Rumor: Google Stadia May Be Getting Shut Down(gamerant.com)
gamerant.com
Rumor: Google Stadia May Be Getting Shut Down
https://gamerant.com/rumor-google-stadia-shut-down/
632 comments
Yeah... The "rumour" has been going on for a while -- I myself helped promulgate it, just after Stadia released!!
I smugly clicked into TFA, expecting my cynicism to finally be flattered, but... Like the parent says, this is just that same smuggery we commenters have been predicting since the service started. It's not like the writing on the wall is ambiguous, it's just not official. This isn't the official announcement either.
I smugly clicked into TFA, expecting my cynicism to finally be flattered, but... Like the parent says, this is just that same smuggery we commenters have been predicting since the service started. It's not like the writing on the wall is ambiguous, it's just not official. This isn't the official announcement either.
Goolge Stadia twitter account is saying the rumour is false:
https://twitter.com/GoogleStadia/status/1552989433590214656
https://twitter.com/GoogleStadia/status/1552989433590214656
Google's denial takes nothing away from the credibility of this rumor. Google isn't going to deviate from their own preplanned PR campaign on any product's demise just because a rumor leaked. That doesn't mean this rumor is true, only that the denial has no informational content for evaluating the rumor.
Yet on the other hand, if Google really wanted to refute the rumor, they'd say "It's not true, we have a firm roadmap for improvements and expansions etc." And actually have a published roadmap they could point to. Instead they claim they're working on getting new games but from what I can piece together we're about 60% through 2022 and Google has only released 37 of the promised 100+ new games that would come to the platform this year. They could make up some ground but they're not on pace for it.
Yet on the other hand, if Google really wanted to refute the rumor, they'd say "It's not true, we have a firm roadmap for improvements and expansions etc." And actually have a published roadmap they could point to. Instead they claim they're working on getting new games but from what I can piece together we're about 60% through 2022 and Google has only released 37 of the promised 100+ new games that would come to the platform this year. They could make up some ground but they're not on pace for it.
According to this comment on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/wb4jl6/comment/ii5d...:
- Stadia signed multimillion deal with EA for Fifa23 and is taking preorders for this game.
- Stadia takes preorders for another game releasing in Autumn.
- Stadia announced expansion to Mexico later this year.
- they are recruiting new staff.
- Stadia signed multimillion deal with EA for Fifa23 and is taking preorders for this game.
- Stadia takes preorders for another game releasing in Autumn.
- Stadia announced expansion to Mexico later this year.
- they are recruiting new staff.
I don't see sources for those claims, but even taking them at face value means very little. Agreements mean nothing if the service goes away, and Google can very well be on the verge of cancelling it but still operating otherwise in case they don't. Ditto for preorders and ditto Google's claim they'll expand to Mexico "later this year".
Whatever plans they had aren't going to stop until the decision to kill it is near final, meaning a rumor thay Google is likely to cancel it can be completely consistent with these other activities.
It may even depend on these other activities: if there aren't enough preorders for one of the most popular sports games in the world (Fifa) and if attempts to expand to Mexico fail or at lackluster-- those may be the final criteria google is using to decide on Stadia's future.
Whatever plans they had aren't going to stop until the decision to kill it is near final, meaning a rumor thay Google is likely to cancel it can be completely consistent with these other activities.
It may even depend on these other activities: if there aren't enough preorders for one of the most popular sports games in the world (Fifa) and if attempts to expand to Mexico fail or at lackluster-- those may be the final criteria google is using to decide on Stadia's future.
Regardless of the denial, it's total fiction made up by a troll
https://twitter.com/FantiR91/status/1553021127882145793
https://twitter.com/FantiR91/status/1553021127882145793
Doesn't matter it's omly believable because this is Google 101.
Google's own track record has me more likely to believe in a complete shut down rather than an extended life cycle.
Google's own track record has me more likely to believe in a complete shut down rather than an extended life cycle.
> only that the denial has no informational content for evaluating the rumor.
Disagree. They could have reacted in different ways:
- a) completely ignoring the rumor.
- b) make a "no-comment" message.
- c) deny the rumor
- d) confirm the rumor
a) and b) may increase the likelihood of the rumor being true. But going for c) is clearly an indication that it's not in their short-term plans.
Disagree. They could have reacted in different ways:
- a) completely ignoring the rumor.
- b) make a "no-comment" message.
- c) deny the rumor
- d) confirm the rumor
a) and b) may increase the likelihood of the rumor being true. But going for c) is clearly an indication that it's not in their short-term plans.
C) is only a clear indication under a too-short idea of what "short-term" means for a company like Google.
For large corporations 9-12 months is short term, and 1-2 years not too long to fall into that category either.
Critical points in Stadia's success are coming up in next few months. Pre orders for one of the most popular sports games in the world, releasing 100 games by the end of the year-- a benchmark they're behind on-- and a precarious expansion into Mexico.
These should show results before the end of the year, 5 months from now. If they underperform then I think it's extremely possible that a service cancellation would be announced within 9-12 months.
In the other hand they had no option except C, not really. Anything else would have as good as killed the service anyway. A) or B) would mean updated articles and new headlines would read "Google Won't Deny Rumours of Stadia's Death". B) would be the worst: "Google won't commit to further Stadia Support".
If they might kill it sometimes in the short term of 9-12 months but haven't made a final decision yet then C) was their only option regardless of the truth of any of those. C) conveys the least information (I'd say none) of those options because it does not provide any way to evaluate the truth of the statement unless you take Google at it's word. And yet whether or not we can take them at their word is exactly the thing in question.
For large corporations 9-12 months is short term, and 1-2 years not too long to fall into that category either.
Critical points in Stadia's success are coming up in next few months. Pre orders for one of the most popular sports games in the world, releasing 100 games by the end of the year-- a benchmark they're behind on-- and a precarious expansion into Mexico.
These should show results before the end of the year, 5 months from now. If they underperform then I think it's extremely possible that a service cancellation would be announced within 9-12 months.
In the other hand they had no option except C, not really. Anything else would have as good as killed the service anyway. A) or B) would mean updated articles and new headlines would read "Google Won't Deny Rumours of Stadia's Death". B) would be the worst: "Google won't commit to further Stadia Support".
If they might kill it sometimes in the short term of 9-12 months but haven't made a final decision yet then C) was their only option regardless of the truth of any of those. C) conveys the least information (I'd say none) of those options because it does not provide any way to evaluate the truth of the statement unless you take Google at it's word. And yet whether or not we can take them at their word is exactly the thing in question.
>Google's denial takes nothing away from the credibility of this rumor.
Let this comment sink in for a while. An official comment from Stadia "takes nothing away" from an anonymous source with no track record or credibility whatsoever.
>Yet on the other hand, if Google really wanted to refute the rumor
They did something worse - they mocked it and exposed it for the ridiculous rumour it was.
Let this comment sink in for a while. An official comment from Stadia "takes nothing away" from an anonymous source with no track record or credibility whatsoever.
>Yet on the other hand, if Google really wanted to refute the rumor
They did something worse - they mocked it and exposed it for the ridiculous rumour it was.
>Let this comment sink in for a while. An official comment from Stadia "takes nothing away" from an anonymous source with no track record or credibility whatsoever.
Yeah, let it sink in. Doesn't it say something terrible about Google that their official denial carries no more weight than an anonymous, possibly troll source?
Yeah, let it sink in. Doesn't it say something terrible about Google that their official denial carries no more weight than an anonymous, possibly troll source?
> An official comment from Stadia "takes nothing away" from an anonymous source with no track record or credibility whatsoever.
Yes sometimes those with inside knowledge are covering their tracks. NDAs and such.
Yes sometimes those with inside knowledge are covering their tracks. NDAs and such.
With Battlefield 5 Dice Stockholm did the roadmap promise thing then just didn’t add the features.
In my experience roadmap promises are an acknowledgement you’re already borked.
In my experience roadmap promises are an acknowledgement you’re already borked.
They'd say that no matter what, even if it were true. They're as believable as the Twitter poster.
Of course they will. They are not 'shutting down soon'. They will be shutting down by the end of autumn.
They don't want to scare their users and confirm that it really is shutting down immediately today, or next week. This account is damage control at its finest and Google will release a statement and then wind all of Stadia down, including that Twitter account in denial. Given that Stadia failed in the pandemic, it already failed in general.
I mean, I did say that this information was given to me from the future [0] so I've already watched this unfold once. Now it is unfolding for the second time for real.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27039202
They don't want to scare their users and confirm that it really is shutting down immediately today, or next week. This account is damage control at its finest and Google will release a statement and then wind all of Stadia down, including that Twitter account in denial. Given that Stadia failed in the pandemic, it already failed in general.
I mean, I did say that this information was given to me from the future [0] so I've already watched this unfold once. Now it is unfolding for the second time for real.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27039202
You're absolutely right.
I think the reason this kind of non-news gets any traction at all is that Google is known to shut down services rather than fix their revenue model, and that Stadia has been a failure for some time. So we all know Google will shut it down, just waiting for it.
Keep launching this rumor, and you'll be right eventually.
I think the reason this kind of non-news gets any traction at all is that Google is known to shut down services rather than fix their revenue model, and that Stadia has been a failure for some time. So we all know Google will shut it down, just waiting for it.
