teams still have a different feel from a true startup.

marklar423 3y ago

The Stadia tech was so much further ahead of others, it's such a waste it didn't get time to flourish. They could have really changed the paradigm if it had better management. One example of an intriguing idea I heard discussed on a podcast - imagine you're watching a streamer on YouTube and think the game is cool. If it were integrated with Stadia then with one click, you could be playing the game! In browser! Maybe even playing with the streamer (for multiplayer)! So much potential wasted...I can only shake my head.

SXX 3y ago
Latency, total DRM, games completely disappear on whim of copyright owner, no modding. Nope, I dont want this potential. Good riddance.
cavisne 3y ago
This idea was actually in the launch keynote! Along with a bunch of other cool ideas that never shipped. Maybe someday someone will explain what went wrong. My guess is that competitors were quicker to market than they expected, and had unique advantages (Microsoft owns windows and Xbox, nvidia owns … nvidia).
- a_vanderbilt 3y ago
  It's a cultural problem. Google fails to follow through after the initial shiny has worn off. In Google, you are rewarded for shipping not maintaining. That's why they have a gorillion messaging apps instead of one really good one. They weren't willing to commit the engineering time to implement those features because the interest wasn't there.
broast 3y ago
Then again, Stadia's streaming performance and graphical capabilities were subpar compared to established competing services like GeForce Now, Xcloud, and ShadowPC. If it were better it might have been worth it.
- deadmutex 3y ago

chewmieser 3y ago

Same fate with OnLive before it, which was super cool back in the day. Only Microsoft & NVIDIA have been able to build successful products out of cloud gaming but even then Microsoft doesn’t just sell the cloud part separately. Not sure why it’s such a tough sell. Most games feel flawless through it, even back in OnLive days…

lostmsu 3y ago
A bit of a self-plug: https://Borg.games https://Borg.games My p2p take on Stadia

Nextgrid 3y ago

I wonder if it's some kind of selection bias - techies all praise how good it was but I can imagine that the experience for the general public with the typical combo of overloaded Wi-Fi backed by shitty ISP-provided router was much different and this may have contributed to its downfall.

philistine 3y ago

If Stadia was strictly a subscription service, I bet it would still exist. People have already forgotten, but you had to buy the games on the service. On top of that there was a subscription to increase your stream's resolution. The pricing was already too complicated and the thing was brand new! With customers already aware of the fickle nature of Google, nobody wanted to buy something that only gave you access to a game on Google's servers. It's actually surprising that Google reimbursed everyone. Nobody expected that, and nobody bought anything on the service because no one expected Google to reimburse when they inevitably shut it down.

depressedpanda 3y ago
This. I also bought the Cyberpunk bundle, which was great bang for the buck. I was also quite impressed by how well the Stadia tech worked. However, due to Google's reputation I refused to spend any more money on the service, and would not recommend it to anyone, as it would all be wasted once they inevitably would shut Stadia down. That said, I was pleasantly surprised by how well they handled the shutdown. If I'd known they'd refund people I would have been more willing to spend more money on their service. I wonder why nobody at Google seems to realize or care that their poor track record is hurting their bottom line?
- VoidWhisperer 3y ago
  > wonder why nobody at Google seems to realize or care that their poor track record is hurting their bottom line? If I had to guess, these things are incredibly tiny compared to their main source of income (ads). As a result, atleast from a monetary perspective, it would basically be a negligible effect on their bottom line. From a PR perspective, it might have a slightly higher impact as they gain a reputation for shutting stuff down, but with ads and the like being their main source of revenue, this doesnt necessarily have a massive impact
doctorpangloss 3y ago
> Stadia was strictly a subscription service I don’t know. Xbox Pass or whatever it’s called, you know, it’s the same thing as Stadia, better in every way, people pay for it. But who cares. At the end of the day it makes no sense to stream FPSes. If they focused their product development on features for innovative games exclusively practicable with streaming, they’d still be around. Instead they made VP8 accelerators for YouTube, and called a field trial for libwebrtc some sort of time-traveling latency compensation method. I mean they were demoing ControlNet with GANs (https://blog.research.google/2020/11/using-gans-to-create-fantastical.html?m=1 https://blog.research.google/2020/11/using-gans-to-create-fa...) 3 years ago, way before the current AI craze, and seemingly no one GAF. It was very cool but all their product development didn’t make sense in the context of “games that are only practicable with streaming.” Usually that means “you’re an indie developer with $2 and you want to make great assets and physics driven networked multiplayer” - two things you can actually uniquely achieve with streaming - but Google was fundamentally disinterested in that. They were so focused on Assassin's Creed, because that’s a game that the PMs were fond of, a multi million dollar production which makes no sense to stream, and some indie platformers which god bless them, made more sense to sell as Humble Bundles than streams. It wasn’t a lack of imagination, they had imagination, I think they just actively rejected the folks who are trying to make things for $2, that’s the real thing that is incompatible with Google’s ethos and it’s why Google failed.

kelnos 3y ago

> The controller upgrade process was something I never imagined a browser could do. There's some (minor) controversy around this. WebUSB/WebHID are web standards that Google has pushed, and essentially gives a website similar access to USB devices as a native app running on your computer (which can of course do things like upgrade firmware on the device). Mozilla refuses to implement WebUSB or WebHID, citing security concerns. I tend to side with Mozilla on this (your average non-technical user will click past most warning dialogs, just wanting things to work), but I can see the appeal: otherwise Google would have to release completely separate Windows and macOS tools to accomplish this, and then Linux users like me would probably be left out in the cold, waiting for someone like OP to reverse-engineer the process. Of course, if I had one of these controllers and wanted to switch it to Bluetooth mode, I would then be grumbling that I'd have to install Chrome in order to do the switch...