Support NeoGAF

[GigaBowser]

Holy smokes does Stadia suck.

I'm sorry Google, actually no I'm not, but this freaking giant company tries to make a splash into gaming with this crummy service that nobody cares about, no exclusives, full price games, abysmal small lineup of games, 2 million users at last count, and even consoles like Dreamcast and Wii U that were market disasters actually had some great games.

What an embarrassment from such a huge company. You suck get it together Google. This service is zero compared to Gamepass.

How many users does Google Stadia have? (Feb 2022) - AllStadia

Google does not publish official figures about the number of active users but we estimate a total of 2M users.

allstadia.com

Google Stadia Is a Failure. The Company Should Kill It

The tech giant's cloud gaming platform faces a slew of tough questions—and few prospects of success.

www.wired.com

 

[THE DUCK]

While I agree in general principle, considering Google didn't have to manufacture consoles and had zero history in the gaming market, it's not quite the same kind of failure. They also had zero exclusives.......

 

[Kilau]

Summon the fat frog.

 

[64gigabyteram]

If you wanna get into gaming, make a console or a storefront. Can't do that? Then fuck straight off

Google saw the bare minimum needed to become a gaming company and said "fuck that, I'll do even worse"

 

[GigaBowser]

While I agree in general principle, considering Google didn't have to manufacture consoles and had zero history in the gaming market, it's not quite the same kind of failure. They also had zero exclusives.......

Google Stadia had plans for exclusives before fizzling out​

This story about standing out, boiled down, in 1:36 minutes.​

What’s the fuss?​

One brand new game and one upcomer were originally intended to be exclusive releases for Google’s game streaming service, which didn’t go so well.

 

[64gigabyteram]

Hey, how you like your new tag? GigaBowser

 

[IntentionalPun]

Honestly 2 million isn't... that unimpressive?

I think it's obvious it flopped for sure, but I think that has to do with too high of expectations.

Cloud streaming is just not ready to take over the world like the tech giants think/want it to.. and it may never take over gaming TBH.

But honestly I think 2 million is probably a high estimate lol

At any given time there are ~300k people playing Destiny 2 on Xbox and maybe ~350k on Playstation... it's rarely above 6k on Stadia... and Destiny 2 was the premier game they used to market/launch the service and has been free with "Pro" from the beginning.

Wii-U is worse because it came from Nintendo, after a massive success... and they legit had to discontinue the hardware right away and pay back retailers for unsold games.. OOF.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

I hear it's launching in Mexico now though. Surely that'll save it.

Honestly, all game streaming is worthless no matter the platform.

 

[crackajack]

I don't understand the joy and weird rage its perceived failure gives to some people. They invested some money in the hw in some centers I guess, but running costs are probably low and they might make little but constant money and eventually grow. Maybe they cooperate with GeForce and or provide those Switch streams and other steam services which names i can't remember.
MS offers it, Sony offers it, neither as a huge selling point, but both might also see it as little investment but slow growth over years.
Everyone "flops" with it terribly but no one gives up on it... the math does not work out! if it really burns money, all would have dropped out already. They don't, so it probably has not flopped at all!

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

For the first few months of the Switch was trying to grab for a stylus. The WiiU was some great tech imo. I also played the Immortals demo on Stadia and it worked really well for me. Their pricing model just never made sense. No one is going to pay full price to stream a game.

 

[Jaybe]

Top-tier marketing lol

 

[Kenneth Haight]

I don't understand the joy and weird rage its perceived failure gives to some people. They invested some money in the hw in some centers I guess, but running costs are probably low and they might make little but constant money and eventually grow. Maybe they cooperate with GeForce and or provide those Switch streams and other steam services which names i can't remember.
MS offers it, Sony offers it, neither as a huge selling point, but both might also see it as little investment but slow growth over years.
Everyone "flops" with it terribly but no one gives up on it... the math does not work out! if it really burns money, all would have dropped out already. They don't, so it probably has not flopped at all!

Yeah, I think Google just have such a turnover in products, plus the fact that you had to buy the games for full price was a bit shit. This was never going to compete with something as good value as say gamepass. So it was kind of dead commercially and from a value perspective for consumers from the get go. it’s probably at least 10 years too soon for streaming to be mainstream. Google literally print money, so I imagine the R&D they have got from this in terms of compression and streaming tech, they probably can write this off and not give two shits.