Keep launching this rumor, and you'll be right eventually.
It also plays right into peoples biases, so they'll keep their doubt low. If I were to spread any rumor to get my ten minutes of fame, Stadia shutting down would be the rumor to spread.
But the baseline probability -- that Google will shut Stadia down at some point -- is what, 80%? higher? So even 'straw-in-the-wind' evidence [0] consistent with that hypothesis is probably pointing in the right direction.
[0] https://polisci.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/people/u382...
[0] https://polisci.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/people/u382...
There's a fine line between a rumor and an open secret. I personally have experienced exactly what you described. One of my coworkers knows someone on the Stadia team. Based on the gossip I've heard completely independent of this 'revelation' that all turned out to be true, it wouldn't surprise me. Who cares? It's not like I've got any any money riding on it, and frankly everyone should know better about Google's behavior attitude about this stuff by now.
You would really hope there would be some far reaching repercussions for senior leadership at Google on this one. There are lots of projects that Google has tried and failed on, and sure, that happens. But this one is probably the clearest, obvious failure of execution. There is an absolutely crystal clear playbook of a Tech company forcing its way into the Gaming business. So how Google has managed to enter, completely fuck up, screw around partners, screw around customers and then leave all within the span of 3 years is just fantastic.
And it's not just that, because Google's reputation for giving up on anything remotely difficult, no one bought into it in the first place. I would wager there are entire market segments that Google can just never enter now since they have done such a good job at branding themselves unreliable. It reminds me of a Petrostate where a country has huge wealth because of what they're sitting on, but that same wealth destroys their ability to develop anything meaningfully different.
And it's not just that, because Google's reputation for giving up on anything remotely difficult, no one bought into it in the first place. I would wager there are entire market segments that Google can just never enter now since they have done such a good job at branding themselves unreliable. It reminds me of a Petrostate where a country has huge wealth because of what they're sitting on, but that same wealth destroys their ability to develop anything meaningfully different.
No. In fact, the incompetent people at the head of those projects fail upwards. Take Phil Harrison, who is at the head of Stadia (not Stadia Games and Studios):
- Worked at Sony Entertainment, handling the software side of things, was there to help for the massive fuckup that was the PS3 launch.
- Got fired (or "resigned" in C-level speak), joined Infogrames (soon to become Atari) and majorly fucked up, saying that single player games would become increasingly rare as well as contributing to running the company into the ground while taking massive dividends.
- Got fired from Atari and joins Gaikai (another game live streaming service that failed miserably and was picked up later by Sony for Playstation Now).
- (Most likely got fired from Gaikai, but no news from this anywhere) and joins Microsoft, just in time to utterly fuck up the Xbox One launch and making the branch he was a director of produce... absolutely fuck all ?
- Got fired from Microsoft and gets named vice president at Google, before heading the Stadia team as a product manager, utterly fucking up its launch, closing down Stadia Games and Studios (that actually managed to build up a pretty talented team), and soon, closing down Stadia.
This clown just gets paid to fail. He's got the reverse Midas touch, short anything he touches.
- Worked at Sony Entertainment, handling the software side of things, was there to help for the massive fuckup that was the PS3 launch.
- Got fired (or "resigned" in C-level speak), joined Infogrames (soon to become Atari) and majorly fucked up, saying that single player games would become increasingly rare as well as contributing to running the company into the ground while taking massive dividends.
- Got fired from Atari and joins Gaikai (another game live streaming service that failed miserably and was picked up later by Sony for Playstation Now).
- (Most likely got fired from Gaikai, but no news from this anywhere) and joins Microsoft, just in time to utterly fuck up the Xbox One launch and making the branch he was a director of produce... absolutely fuck all ?
- Got fired from Microsoft and gets named vice president at Google, before heading the Stadia team as a product manager, utterly fucking up its launch, closing down Stadia Games and Studios (that actually managed to build up a pretty talented team), and soon, closing down Stadia.
This clown just gets paid to fail. He's got the reverse Midas touch, short anything he touches.
One of the reasons for this is probably that all (minus Stadia, it seems) of the products you've mentioned might have had bad starts but ended up gigantic successes:
>PS3
performed extremely well, beating Xbox 360 by a fairly thin margin.
>Gaikai
sold for $380M USD to Sony (most people consider this a success, even if you think it should have been more.)
>Xbox One
lost to the PS4 by a factor of two but was still successful (50 million est. lifetime sales)
Even if every single thing he was in charge of failed catastrophically, anyone who isn't looking closely is going to see someone with a huge amount of industry expertise working on some of the largest and most successful products to ever exist full stop (not just in gaming.)
>PS3
performed extremely well, beating Xbox 360 by a fairly thin margin.
>Gaikai
sold for $380M USD to Sony (most people consider this a success, even if you think it should have been more.)
>Xbox One
lost to the PS4 by a factor of two but was still successful (50 million est. lifetime sales)
Even if every single thing he was in charge of failed catastrophically, anyone who isn't looking closely is going to see someone with a huge amount of industry expertise working on some of the largest and most successful products to ever exist full stop (not just in gaming.)
You'd expect that at this level of responsability and salary, the background check would be more than just a single scroll on his wikipedia page, but then again a clown is pretty much only hired for a circus, half of those taking those decisions have failed upwards themselves too.
Everything you mentioned has gotten successful both late in its existence, and very much after Harrison left.
Everything you mentioned has gotten successful both late in its existence, and very much after Harrison left.
I don't feel it's fair to say Gaikai failed miserably. They were on par with other competitors such as OnLive. That whole first generation of game streaming created a new market, but was ultimately too early -- the internet infrastructure they were betting on didn't come soon enough to enable their product to take off. At that point, getting acquired by the biggest dog in the gaming industry is the best possible outcome.
Phil Harrison is an absolute tool though.
Phil Harrison is an absolute tool though.
Gaikai failed miserably, the same way OnLive failed miserably. Yes, the infrastructure was not there, but also, the product itself was just not ready. If I start selling prototype home fusion reactors that don't react and I get bought by <big energy company>, it's not a success, the thing literally didn't work.
We call that a Shit Midas, where everything they touch turns to shit.
Or the Mierdas Touch
Do you think senior leadership was involved? It seems just as likely that some platforms engineers figured they could mess around with hardware on the edge and got it shipped from the bottom up.
No, they had a huge push behind it at one point, they even had internal game development studios and hired inhouse game devs, which they then proceeded to fire less than 18 months later. That's right, from new platform to fired in less than 18 months. It's a shameful way to run a company.
I know they put the full force of the machine behind it, it's just not obvious to me that the reason they did it came from the top, or was even known to the top, versus just being an emergent phenomenon.
I think people ascribe way too much agency to corporate executives.
I think people ascribe way too much agency to corporate executives.
>But this one is probably the clearest, obvious failure of execution ... There is an absolutely crystal clear playbook of a Tech company forcing its way into the Gaming business.
I'm not sure this was an 'obvious failure of execution'. They wanted to build a gaming cloud-streaming-only service, and they built one. I don't think you can build a better one because the problems with cloud-streamed gaming are with the concept not execution. The streaming service provided by Xbox is on par with Stadia, in that it suffers from the same latency, and graphical downscaling issues as Stadia did. On the Xbox it is part of my subscription (so technically 'free') and I don't want to use it because the experience is bad (although it is nice to quickly sample a game without needing to wait for download and install).
I'm not sure this was an 'obvious failure of execution'. They wanted to build a gaming cloud-streaming-only service, and they built one. I don't think you can build a better one because the problems with cloud-streamed gaming are with the concept not execution. The streaming service provided by Xbox is on par with Stadia, in that it suffers from the same latency, and graphical downscaling issues as Stadia did. On the Xbox it is part of my subscription (so technically 'free') and I don't want to use it because the experience is bad (although it is nice to quickly sample a game without needing to wait for download and install).
Oh, there definitely were obvious failures of execution. Not on the core streaming tech side, but on the business and product aspects. The product should have been quite compelling: a way of playing current gen console games with basically no up front hardware investment and no ongoing subscription. That's what the "free" version of Stadia was.
But then they muddied things up with Stadia Pro, making people think it was actually supposed to a "Netflix for games" subscription service, and crucially making Stadia Pro the only SKU for a very long time. So rather than the really appealing entry point to console gaming that people could have easily tried, they ended up targeting the exact people for whom Stadia was the worst fit (hardcore gamers with existing console owners and large game libraries).
But then they muddied things up with Stadia Pro, making people think it was actually supposed to a "Netflix for games" subscription service, and crucially making Stadia Pro the only SKU for a very long time. So rather than the really appealing entry point to console gaming that people could have easily tried, they ended up targeting the exact people for whom Stadia was the worst fit (hardcore gamers with existing console owners and large game libraries).
Absolutely agree. XBox Cloud gaming took the "Netflix for games" strategy and with inferior quality was able to decently establish itself.
How to fund the development of a risky but long-term valuable new platform? Whomever was calling the shots on that question failed spectacularly and in a way that technology companies usually don't. You're already losing hundreds of millions making the tech, why not spend a few more loss-leading the user growth?
How to fund the development of a risky but long-term valuable new platform? Whomever was calling the shots on that question failed spectacularly and in a way that technology companies usually don't. You're already losing hundreds of millions making the tech, why not spend a few more loss-leading the user growth?
I absolutely hope not.
Stadia has provided an excellent game night for me and my remote friend (who is on a Mac) this year and we've had a blast, we mostly play little party games as nither of us our big gamers, but it makes for an excellent night,i've bought a couple of games on it that i've yet to even get too and plan to buy some more and enjoy the odd hour or two in the evenings. Stadia removes all fraction and means I don't need to install/update or have gaming hardware.
The service is great. Despite it not being popular. It would be an absolute disaster for me if the service were to close.
Stadia has provided an excellent game night for me and my remote friend (who is on a Mac) this year and we've had a blast, we mostly play little party games as nither of us our big gamers, but it makes for an excellent night,i've bought a couple of games on it that i've yet to even get too and plan to buy some more and enjoy the odd hour or two in the evenings. Stadia removes all fraction and means I don't need to install/update or have gaming hardware.
The service is great. Despite it not being popular. It would be an absolute disaster for me if the service were to close.
Have you looked into using Geforce Now with your friend? It's a fantastic service and works on OSX.
Yes, used this before Stadia and it was rubbish.
No where near as good and as stable as Stadia, also the monthly fee is a pain. With Stadia you can just buy the game and then play when you want, I don't think there is anything else like that.
No where near as good and as stable as Stadia, also the monthly fee is a pain. With Stadia you can just buy the game and then play when you want, I don't think there is anything else like that.
That’s likely just Google burning cash to attract users though. Unsustainable.
The cloud time is the expensive part and most of the purchase price is likely going to go to the publisher. How many hours of gameplay before they’ve lost money on your purchase?
The cloud time is the expensive part and most of the purchase price is likely going to go to the publisher. How many hours of gameplay before they’ve lost money on your purchase?
It's come a long way since pre-Stadia that's for sure. Can't get around the monthly fee though.
Is performance better now? I was in the beta when there wasn't a limited selection of games and my friend used the free version once it came out of beta about a year and a half ago.
Its performance is unparalleled among cloud gaming services at the moment with the updates over the past year or so, Stadia is now a blurry, poorly upscaled mess in comparison, often locked at 30-45fps for certain titles while GFN is pushing real 4K at 120FPS with full ray tracing etc without breaking a sweat.
https://youtu.be/B1bIGi1yjC8
It will routinely outperform a local series x (nevermind a PS5) given the right conditions, but that’s subject to your ISP, location, and probably not running CP2077 at maxed out ultra RTX graphics settings just yet.
https://youtu.be/B1bIGi1yjC8
It will routinely outperform a local series x (nevermind a PS5) given the right conditions, but that’s subject to your ISP, location, and probably not running CP2077 at maxed out ultra RTX graphics settings just yet.
It was their streaming tech though that wasn't as good, rather than their rending of graphics as it was just a blurry mess and laggy.
Will give it another try.
Will give it another try.
[deleted]
It's been my main gaming platform the last 2 years and I'd describe it as more than serviceable. They do a bunch of free demos now - I think WaveTale is free for the next 24hrs you can try it out yourself. The subscription is optional.
I mostly agree. I'm a "gamer" but not a very serious/avid one. Stadia has been great for casual play and a few of the family/kids games that I play along with my little ones. They have a blast. I also enjoy the cross-platform nature of it. Using a Chromecast is great on the huge projector and then sometimes more casual play on a computer (via the browser) since some games I prefer to play not on a huge screen and with a mouse/keyboard instead of their Stadia Controller.
I haven't bought many titles, personally, so if it is disappeared, I wouldn't be terribly upset. Annoyed, yes.
And it would probably cause me to go hunt around a bit more at Xbox Cloud gaming (Which I have also tried and looks promising with a nice but small library of titles) and I have yet to check out GeForce Now but have heard good things there, too.
I haven't bought many titles, personally, so if it is disappeared, I wouldn't be terribly upset. Annoyed, yes.
And it would probably cause me to go hunt around a bit more at Xbox Cloud gaming (Which I have also tried and looks promising with a nice but small library of titles) and I have yet to check out GeForce Now but have heard good things there, too.
> we mostly play little party games as nither of us our big gamers
unfortunately there's not enough of you guys, Stadia was targeting the latter crowd but as you can see, they've failed.
unfortunately there's not enough of you guys, Stadia was targeting the latter crowd but as you can see, they've failed.
GamePass Ultimate (Xbox Cloud gaming) does streaming perfectly so as Nvidia Geforce Now
Not tried GamePass as it's expensive and a subscription service unlike Stadia, I used Geforce now before and it wasn't very good. My friend reports Stadia works far better for them when compared to Geforce now which is not as well optomised / laggy etc. I think it might require a stronger connection that what she has, where as Stadia works flawlessly.
Not sure if game pass is better but the price would put me off a little bit, because we only play for a few hours every couple of weeks.
Not sure if game pass is better but the price would put me off a little bit, because we only play for a few hours every couple of weeks.
I think the distance to the datacentre is a huge element in the lagginess, so I doubt we can declare one service better than another with only anecdata.
There’s also Xbox Cloud Gaming.
I avoided checking Stadia out in the first place as I thought they'd end up shutting it down after prior experiences. This seems a difficult branding loop to break, but does them no favors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Agreed. The ball is in Google's court. Consumers should (and clearly do) cast a vote of "no confidence" with their wallet.
Exactly this. How could Google even expect any of their services to be successful now, besides by attracting sufficiently gullible customers?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Disclaimer: haven’t ever worked at Google, so just guessing
>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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Spin off non-core companies as soon as humanly possible with some investment and simply be a (majority) investor in them instead.
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.
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.
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.
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
It's not that difficult of a loop to break. They simply need to decide: no more shut downs for the next 10 years.
After that, they need to think very carefully before starting anything new, and if they do, commit to it.
After that, they need to think very carefully before starting anything new, and if they do, commit to it.
I'd like to be a counterpoint for the Stadia bashing here:
I'm not much of a gamer, but I've always been interested in playing Red Dead Redemption 2. However, I neither had a console nor a PC with a decent enough graphics card.
This spring, I picked up a Google TV with Chromecast, and realized I could pair any bluetooth device with it. I bought a cheapo PS4-like controller off of Amazon, saw that RDR2 was on sale on Stadia, and gave it a shot.
I have to say, the experience was quite pleasing. No need for an expensive/out-of-stock graphics card. No need for a dedicated console. If feels like a great solution for a casual gamer. Overall, I've been impressed with the experience, and haven't experienced any lag or game stutters. Heck, it even plays Cyberpunk smoothly!
Stadia definitely lacks in terms of marketing and game library, but I feel like it's a concept that works.
I'm not much of a gamer, but I've always been interested in playing Red Dead Redemption 2. However, I neither had a console nor a PC with a decent enough graphics card.
This spring, I picked up a Google TV with Chromecast, and realized I could pair any bluetooth device with it. I bought a cheapo PS4-like controller off of Amazon, saw that RDR2 was on sale on Stadia, and gave it a shot.
I have to say, the experience was quite pleasing. No need for an expensive/out-of-stock graphics card. No need for a dedicated console. If feels like a great solution for a casual gamer. Overall, I've been impressed with the experience, and haven't experienced any lag or game stutters. Heck, it even plays Cyberpunk smoothly!
Stadia definitely lacks in terms of marketing and game library, but I feel like it's a concept that works.
> casual gamer
Same.
I had a month off between jobs and used a week of my evenings off to play through red dead.
I don't particularly care about losing the license, because I just wanted to play the game through. Haven't touched it since then.
Stadia's ideal market wasn't "real gamers" -- those folks will buy rigs. Their ideal market was people like you and me, who don't have the time or interest to justify purchasing a gaming machine but still want to play through a AAA title or two every once in a while.
Same.
I had a month off between jobs and used a week of my evenings off to play through red dead.
I don't particularly care about losing the license, because I just wanted to play the game through. Haven't touched it since then.
Stadia's ideal market wasn't "real gamers" -- those folks will buy rigs. Their ideal market was people like you and me, who don't have the time or interest to justify purchasing a gaming machine but still want to play through a AAA title or two every once in a while.
Another same here. I didn't need to buy a console, a tv or even a controller. It feels like unlimited power to be able to access RDR2 on just another tab - 13 year old me would have gone crazy :)
I've tried to find a flaw with this argument and admittedly it's pretty hard. As long as you accept to pay a above the market price for the game and you don't care about retaining ownership then it somehow makes sense.
I'm guessing this value proposition is what made it unsustainable for Google.
I'm guessing this value proposition is what made it unsustainable for Google.
The need for GPUs during an unprecedented spike in demand for chip fab capacity couldn't have helped.
I think the basic model will eventually work out, though. The bandwidth is there. The compute has to be cheap enough that the biz model works by just taking the retailer's cut of the title sale + maybe a tad more. The tad more can come from one-time hardware sales and maybe better negotiated cuts of the sale from the studios. I would never ever have purchased a copy of any AAA title without Stadia and similar services. I think the same is true for almost all Stadia purchases.
But Google's failure here makes sense. It's a low margin game. google sucks at low margin games.