Then they relaunch at a later date. I personally don’t want to be involved in streaming games. I just want to be able to run my own games locally. But that will be harder to resist as the decades go by.

 

[GigaBowser]

Honestly 2 million isn't... that unimpressive?

I think it's obvious it flopped for sure, but I think that has to do with too high of expectations.

Cloud streaming is just not ready to take over the world like the tech giants think/want it to.. and it may never take over gaming TBH.

But honestly I think 2 million is probably a high estimate lol

At any given time there are ~300k people playing Destiny 2 on Xbox and maybe ~350k on Playstation... it's rarely above 6k on Stadia... and Destiny 2 was the premier game they used to market/launch the service and has been free with "Pro" from the beginning.

Wii-U is worse because it came from Nintendo, after a massive success... and they legit had to discontinue the hardware right away and pay back retailers for unsold games.. OOF.

If you consider Google's worth, and them thinking they actually had a chance to take over the gaming....

Spoiler

this thing is could very well be the biggest flop of all time

This service is not even close to the best in its field and the value is laughable compared to Gamepass.

 

[Kenneth Haight]

If you consider Google's worth, and them thinking they actually had a chance to take over the gaming....

Spoiler

this thing is could very well be the biggest flop of all time

This service is not even close to the best in its field and the value is laughable compared to Gamepass.

This is definitely the main problem. It looks like a joke in terms of value to gamepass. Didn’t have a chance.

 

[Hobbygaming]

And I love it! I hope all cloud gaming fails

 

[Skifi28]

I was expecting it to have like 50 people. Quite impressive really.

 

[GigaBowser]

I don't understand the joy and weird rage its perceived failure gives to some people. They invested some money in the hw in some centers I guess, but running costs are probably low and they might make little but constant money and eventually grow. Maybe they cooperate with GeForce and or provide those Switch streams and other steam services which names i can't remember.
MS offers it, Sony offers it, neither as a huge selling point, but both might also see it as little investment but slow growth over years.
Everyone "flops" with it terribly but no one gives up on it... the math does not work out! if it really burns money, all would have dropped out already. They don't, so it probably has not flopped at all!

Google sucks and if their effort to take over gaming was actually successful we'd probably all suffer. Fuck Google.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Didn't Wii U still make profits?

 

[Pelta88]

Console + 65" OLED >

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

I think most of us kinda knew going into Stadia that Google likely wasn't going to stick with it long enough to give it a chance. Xbox knew getting into console gaming was a long-term commitment. You can't just drop a brand new platform / cloud platform and chew away double digit marketshare. Gamers have their ecosystems that they love playing in, and what's Google Stadia got that is going to rip tens of millions of people away from Playstation, or Xbox, or Nintendo, or Steam? Becoming a dominant player in the AAA space is a really tough thing to break into. Microsoft really didn't even start making money on console gaming until the 360 generation. Original Xbox was just about breaking in, they made nothing in that first generation. But Microsoft was smart enough to know that building up that brand and offering great games and services was all about building up that solid, loyal customer base who would buy the next system, and the next system after that. You have to play the long game.

Google just didn't seem to know/ care about how much work, time and money it would take to ever be a serious contender. It seemed pretty obvious before Stadia even launched that Google didn't really understand that. Higher-ups saw the launch, saw it wasn't going to immediately be profitable, and were like, "eh we don't need this". Fair enough.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Streaming technology is and always will be a solution looking for a problem to solve. After the abject failure of both OnLive and Gaikai (the latter of which was bought by Sony and became PS Now), I have no idea why Google thought they could be successful at all with a streaming-only service.

The market for streaming services is vanishingly small. It's essentially console gamers with fast home broadband internet, who own a console but are also willing to pay a premium to stream games on their mobile device, but who are also not so sensitive that they can stomach playing with an inferior controller input.... OR... gamers wanting to play PC games but don't want to/can't buy a gaming PC. The more qualifiers you add to the target market description, the smaller that market becomes.

Streaming is a cool technology. It's a weird curiosity, but until a streaming service is able to support the development of games with a design that simply isn't possible on local hardware, it will always be an inferior play experience.