I think the basic model will eventually work out, though. The bandwidth is there. The compute has to be cheap enough that the biz model works by just taking the retailer's cut of the title sale + maybe a tad more. The tad more can come from one-time hardware sales and maybe better negotiated cuts of the sale from the studios. I would never ever have purchased a copy of any AAA title without Stadia and similar services. I think the same is true for almost all Stadia purchases.
But Google's failure here makes sense. It's a low margin game. google sucks at low margin games.
"The source also claims that there'd be no license transfer of any sort, which means that any purchases made on Stadia would effectively be nullified as the service closes down."
There clearly needs to be a law to make such things illegal. I've refused to take the discount on digital Switch games since Nintendo has clearly shown they are willing to shut down old servers and tell you to just buy your games again.
But there are some games that are digital only and I fear the next generation of games will be like Xbox. You buy a physical that does nothing more than connect to a server that downloads the game.
Perhaps legally allowing backups of games you purchased would help.
There clearly needs to be a law to make such things illegal. I've refused to take the discount on digital Switch games since Nintendo has clearly shown they are willing to shut down old servers and tell you to just buy your games again.
But there are some games that are digital only and I fear the next generation of games will be like Xbox. You buy a physical that does nothing more than connect to a server that downloads the game.
Perhaps legally allowing backups of games you purchased would help.
>Perhaps legally allowing backups of games you purchased would help
as great as that would be, the corporate-run governments of the world would see that as tantamount to legalising video game piracy, one of the few (if not, the only) media that have actually succeeded in making online piracy difficult
as great as that would be, the corporate-run governments of the world would see that as tantamount to legalising video game piracy, one of the few (if not, the only) media that have actually succeeded in making online piracy difficult
It would be difficult from a security perspective, but if they provided their own flash drives for backing up games it could be the best for consumers and the manufacturers.
Nearly all software produced currently ships out with the assumption that updates can easily be pushed out. As a concrete example, twenty years from now I don't want to play the original Mario Kart 8 that shipped when the switch was released, I would want to play the Mario Kart 8 that has double the levels that they are currently slowly dropping over the next year. The ideal situation would be an ability to write that information back to the card.
Couple that with another law that enforces consumers ability to roll back updates to any previous version they desire and you're fully protected with the ability to play your games essentially forever
Nearly all software produced currently ships out with the assumption that updates can easily be pushed out. As a concrete example, twenty years from now I don't want to play the original Mario Kart 8 that shipped when the switch was released, I would want to play the Mario Kart 8 that has double the levels that they are currently slowly dropping over the next year. The ideal situation would be an ability to write that information back to the card.
Couple that with another law that enforces consumers ability to roll back updates to any previous version they desire and you're fully protected with the ability to play your games essentially forever
No need for laws, all the digital game stores are going to migrate their users to game subscription services regardless. It's much more clear legally speaking that you walk away from a subscription service with nothing, and it lets platforms drop support for problematic content. Nobody wants to be responsible for your digital library.
>There clearly needs to be a law to make such things illegal. I've refused to take the discount on digital Switch games since Nintendo has clearly shown they are willing to shut down old servers and tell you to just buy your games again.
The problem is that there really isn't a way to legislate it. The content is tied to the service (either the platform service like the Switch, or the game service itself), and if the servers aren't running, you're done. No backup is going to help you. And there's piracy. I do not see any governments creating legislating to force publishers (or platform (e.g. Steam) or console manufacturers) to remove anti-piracy measures.
The problem is that there really isn't a way to legislate it. The content is tied to the service (either the platform service like the Switch, or the game service itself), and if the servers aren't running, you're done. No backup is going to help you. And there's piracy. I do not see any governments creating legislating to force publishers (or platform (e.g. Steam) or console manufacturers) to remove anti-piracy measures.
Mandate keeping the servers open. Or to put it another way, mandate that purchases which were advertised and sold as purchases of content (not "licenses", as the wink and nod legal fiction the industry likes to fall back on when questioned) remain fit for purpose, or the buyer is entitled to a full refund.
Then let the industry figure out the technical details. Most of these services amount to a bog standard download of encrypted files. There is absolutely nothing about this that requires any more than the most basic infrastructure anybody reading this could set up.
Alternatively, we force them to describe these time boxed, locked down, lacking basic consumer rights things we're purchasing as the rentals they actually are.
Then let the industry figure out the technical details. Most of these services amount to a bog standard download of encrypted files. There is absolutely nothing about this that requires any more than the most basic infrastructure anybody reading this could set up.
Alternatively, we force them to describe these time boxed, locked down, lacking basic consumer rights things we're purchasing as the rentals they actually are.
>Mandate keeping the servers open.
Awful idea. Great way to permanently move all content services to subscription based as nobody in their right mind would ever commit to keeping up servers for the rest of eternity for every game or movie they create.
Awful idea. Great way to permanently move all content services to subscription based as nobody in their right mind would ever commit to keeping up servers for the rest of eternity for every game or movie they create.
You didn't read the rest of the comment. I'm not talking about things like multiplayer games, I'm talking about things like being able to download the stuff you purchased (purchased, not "licensed") in perpetuity, or at least for a reasonably long period of time, rather than just when the company gets bored.
That is not an unreasonable ask, especially considering the high degree of control society grants them over these products when they are sold. That grant should come with some responsibilities.
That is not an unreasonable ask, especially considering the high degree of control society grants them over these products when they are sold. That grant should come with some responsibilities.
>I'm not talking about things like multiplayer games
What is and isn't a 'multiplayer game' isn't so clear cut. Neither is the reason why 'multiplayer games' should be exempt from this.
But let's leave that aside, the problem is that there isn't a simple, clear-cut legislation to fix this. Instead you would need to create a big regulatory and enforcement framework, along with a technical framework defined and built by the publishers .. and even then it isn't so clear-cut that this is enough. And yes, all this would raise the barrier of entry for indie developers who now would need the equivalent of 'regulatory approval' to release their games.
Given that this would take an enormous amount of effort to pass, only to satisfy a small number of video game aficionados, it's hard to see why any government would expand the effort and political capital to do it.
What is and isn't a 'multiplayer game' isn't so clear cut. Neither is the reason why 'multiplayer games' should be exempt from this.
But let's leave that aside, the problem is that there isn't a simple, clear-cut legislation to fix this. Instead you would need to create a big regulatory and enforcement framework, along with a technical framework defined and built by the publishers .. and even then it isn't so clear-cut that this is enough. And yes, all this would raise the barrier of entry for indie developers who now would need the equivalent of 'regulatory approval' to release their games.
Given that this would take an enormous amount of effort to pass, only to satisfy a small number of video game aficionados, it's hard to see why any government would expand the effort and political capital to do it.
I believe the threat of legislation by itself may do the trick, without the need to actually get into the process. Do you remember how the ESRB was formed? There was a governmental push as a result of complaints about videogame content, with the government vowing to form a legislative solution unless the industry regulated itself.
As it turns out, they got together and came up with their own ratings system, and it was largely a success.
Again, my criteria for success is that digital content should not be arbitrarily removed from the purchaser. That's it. However we get there is an implementation detail. The hypothetical indie could shove the files on an S3 bucket and call it a day. The hypothetical multibillion-dollar mega corp could push an update to their console which redirects all download links to an absolutely basic file store of some kind that the console would work with.
As it turns out, they got together and came up with their own ratings system, and it was largely a success.
Again, my criteria for success is that digital content should not be arbitrarily removed from the purchaser. That's it. However we get there is an implementation detail. The hypothetical indie could shove the files on an S3 bucket and call it a day. The hypothetical multibillion-dollar mega corp could push an update to their console which redirects all download links to an absolutely basic file store of some kind that the console would work with.
> And there's piracy. I do not see any governments creating legislating to force publishers (or platform (e.g. Steam) or console manufacturers) to remove anti-piracy measures.
Decriminalization of piracy so people can support themselves would be a good start, but I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Decriminalization of piracy so people can support themselves would be a good start, but I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
I have this pipe dream that the digital markets act forces consoles to either allow sideloading and lose basically all of the profits on their ecosystems, or remove digital markets entirely and go back to physical games only.
From @GoogleStadia...
https://twitter.com/GoogleStadia/status/1552989433590214656?...
"Replying to @BlueFireDemon44 Stadia is not shutting down. Rest assured we're always working on bringing more great games to the platform and Stadia Pro. Let us know if you have other questions."
https://twitter.com/GoogleStadia/status/1552989433590214656?...
"Replying to @BlueFireDemon44 Stadia is not shutting down. Rest assured we're always working on bringing more great games to the platform and Stadia Pro. Let us know if you have other questions."
I can't think of any other service from Google that's more weirdly polarizing, although Google's Pixel phones probably run a close second. People either find Stadia useful and say they use it regularly, or they hate it to the point they seemingly spend their days telling everyone how terrible Stadia is, how it was doomed from the start, how investing in the platform is a waste of time and money, etc. Oddly, you get the same thing on Pixel forums where people spend as much time telling everyone how they switched and how much better their new $whateverphone is than their previous $googlephone as people do looking for support or saying they like their phone just fine.
Perhaps when Google disappoints people they really disappoint them? It seems like an oddly visceral and out of proportion reaction to waste time on the internet disgruntled and complaining that some people like something you don't like.
Perhaps when Google disappoints people they really disappoint them? It seems like an oddly visceral and out of proportion reaction to waste time on the internet disgruntled and complaining that some people like something you don't like.
That's an odd comparison. Unlike Stadia, if the Pixel phone division shuts down you still have a working phone.
Forums will be forums and the trolls get the spotlight. Pixel phones, particularly the cheaper 'a' models, are very popular and good value. What significant things are much better on non-Google Android phones?
Forums will be forums and the trolls get the spotlight. Pixel phones, particularly the cheaper 'a' models, are very popular and good value. What significant things are much better on non-Google Android phones?
>... you still have a working phone
You do, but if Google literally dropped support of their phones, you'd never get another security update, so it'd be in your best interest to move although not mandatory like if Stadia shut down. The comparison is about peoples' visceral reaction to Google products when they're disappointed, not specifically when the product is dropped.
> What significant things are much better on non-Google Android phones?
Not my point and frankly I have no clue: I've had a google android phone of some kind or another since the G1, which if that reference is lost on you is the original android phone.
You do, but if Google literally dropped support of their phones, you'd never get another security update, so it'd be in your best interest to move although not mandatory like if Stadia shut down. The comparison is about peoples' visceral reaction to Google products when they're disappointed, not specifically when the product is dropped.
> What significant things are much better on non-Google Android phones?
Not my point and frankly I have no clue: I've had a google android phone of some kind or another since the G1, which if that reference is lost on you is the original android phone.
You're proposing then that Google is in a disappointment loop. I think that's much more true for the technologically versed than the broader public. If they shut down Gmail/Maps/YouTube/Chromecast that'd breach the layman dyke, but I can't see them doing that.
Google I feel's is this age's General Electric. They already borrowed all the wrong ideas from Jack Welch. Most people, if they dug a bit, just want Google to keep what it's already built running and not charge for it. It's just not a place you expect radically good innovation to come from anymore. So, like your Whirlpool dishwasher, you expect it to do its thing, never rave about it to anyone, and moan about it when it breaks.
Google I feel's is this age's General Electric. They already borrowed all the wrong ideas from Jack Welch. Most people, if they dug a bit, just want Google to keep what it's already built running and not charge for it. It's just not a place you expect radically good innovation to come from anymore. So, like your Whirlpool dishwasher, you expect it to do its thing, never rave about it to anyone, and moan about it when it breaks.
There seems to be widespread unhappiness in tech circles about Google search trending towards an ad delivery system and quality of search results going down. And at least in tech circles a slow exodus via people de-Googling. So yeah I agree with you their main services are popular enough for now. Yet Tik Tok is slowly eclipsing Youtube for watched minutes in some demographics, so some mainstream non-technical users are going where they feel served best. What does that mean for search and e-mail? Again I agree with you: not much until and unless something very compelling comes along.
I already don't get support from Google for my pixel 2 xl
False rumor or not, Stadia has very little market fit.
It's no solution for budget gamers. You still need to pay for the services, the individual games and need to have an excellent network connection to make it usable. It's not exactly a solution for the "poor".
It's not really a solution for most casual/infrequent gamers either. Most high-end games are not casual games, they require a time investment. Plus, in this case there's hefty competition from mobile games, which is highly social: everybody's playing the same viral game none of which are on Stadia.
For the frequent gamer not on a budget, a Playstation/Xbox is affordable and in fact heavily subsidized. A one time purchase with a typical life span of 7 years. No latency issues and a vastly superior catalog of games.
This leaves...whom? A small audience of ex-PC gamers perhaps, tired of PC woes (loud, constant upgrades).
It's no solution for budget gamers. You still need to pay for the services, the individual games and need to have an excellent network connection to make it usable. It's not exactly a solution for the "poor".
It's not really a solution for most casual/infrequent gamers either. Most high-end games are not casual games, they require a time investment. Plus, in this case there's hefty competition from mobile games, which is highly social: everybody's playing the same viral game none of which are on Stadia.
For the frequent gamer not on a budget, a Playstation/Xbox is affordable and in fact heavily subsidized. A one time purchase with a typical life span of 7 years. No latency issues and a vastly superior catalog of games.
This leaves...whom? A small audience of ex-PC gamers perhaps, tired of PC woes (loud, constant upgrades).
You only need to pay for the games (at full price because there's never a sale!) and your internet connection. You can play at 1080p for free. You need to subscribe to Stadia for 4k and some free games.
In the end, I agree with you, it's just not quite as bad as you painted it.
In the end, I agree with you, it's just not quite as bad as you painted it.
I buy all my Stadia games on sale, I just don't value the newest games that much. The issue is the Stadia selection not the price, there are good deals to be had.
Sales are infrequent, but they happen. https://stadiadb.app/ lists lowest sale prices of all their games.
Fine, but even then, a PS5 costs about 500USD. Considering a lifespan of 5-7 years, that's a pretty small investment for a regular gamer.
In return you'll have a nearly endless catalog of games (including from older generations), 4K, no compression or lag issues.
In return you'll have a nearly endless catalog of games (including from older generations), 4K, no compression or lag issues.
its a horrible proposition: pay to watch a video stream of a game you dont own that you can control with lag.
why would I do that when I can buy a game on Steam or GOG or even outright pirate it, run it on my local machine, don't need to worry about internet upstream capacity, and I can take it anywhere?
it never made any sense and will never make sense.
why would I do that when I can buy a game on Steam or GOG or even outright pirate it, run it on my local machine, don't need to worry about internet upstream capacity, and I can take it anywhere?
it never made any sense and will never make sense.
And if I still REALLY want those mpeg encoding artifacts and lag, I can still stream the game to another computer from my gaming computer using Steam, my AMD app, probably three other programs for games I already have installed etc.
If you own a gaming computer, stadia was never intended for you, lol. It's meant to bring similar experiences to people who can't shell out 3k
The stadia tech is remarkably good but I still don’t understand what their target market is.
They seem to be targeting people who don’t want the expense of buying a gaming pc or a console but, for some reason, also have extremely good high bandwidth, low-latency broadband.
The intersection of these two groups seems remarkably small.
They seem to be targeting people who don’t want the expense of buying a gaming pc or a console but, for some reason, also have extremely good high bandwidth, low-latency broadband.
The intersection of these two groups seems remarkably small.
The people who have extremely low latency internet are all behind a corp or acad firewall
Game Pass is a massive success, and PlayStation Now was just revamped to be more like it. How Stadia managed to be so close, yet so completely miss the biggest trend in gaming is frankly quite astonishing.
I remember Google was talking up how you'd be able to watch a game stream on YouTube, then with a single click "fork" the game into your own instance and continue playing. Or even just basic things like watching a game trailer and being able to jump into a playable demo. But they didn't realize any of that, instead they went with the most conservative possible approach of selling games for $60, which is a non-starter in a world of constant sales and where Game Pass already exists. It's like if YouTube was a platform where every video was $1 to watch, how successful would that have been?
I also think if Google shuts down Stadia instead of pivoting into a Game Pass like service, the reputational damage to GCP alone will be more than whatever the cost of Stadia is.
I remember Google was talking up how you'd be able to watch a game stream on YouTube, then with a single click "fork" the game into your own instance and continue playing. Or even just basic things like watching a game trailer and being able to jump into a playable demo. But they didn't realize any of that, instead they went with the most conservative possible approach of selling games for $60, which is a non-starter in a world of constant sales and where Game Pass already exists. It's like if YouTube was a platform where every video was $1 to watch, how successful would that have been?
I also think if Google shuts down Stadia instead of pivoting into a Game Pass like service, the reputational damage to GCP alone will be more than whatever the cost of Stadia is.
This is absolutely false. Feel free to quote this post in October. HN has a pretty high caliber of commenter compared to other forums. People believing a baseless rumor so easily is sad.
>People believing a baseless rumor so easily is sad.
There is an incredibly long list of precedents:
https://killedbygoogle.com
Scroll through that and once you get to the bottom tell me people are still being unreasonable...
I am glad to hear (anonymous) confirmation that it isn't getting killed though.
There is an incredibly long list of precedents:
https://killedbygoogle.com
Scroll through that and once you get to the bottom tell me people are still being unreasonable...
I am glad to hear (anonymous) confirmation that it isn't getting killed though.
That list is irrelevant. Even if Google had never killed a product before, it would be worth believing if there is solid evidence.
Here, there is none.
Here, there is none.
>That list is irrelevant.
A company's operating history is absolutely relevant to whether or not people believe rumors about it's operations.
A company's operating history is absolutely relevant to whether or not people believe rumors about it's operations.
Believing baseless conjecture is dumb imo.
> That list is irrelevant.
You said the rumor is baseless, but that list is a rock solid foundation for any rumor of Google cancelling anything.
You said the rumor is baseless, but that list is a rock solid foundation for any rumor of Google cancelling anything.
That’s not how it works. Would you believe the same about Google Ads? Rock solid foundation and all that.
Any confidence I have in the continued existence of Google Ads comes from Google Ads persisting for several years already. That confers approximately zero confidence to Stadia. Stadia is new to Google, and that list shows that things new to Google are very likely to be cancelled. If Stadia hangs on for 20 years, then expectations will be adjusted, but that hasn't happened so it's foolish to expect it.