This idea that gamers don't actually want to buy hardware and only care about the games is so divorced from reality. It's like the execs making these decisions have never spoken to gamers or visited a forum where fanboyism is rife. Fanboys wouldn't exist if gamers didn't care about their plastic boxes.

 

[AGRacing]

The unfortunate product of a 200 billion dollar echo chamber / circle jerk sesh.

 

[AJUMP23]

I still have a 6 month stadia trial code. The first person to pm me and ask for it can have it.

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

Didn't Wii U still make profits?

That would be very hard to parse out, since they wouldn't line-item their financial results and show which game and which platform made X amount of money vs cost of goods. Wii U sold so far below expectations that they had issues with suppliers making too many parts, based on wildly optimistic projections. Which led to a horrible domino effect. And because the GamePad was so expensive to manufacture, they couldn't do a price cut since it already was priced to move. But move it did not. Maybe they made a decent profit on certain software, like 3D World, Kart 8, Splatoon and Wind Waker HD, but how much they lost their ass on console manufacturing costs and barely being able to sell any consoles for four years, yeah I wouldn't even be able to guess on whether the Wii U business as a whole broke even, was slightly profitable, or ended up as a loss in the end. The 3DS business is really what carried them through Wii U and allowed them to make any money at all between 2012-2016.

I remember Reggie saying in the 2000s that GameCube was a profitable business for them, and that console didn't do a whole lot better than Wii U. But that was a different time, and software cost a lot less money to make back then, and the GameCube itself was always sold at a profit. So there's that.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

Not possibly, Wii U is a gem in comparison.

Maybe Stadia can compete with OUYA and the WonderSwan for the best piece of shit trophy

 

[Deerock71]

Honestly 2 million isn't... that unimpressive?

But honestly I think 2 million is probably a high estimate lol

Wii-U is worse because it came from Nintendo, after a massive success... and they legit had to discontinue the hardware right away and pay back retailers for unsold games.. OOF.

Yes, it is. Google reaches billions.

Correct.

Incorrect. Nintendo's reach is dwarfed by Google's. There is no whitewashing this catastrophe.

 

[nominedomine]

Cloud gaming always flops, so far even VR has been far more successful than cloud gaming.

When people project that cloud is inevitably going to take over they don't seem to consider that smartphones and other devices are also quickly evolving. Imagine how powerful a smartphone or basic notebook with an iGPU is going to be 10 years from now.

We keep hearing the same excuses since the OnLive days. Cloud gaming has sort of worked for a long time now and yet hasn't proven itself to be disruptive in any way while trash mobile games, console devices and dedicated PCs have done really well.

Streaming technology is and always will be a solution looking for a problem to solve. After the abject failure of both OnLive and Gaikai (the latter of which was bought by Sony and became PS Now), I have no idea why Google thought they could be successful at all with a streaming-only service.

The market for streaming services is vanishingly small. It's essentially console gamers with fast home broadband internet, who own a console but are also willing to pay a premium to stream games on their mobile device, but who are also not so sensitive that they can stomach playing with an inferior controller input.... OR... gamers wanting to play PC games but don't want to/can't buy a gaming PC. The more qualifiers you add to the target market description, the smaller that market becomes.

Streaming is a cool technology. It's a weird curiosity, but until a streaming service is able to support the development of games with a design that simply isn't possible on local hardware, it will always be an inferior play experience.

This idea that gamers don't actually want to buy hardware and only care about the games is so divorced from reality. It's like the execs making these decisions have never spoken to gamers or visited a forum where fanboyism is rife. Fanboys wouldn't exist if gamers didn't care about their plastic boxes.

Gamers are showing that they are ok spending money on the hardware, yet the companies still can't let go of the dream of having complete control by also owning the hardware.

 

[Chukhopops]

What’s weird about Stadia is how cheap and shy Google has been about the whole thing. Say what you will about EGS but they came with some value (the free shit and exclusives) because they knew they had an uphill battle to fight with Steam.

Google has a lot more money and they offered absolutely nothing worthwhile in their Stadia Pro stuff. They invested in a couple AA exclusives which they either abandoned or released way too late and… Destiny 2, a game you can play anywhere else. It feels like they wanted to release some POC about streaming technology more than actually they actually wanted to compete in the market.