[deleted]
Do you believe Google will cancel Cloud? It’s also new. If you do there’s money to be made shorting Google.
Wouldn't the classic Bayesian analogy here be you hear a tiger in New York, with the caveat that several dozen of your neighbors have eaten in the past few years (https://killedbygoogle.com/) by a family of the escaped cats from the Bronx Zoo.
Google consumer products have a pretty bad track record, and using Google Workspace sometimes seems to cross the line to becoming a liability, with their approach to customer support and lockout appeal process.
Google Cloud is another story, they don't seem to shut down anything there and you have actual support lines. But we aren't talking about that here.
Google Cloud is another story, they don't seem to shut down anything there and you have actual support lines. But we aren't talking about that here.
What do you consider a "baseless rumor"? There's an anonymous source behind this one, and while we obviously don't know who the source is, I wouldn't consider that "baseless". Take it with a grain of salt, sure, but that's true for any rumor.
Also, you seem to be implying that you also have an anonymous source at Google (or are one yourself). Either way, the credibility of your comment isn't any better than that Twitter account, even if you think HN commenters are "higher caliber" than people on Twitter.
Also, you seem to be implying that you also have an anonymous source at Google (or are one yourself). Either way, the credibility of your comment isn't any better than that Twitter account, even if you think HN commenters are "higher caliber" than people on Twitter.
Anonymous sources providing nothing but a statement are baseless.
Stadia will exist by the end of the summer. You don’t have to believe me. Like I said feel free to come back to this thread in October.
Stadia will exist by the end of the summer. You don’t have to believe me. Like I said feel free to come back to this thread in October.
>Anonymous sources providing nothing but a statement are baseless.
To the parent commenter's point, you said, "This is absolutely false". Do you have actual evidence otherwise, or are you making baseless conjecture based on, well... baseless conjecture?
To the parent commenter's point, you said, "This is absolutely false". Do you have actual evidence otherwise, or are you making baseless conjecture based on, well... baseless conjecture?
Me not having evidence doesn’t mean it’s not true. Indeed my statement is equally dubious as the Twitter one. However you’ll see that I’m correct by just coming back to this thread in October.
Proving a negative is generally difficult to begin with.
Proving a negative is generally difficult to begin with.
Then I'm really not sure what your intent is here. After all, you said it yourself...
>Believing baseless conjecture is dumb imo.
So, it's dumb to believe baseless conjecture, but we should believe your baseless conjecture that someone else's baseless conjecture is wrong.
>Believing baseless conjecture is dumb imo.
So, it's dumb to believe baseless conjecture, but we should believe your baseless conjecture that someone else's baseless conjecture is wrong.
You don’t have to believe anything. Just wait and see
[deleted]
I recently purchased the cloud version of Kingdom Hearts for my Nintendo Switch, where the game runs in the cloud and streams locally to my console [1]. Despite the criticisms of cloud gaming, I decided to buy it because I already have a Nintendo Switch as my only console, and I wouldn't go buy a Playstation just replay those couple of games anyway.
My experience has been mostly good. I was able to tether my console to my phone while out of town and play flawlessly over 5G, it was surprisingly smooth for well over an hour.
But at home with a wired Ethernet adaptor and stable Internet, I still run into occasional gameplay issues with stuttering/lagging. And if I pause the game for too long it disconnects my session (presumably to free up cloud resources) and kicks me back to my last save point.
I really want to love cloud gaming, but the concept of having _all_ your games as a part of a subscription just doesn't seem appealing yet. Until we can transfer those licenses to different providers, it will remain a pretty niche category that the majority of people won't buy into outside of a few games here and there.
[1] https://www.nintendo.com/store/products/kingdom-hearts-hd-1-...
My experience has been mostly good. I was able to tether my console to my phone while out of town and play flawlessly over 5G, it was surprisingly smooth for well over an hour.
But at home with a wired Ethernet adaptor and stable Internet, I still run into occasional gameplay issues with stuttering/lagging. And if I pause the game for too long it disconnects my session (presumably to free up cloud resources) and kicks me back to my last save point.
I really want to love cloud gaming, but the concept of having _all_ your games as a part of a subscription just doesn't seem appealing yet. Until we can transfer those licenses to different providers, it will remain a pretty niche category that the majority of people won't buy into outside of a few games here and there.
[1] https://www.nintendo.com/store/products/kingdom-hearts-hd-1-...
Google> we'll engineer a cloud gaming service
Gamers> um have you even met us? What about the speed of light?
Google> we'll beat the speed of light using genius engineering
Gamers> lol
Google> we're shutting down because nobody uses us
Gamers> lol
Yet another case of having never spoken to the actual customer
Gamers> um have you even met us? What about the speed of light?
Google> we'll beat the speed of light using genius engineering
Gamers> lol
Google> we're shutting down because nobody uses us
Gamers> lol
Yet another case of having never spoken to the actual customer
Haven't used Stadia but have played on GFN multiple games without issues. Cloud gaming actually works.
I am a customer. I played several AAA games all the way through on Stadia and it was a great experience. It was not like OnLive back in the day. If Stadia gets shut down then I'll have to switch to GeForce Now which is way more clunky.
Cloud gaming as a concept is long proven. Pc gamers bothered by a 10ms button delays are not a huge target market.
The bottleneck with Cloud Gaming is physical hardware (GPUs). You need both a dedicated GPU to run the actual game, but also a fast CPU (or expensive FPGAs) to stream the video to your thin clients. GPUs are expensive, power hungry, heat up quickly, take up space, and can't be shared across multiple players.
As a Cloud Gaming provider, you need to invest heavy capital into distributed hardware across the globe, before you make your first cent. This makes this business non-viable for all but a small handful of players in this space.
Cloud Gaming providers have been trying to get around the hardware bottlenecks by introducing various optimizations (time sharing, like with old mainframes) - at the expense of flexibility and the user's experience. Your users pay a monthly subscription, but get various limits imposed on them to allow for the other players to get enough GPU time and maintain fairness.
As a Cloud Gaming provider, on-top of the GPU bottleneck, you're also going to spend a lot on bandwidth (real-time streaming at high resolutions). Your clients also need a good internet connection to enjoy a seamless experience (which is still a precious commodity, in large parts of the world).
Finally, you need to offer your subscriptions at a reasonable price. If the price you're charging is too high, your clients might as-well just save up for a new PC/GPU for a couple of months and buy their own machine from which they can play and cut off the middleman entirely.
Without solving the hardware bottleneck problem - Cloud Gaming becomes too expensive to run, as it can't scale to serve everybody the way something like Netflix does efficiently.
This seems like a fundamental problem with this business that has brought down multiple big players in the Cloud Gaming world already.
Cloud Gaming sounds like an impossible business to run in 2022.
As a Cloud Gaming provider, you need to invest heavy capital into distributed hardware across the globe, before you make your first cent. This makes this business non-viable for all but a small handful of players in this space.
Cloud Gaming providers have been trying to get around the hardware bottlenecks by introducing various optimizations (time sharing, like with old mainframes) - at the expense of flexibility and the user's experience. Your users pay a monthly subscription, but get various limits imposed on them to allow for the other players to get enough GPU time and maintain fairness.
As a Cloud Gaming provider, on-top of the GPU bottleneck, you're also going to spend a lot on bandwidth (real-time streaming at high resolutions). Your clients also need a good internet connection to enjoy a seamless experience (which is still a precious commodity, in large parts of the world).
Finally, you need to offer your subscriptions at a reasonable price. If the price you're charging is too high, your clients might as-well just save up for a new PC/GPU for a couple of months and buy their own machine from which they can play and cut off the middleman entirely.
Without solving the hardware bottleneck problem - Cloud Gaming becomes too expensive to run, as it can't scale to serve everybody the way something like Netflix does efficiently.
This seems like a fundamental problem with this business that has brought down multiple big players in the Cloud Gaming world already.
Cloud Gaming sounds like an impossible business to run in 2022.
> As a Cloud Gaming provider, you need to invest heavy capital into distributed hardware across the globe, before you make your first cent. This makes this business non-viable for all but a small handful of players in this space.
Wouldn't that make the perfect case for a Cloud Provider, like Google, to do it? If it is not using the machine for gaming it can use it for it's own cloud capacity/elasticity.
Wouldn't that make the perfect case for a Cloud Provider, like Google, to do it? If it is not using the machine for gaming it can use it for it's own cloud capacity/elasticity.
The fact that Google has shut down so many services I used in the past, combined with the concept of game ownership being tied to the service is what kept me from ever even exploring it.
I mean, buying games at full retail price that you can only use on their service is not very appealing to me... I hope they'll give out Steam codes or something to folks that did.
https://killedbygoogle.com/ time to update lmao
You don't say...
Google has a bunch of great products, but most of their consumer facing success are driven by data collection and ads. Even if it's just a rumor, I don't see any evidence that Google is able to run successful products that requires actual support to paying users.
Stadia does makes sort of sense as an idea to try, in that it exists in a space where Android, GCP and YouTube intersects. It's entertainment, you could bring it to Android phones potentially and utilize Google infrastructure. Still it seems a bit far of from what Google can do.