I still believe it could have been a success if they spent enough money to have proper content.

 

[baphomet]

I still have a 6 month stadia trial code. The first person to pm me and ask for it can have it.

I don't want it, but I'm curious to know how long it takes someone to ask for it.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Now that's a title.

 

[AJUMP23]

I don't want it, but I'm curious to know how long it takes someone to ask for it.

I offered it up a couple months ago and no one PM'd me.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Gamers are showing that they are ok spending money on the hardware, yet the companies still can't let go of the dream of having complete control by also owning the hardware.

I think you're spot on!

You got it exactly right what the driver of this technology is in the gaming business. It's publishers and platform holders wanting to have complete control of gamers' access to their games and hardware.

Gamers thankfully responded with an overwhelmingly unanimous middle finger. One of the few occasions I'm proud to identify with the gamer community.

 

[nominedomine]

What’s weird about Stadia is how cheap and shy Google has been about the whole thing. Say what you will about EGS but they came with some value (the free shit and exclusives) because they knew they had an uphill battle to fight with Steam.

Google has a lot more money and they offered absolutely nothing worthwhile in their Stadia Pro stuff. They invested in a couple AA exclusives which they either abandoned or released way too late and… Destiny 2, a game you can play anywhere else. It feels like they wanted to release some POC about streaming technology more than actually they actually wanted to compete in the market.

I still believe it could have been a success if they spent enough money to have proper content.

They never had a chance to begging with, there is no audience.

 

[Fahdis]

Honestly, all game streaming is worthless no matter the platform.

What a desperate take and I don't even have Stadia. Honestly.

 

[Fat Frog]

I offered it up a couple months ago and no one PM'd me.

No surprise. Free Stadia pro months are absolute garbage and i don't want it either.(indie useless free games, 4K30FPS for many games with the current blades... I prefere 1080p 60FPS of the free tier).

Like EGS, they should offer free games like RDR2, Dragon Quest, Judgment, Sekiro.(it would satisfy publishers with easy money and it would be more popular)



As for the main topic.
Well, we'll know soon enough the fate of Stadia with the LATAM launch with Fifa 23 (not available on GFN and Xcloud i think).

If it has a better reception in LATAM, then it will have a second chance... If...

 

[Sosokrates]

I think there best bet is to be a platform for publishers, where u buy directly from the game publishers and that purchase will also give you the PC version. Or you can get subscriptions from publishers e.g ea play etc

 

[existensmaximum]

I tried Stadia at a friend's recently. The service worked okay and the games were playable but with noticeable input lag. They really didn't look that hot though, but I suppose it's better than nothing if you really, really don't want to own a console or PC..

 

[OmegaSupreme]

What a desperate take and I don't even have Stadia. Honestly.

What's desperate about it?

 

[bentanchorbolt]

Stadia is a fine system but most people here aren't the demographic, and as time moves forward with the tech getting better and better, someone will be crowned the kind of game streaming and its going to be a lucrative market. It might be in 2-3 years or not for another decade, but at some point the vast majority of humans that play videogames are going to be doing so on the cloud.

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

Well lifetime sales of SEGA Saturn and DreamCast didn't reach 10 million even when Wii U broke close to 14 million so...

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Stadia is a fine system but most people here aren't the demographic, and as time moves forward with the tech getting better and better, someone will be crowned the kind of game streaming and its going to be a lucrative market. It might be in 2-3 years or not for another decade, but at some point the vast majority of humans that play videogames are going to be doing so on the cloud.

What do you base this on?

 

[Fat Frog]

I think there best bet is to be a platform for publishers, where u buy directly from the game publishers and that purchase will also give you the PC version. Or you can get subscriptions from publishers e.g ea play etc

There will be a big move soon:
(a Stadia developper who had a meeting behind closed door with them)

Yeah, there are several interesting paths for Stadia. After all, both Valve (with Steamdeck) and Google (with Stadia) are trying to ditch Windows from the game.(even Amazon hired some Linux experts)
Maybe we'll see smart alliances...

 

[Sosokrates]

There will be a big move soon:
(a Stadia developper who had a meeting behind closed door with them)

Yeah, there are several interesting paths for Stadia. After all, both Valve (with Steamdeck) and Google (with Stadia) are trying to ditch Windows from the game.(even Amazon hired some Linux experts)
Maybe we'll see smart alliances...

Yes, I don't think people should count stadia out just yet, it is google afterall. If they make stadia better value and tie it more into YouTube it could be huge.

 

[jshackles]

OP claims Stadia is an unquestionable failure
Fat Frog questions it

 

[Fbh]

Streaming technology is and always will be a solution looking for a problem to solve. After the abject failure of both OnLive and Gaikai (the latter of which was bought by Sony and became PS Now), I have no idea why Google thought they could be successful at all with a streaming-only service.

Technically I think products which sell convenience will always have a place.
On paper I think a lot of casual players would be into streaming. The idea of being able to instantly play games on a wide variety of internet connected devices, with no need for expensive dedicated hardware, no downloads or updates, and being able to resume your game from where you left it from any device (as longas you have access to your account) has some appeal.

But the tech still isn't there. Internet with fast speed and low enough latency needed still isn't nearly common enough for it to have universal appeal. I know people with the same internet plan from the same provider who live in different parts of town and have different experiences with streaming. Meanwhile something like netflix or Spotify have a much higher degree of consistency

 

[Fat Frog]

 

[SportsFan581]

I don't understand the joy and weird rage its perceived failure gives to some people. They invested some money in the hw in some centers I guess, but running costs are probably low and they might make little but constant money and eventually grow. Maybe they cooperate with GeForce and or provide those Switch streams and other steam services which names i can't remember.
MS offers it, Sony offers it, neither as a huge selling point, but both might also see it as little investment but slow growth over years.
Everyone "flops" with it terribly but no one gives up on it... the math does not work out! if it really burns money, all would have dropped out already. They don't, so it probably has not flopped at all!

Probably the more realistic way to look at it.

I think MS and Sony are in better position to offer a streaming platform, even if the tech behind theirs is weaker. Once they open individual user libraries to cloud, it will just be much safer to make purchases on those platforms. Should the quality of streaming etc. change for you (maybe you move somewhere where the internet is more congested or just not as good), you can just pickup an Xbox or a PS and continue to use your purchases.

 

[Fat Frog]

Yes, I don't think people should count stadia out just yet, it is google afterall. If they make stadia better value and tie it more into YouTube it could be huge.

Yup.
Many people overestimated Google during the first presentation: " It's Google, they have billions, Youtube, the virality of click to play trailer will be insane"

And now, many are underestimating them.

It's a company that can possibly buy EA, Take 2...(they won't) and the simple integration of Stadia in the Google search engine could be massive.(they're testing it)

 

[bentanchorbolt]

What do you base this on?

Movies, tv shows, music, all moved to streaming as the dominant way in which they are consumed and technically speaking there are few trade offs in quality compared to consuming them via local media, especially the kinds of trade offs that 99% of the public even cares about, which is important. Eventually game streaming will mature to where there is little difference between it and local hardware in regards to image quality and perceptible input lag. Our infrastructure is still a ways off but under best case scenario I can already play Stadia with nearly imperceptible input lag. Another ten years of advancement and for the average user they'd likely not be able to tell if they were streaming or playing locally in a blind test.

Look at how successful Game Pass has been for MS. This shows you that people are already onboard with the idea of subbing to a games service, now fast forward another decade when the tech is caught up, why wouldn't people flock to streaming games online the same way they did for movies and tv shows?

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Movies, tv shows, music, all moved to streaming as the dominant way in which they are consumed and technically speaking there are few trade offs in quality compared to consuming them via local media, especially the kinds of trade offs that 99% of the public even cares about, which is important. Eventually game streaming will mature to where there is little difference between it and local hardware in regards to image quality and perceptible input lag. Our infrastructure is still a ways off but under best case scenario I can already play Stadia with nearly imperceptible input lag. Another ten years of advancement and for the average user they'd likely not be able to tell if they were streaming or playing locally in a blind test.

Look at how successful Game Pass has been for MS. This shows you that people are already onboard with the idea of subbing to a games service, now fast forward another decade when the tech is caught up, why wouldn't people flock to streaming games online the same way they did for movies and tv shows?

Those are all passive media. It's not equivalent. Gamepass took off because of downloads. Not streaming.