Google has a bunch of great products, but most of their consumer facing success are driven by data collection and ads. Even if it's just a rumor, I don't see any evidence that Google is able to run successful products that requires actual support to paying users.
Stadia does makes sort of sense as an idea to try, in that it exists in a space where Android, GCP and YouTube intersects. It's entertainment, you could bring it to Android phones potentially and utilize Google infrastructure. Still it seems a bit far of from what Google can do.
Everything Google produces is either a product to sell ads through or an experiment on new methods to sell ads. They don’t seem willing or capable of selling stuff for money as the primary goal.
The source of this is an anonymous Facebook comment... how is this news?
Google's habit of shutting stuff down on people's faces is a reason why many of their services are being ignored by a lot of people. So much that it is hurting them even in the cloud even when they promise that they wont 'deprecate' so much stuff.
https://steve-yegge.medium.com/dear-google-cloud-your-deprec...
https://steve-yegge.medium.com/dear-google-cloud-your-deprec...
1) Non (PC) gamers had little reason to adopt it, if they were gamers at all they probably had consoles with most Stadia games available.
2) PC gamers are on average very particular about frame rate, quality, and lag and these things weren't great with Stadia.
3) The convenience of not being tied to a specific device was nice but for both #1 & #2 above the convenience came nowhere close to overcoming the biggest flaw: lack of library portability. I certainly wasn't willing to repurchase games on Stadia. We see this in reverse with Stadia users about to loose everything they purchased.
If Google really wanted to do something in this space they'd repurpose the cloud GPU resources dedicated to it towards compute instances w/ Windows and/or a partnership with SteamOS that would allow users to install whatever they wanted: Epic, GOG, Steam, etc. Leave it up to the user. And leverage their streaming technology for the same convenience Stadia had provided, complete with love streaming to YouTube Twitch etc. Niche services like this exist but they're expensive. Google's scale would help solve that.
Of course even that game may be lost with the arrival of the Steam Deck. I can play nearly every game I've tried in it, including many unsupported, and the experience is great. In a hotel I can connect it to a TV, or I can stream it to a larger screened but low end laptop right next to me, and many games play perfectly well even on the small screen. The advent of relatively inexpensive portable hardware like this may in another year or two render the cloud streaming game concept completely moot.
2) PC gamers are on average very particular about frame rate, quality, and lag and these things weren't great with Stadia.
3) The convenience of not being tied to a specific device was nice but for both #1 & #2 above the convenience came nowhere close to overcoming the biggest flaw: lack of library portability. I certainly wasn't willing to repurchase games on Stadia. We see this in reverse with Stadia users about to loose everything they purchased.
If Google really wanted to do something in this space they'd repurpose the cloud GPU resources dedicated to it towards compute instances w/ Windows and/or a partnership with SteamOS that would allow users to install whatever they wanted: Epic, GOG, Steam, etc. Leave it up to the user. And leverage their streaming technology for the same convenience Stadia had provided, complete with love streaming to YouTube Twitch etc. Niche services like this exist but they're expensive. Google's scale would help solve that.
Of course even that game may be lost with the arrival of the Steam Deck. I can play nearly every game I've tried in it, including many unsupported, and the experience is great. In a hotel I can connect it to a TV, or I can stream it to a larger screened but low end laptop right next to me, and many games play perfectly well even on the small screen. The advent of relatively inexpensive portable hardware like this may in another year or two render the cloud streaming game concept completely moot.
Remember the constant rumours that Google Cloud was being shut down? Ahh, good times. What ever happened to those rumours and the suckers that propagated that rumour?
It's a little unfair to put it this way given Google's track record with discontinuing products and services.
Not really. Microsoft has shut down and killed a significant number of services and products.
I really hope if true that Google unlocks the bluetooth on the controllers.
Claimed a free Chromecast/controller with my YT Music subscription.
Games played fine (to my surprise) on my network (1GB down, 40 up Xfinity), but I have other ways to play games. Really only claimed it for an extra Chromecast Ultra...
I found the controller pretty good quality, and would like to have it for bluetooth gaming on PC and mobile, but I have read that the bluetooth is deactivated after initial setup.
Claimed a free Chromecast/controller with my YT Music subscription.
Games played fine (to my surprise) on my network (1GB down, 40 up Xfinity), but I have other ways to play games. Really only claimed it for an extra Chromecast Ultra...
I found the controller pretty good quality, and would like to have it for bluetooth gaming on PC and mobile, but I have read that the bluetooth is deactivated after initial setup.
Jason Scott (@textfiles) launched http://stadiacountdown.com/ the day before Stadia launched. https://mobile.twitter.com/textfiles/status/1196447880728453...
Looks like it may have been optimistic.
I really liked the idea behind Stadia as someone who doesn’t buy many consoles or own a computer suitable for gaming.
I don’t like the idea of never owning games but I could accept it as someone who essentially never buys them otherwise.
But I expected this to happen and I didn’t feel like dealing with the hassle of getting accustomed to a service and watching it get shut down.
I don’t like the idea of never owning games but I could accept it as someone who essentially never buys them otherwise.
But I expected this to happen and I didn’t feel like dealing with the hassle of getting accustomed to a service and watching it get shut down.
You should try Game Pass. There are always trial deals where you get 3 months for <$10.
Yeah, that's just an unsubstantiated rumour and doesn't even make sense. Stadia updated their ToS literally a few days ago with clarifications around payments, asking for a refund on recently bought games (to align with EU rules), etc. Why would they do that if they plan on shutting the service within a month?
because they expect everyone who recently bought a game to try to return it once they announce the end of life for stadia?
I've recently tried XBOX Game Pass. Don't have a console anymore, just bought a wireless controller and hooked my laptop up to my TV. Was pleasantly surprised by the performance! Thought delay would be far larger but it was very playable for most games, not so much for things like FPS games.
I think Stadia never made good of any of its real promises. Did the browser solution ever get released? I guess there were probably huge technical problems but I think that was were it truly would have found its market.
Imagine watching a game preview presentation, and instead of those stupid gameplay vods you could actually jump in and play a small demo yourself.
I know a lot of those game preview vods are faked and stuff but for some stuff (maybe indie games especially) a small real demo should still have been possible.
Furthermore that might have provided Stadia with a new income path, publishers would pay for streaming of their game previews. And consumers would have a natural interface to start using the service and maybe continue where they started on the demo.
I don't know, maybe always was a pipedream but it felt like it would have been worth a try.
Imagine watching a game preview presentation, and instead of those stupid gameplay vods you could actually jump in and play a small demo yourself.
I know a lot of those game preview vods are faked and stuff but for some stuff (maybe indie games especially) a small real demo should still have been possible.
Furthermore that might have provided Stadia with a new income path, publishers would pay for streaming of their game previews. And consumers would have a natural interface to start using the service and maybe continue where they started on the demo.
I don't know, maybe always was a pipedream but it felt like it would have been worth a try.
Whatever happened to the "negative latency" feature they promised? For context, they claimed that Google AI would be able to learn how you play games, predict what you'll do, simulate ahead and then send those frames to your Chromecast in advance so there's 0 input latency.
> The source also claims that there'd be no license transfer of any sort, which means that any purchases made on Stadia would effectively be nullified as the service closes down.
This is precisely why I didn't try Stadia. I never expected anything more from Google.
This is precisely why I didn't try Stadia. I never expected anything more from Google.
I would hope that Google can afford a few game licenses in order to keep their customers from feeling robbed.
I was interested when Google announced Stadia, as a full-time linux user gaming is still wishy-washy, but in Google's infinite wisdom, they would not let me use my paid gsuite account as a "business". Even though my gsuite account is simply my name and in no way business related. Same with Google Pay and other things, they will disallow you from using other paid Google services because you pay for your email, just ass-u-me'ing only a business would pay, unlike their 100m free(loader) users. Either way, do you want money or not Google, please take it! At that point I cursed Stadia service to fail, spit in their general direction, and went back to my playstation.
XBox cloud is way better than Stadia, it's very smooth in both Chrome and on Nvidia Shield on my TV.
Stadia's offerings are weak, buying licenses you don't control doesn't make sense, and the things like the Ubisoft integration is awkward and expensive.
If I was going to use a non-Xbox Cloud service it would mostly just be a way to play Steam games on a cloud pc. But that's what I use https://www.paperspace.com/ + Parsec for on my Mac, it's a hosted high end GPU hosting a stripped down Windows 10, every Steam game works flawlessly on a fiber connection plus you get to use Torrents.
Stadia's offerings are weak, buying licenses you don't control doesn't make sense, and the things like the Ubisoft integration is awkward and expensive.
If I was going to use a non-Xbox Cloud service it would mostly just be a way to play Steam games on a cloud pc. But that's what I use https://www.paperspace.com/ + Parsec for on my Mac, it's a hosted high end GPU hosting a stripped down Windows 10, every Steam game works flawlessly on a fiber connection plus you get to use Torrents.
+1 for Xbox Cloud. I use it a lot to play games on Xbox Game Pass and there are some great choices and games start instantly.
It was a perfectly sensible strategic bet.
5G = easy streaming everything everywhere
Their mistake was assuming the American telecoms would actually deliver real 5G in any reasonable amount of time. Maybe they should've tested it in the Korean market.
5G = easy streaming everything everywhere
Their mistake was assuming the American telecoms would actually deliver real 5G in any reasonable amount of time. Maybe they should've tested it in the Korean market.
Even with fiber (or hell, LAN), game streaming is still very much inferior to a local experience for many games. The only market they can capture is casual users that still want to play AAA console games, when most of the casual audience is on phones.
At $60-$80 dollar per game, it's not too far to just buy an Xbox Series S for $300. Plus Game Pass is a great way to find a game you enjoy without investing time into research or money into trying a bunch of games.
At $60-$80 dollar per game, it's not too far to just buy an Xbox Series S for $300. Plus Game Pass is a great way to find a game you enjoy without investing time into research or money into trying a bunch of games.
Which was a stupid bet given the problems things like OnLive had.
They also had that bald dude out there doing tone def interviews talking like everyone has internet like the bay area and if they didn't then those customers didn't matter.
They also had that bald dude out there doing tone def interviews talking like everyone has internet like the bay area and if they didn't then those customers didn't matter.
> has internet like the bay area
Like, expensive and bad? I had better internet in my paremts' summer hut than in Palo Alto.
Like, expensive and bad? I had better internet in my paremts' summer hut than in Palo Alto.
Even on low-latency fiber connections it was laggy. 5G wouldn't have changed the situation much.
Wasted money buying Borderlands 3 on Stadia, mostly because my old PC couldn't run it and I wanted to play it. And while it did run fine in the cloud, I always wondered what would happen if the service shut down. Now I know.
For the sake of comparison, there are games I purchased on PlayStation Network for PS3 almost 10 years ago, and they all still work. The PS3 is a 15-year old console discontinued ages ago, yet the games work as they did the day I downloaded them.
Now I know. BTW, I have a PS3 from 2010 and all the PSN downloaded games still work, despite PSN itself being
For the sake of comparison, there are games I purchased on PlayStation Network for PS3 almost 10 years ago, and they all still work. The PS3 is a 15-year old console discontinued ages ago, yet the games work as they did the day I downloaded them.
Now I know. BTW, I have a PS3 from 2010 and all the PSN downloaded games still work, despite PSN itself being
I have no love for Stadia, but it seems irresponsible to pass rumours off as journalism. A website dedicated to tracking dead Google projects is now trying to torpedo a struggling project.
Honestly wonder how many people didn't get on board with Stadia because the fear Google might shut it down, even though they would be completely bought into the cloud hardware idea. Definitely not zero, could have been many who are about to have their suspicions confirmed.
Google just doesn't have the guts to take on videogames, it needs many years of throwing literally millions onto a bonfire of gambles to create exclusives and license a compelling content library and the returns wont come till much later.
Google just doesn't have the guts to take on videogames, it needs many years of throwing literally millions onto a bonfire of gambles to create exclusives and license a compelling content library and the returns wont come till much later.
I recently logged onto Stadia to check it out.
I was surprised at how well the entire thing worked. As a proof of concept, it showed me that this type of technology will replace consoles and gaming rigs in the very near future. Every game ran perfectly on full settings. Loading time was fast, no glitches or noticeable delay in control response.
That however, does not mean that Stadia will be the platform that mainstreams the technology. It will probably have to be Steam, Microsoft or Sony to finally do that.
I was surprised at how well the entire thing worked. As a proof of concept, it showed me that this type of technology will replace consoles and gaming rigs in the very near future. Every game ran perfectly on full settings. Loading time was fast, no glitches or noticeable delay in control response.
That however, does not mean that Stadia will be the platform that mainstreams the technology. It will probably have to be Steam, Microsoft or Sony to finally do that.
I've been using Stadia since day one. It's a really terrific execution of cloud gaming. It would be a real shame if it did get shut down. I hope the rumors are false.
I bought in at the beginning as well. But I didn't stick with it. I have other gaming platforms and while I love the idea of streaming games which can be run on virtually any hardware and operating system, it didn't feel as polished to me as simply booting up other options.
As with any other Google Service, they effectively put out a beta, charged for it, and hoped for a critical mass that never came.
As with any other Google Service, they effectively put out a beta, charged for it, and hoped for a critical mass that never came.
Of course it is! if it's not a runaway success at Google, then it's inevitable. Stadia isn't a runaway success by any measure. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
Though at this point Google's starting to create a problem for themselves: if people are accustomed to avoiding new Google services because of their potential to be cancelled at any moment... they'll stop trying them to begin with.
Though at this point Google's starting to create a problem for themselves: if people are accustomed to avoiding new Google services because of their potential to be cancelled at any moment... they'll stop trying them to begin with.
> if people are accustomed to avoiding new Google services because of their potential to be cancelled at any moment... they'll stop trying them to begin with.
That's just the 1st order effect. The next thing is that customers already onboard will start to feel nervous; as a Gmail user, is my email safe? How about Google Photos? Google Drive for consumers? Analytics?
Not just limited to shutdowns, of course. Lots of businesses were using Maps and then the price got hiked quite significantly. Google services are creating a new meaning for "unstable", besides technical instability.
That's just the 1st order effect. The next thing is that customers already onboard will start to feel nervous; as a Gmail user, is my email safe? How about Google Photos? Google Drive for consumers? Analytics?
Not just limited to shutdowns, of course. Lots of businesses were using Maps and then the price got hiked quite significantly. Google services are creating a new meaning for "unstable", besides technical instability.
There’s a lot of talk about Google abandonware here and that’s fair but this isn’t an example of that. This is an example of a dumb idea meeting it’s inevitable fate.
Two words should’ve stopped this from ever launching: input lag.
I get the spirit of being disruptive and trying hard things but some ideas are just stupid because they ignore physical limits.
Anyone remember UBeam? Apparently our still around as SonicEnergy. That too is a fundamentally dumb idea.
Two words should’ve stopped this from ever launching: input lag.
I get the spirit of being disruptive and trying hard things but some ideas are just stupid because they ignore physical limits.
Anyone remember UBeam? Apparently our still around as SonicEnergy. That too is a fundamentally dumb idea.
[deleted]
it was was half baked from the get-go. you have to wonder if these companies operates with any common sense or if some financial shenanigans going on.
The technology has been rock solid for me. It really is good enough to be a console killer anywhere there is fibre.
The failure here is marketing and under investing in AAA games. If they'd poured money into publishers other than just Ubi or partnered with Valve on making steam libraries playable it could have changed the industry particularly given the supply chain issues with gaming pc components.
What a waste.
The failure here is marketing and under investing in AAA games. If they'd poured money into publishers other than just Ubi or partnered with Valve on making steam libraries playable it could have changed the industry particularly given the supply chain issues with gaming pc components.
What a waste.
The Stadia Twitter account is having fun with this:
>Just a heads up
>Old coworker of mine is now one of the social managers for Google. They had a pretty large seminar in California this past weekend, and long story short you now can play Wavetale at no additional cost on Stadia Pro until August 1: https://goo.gle/3zk8wjY
>Just a heads up
>Old coworker of mine is now one of the social managers for Google. They had a pretty large seminar in California this past weekend, and long story short you now can play Wavetale at no additional cost on Stadia Pro until August 1: https://goo.gle/3zk8wjY
"Stadia is not shutting down. Rest assured we're always working on bringing more great games to the platform and Stadia Pro. Let us know if you have other questions."
https://twitter.com/GoogleStadia/status/1552989433590214656
https://twitter.com/GoogleStadia/status/1552989433590214656
All of the Xeons and all of the Vega 56’s in the world can do nothing to stop network latency from killing your gaming experience.
Google Stadia is a technically impressive achievement pushing the boundaries of cloud computing but it can’t change the fact that there are certain problem spaces that cloud computing is a poor fit for and gaming is (apparently) one of them.
Google Stadia is a technically impressive achievement pushing the boundaries of cloud computing but it can’t change the fact that there are certain problem spaces that cloud computing is a poor fit for and gaming is (apparently) one of them.
Unsubstantiated rumours can make the front page now? For shame.
I mean, I think it will likely shut down before too long, but this article adds no useful information or even opinion, just hearsay.
Here’s a question: does Google have a reputation for killing off products in wider circles, not just among tech insiders? That is, does the average person really care about this stuff?
I mean, I think it will likely shut down before too long, but this article adds no useful information or even opinion, just hearsay.
Here’s a question: does Google have a reputation for killing off products in wider circles, not just among tech insiders? That is, does the average person really care about this stuff?
Well I mean after OnLive everyone expected this.
I thought everybody else had forgotten about OnLive. It was the same thing, but 10 years before: a lot of media hype for a product that nobody wanted
I wanted it!
I played through the first third of Arkham Asylum using OnLive. The nail in the coffin for me at the time was the paltry selection of games; I couldn’t justify the subscription.
I work for a European ISP though, so I’ve generally had better-than-most internet service for the last 20 years.
I played through the first third of Arkham Asylum using OnLive. The nail in the coffin for me at the time was the paltry selection of games; I couldn’t justify the subscription.
I work for a European ISP though, so I’ve generally had better-than-most internet service for the last 20 years.
Too bad, I really enjoyed the freedom it offered. Just wish it had worked while I was travelling in Mexico. Oh well.
If this is the case, what about their Wifi locked controllers? No way to free them I expect, just instant e-waste.
Games are not content like music and movies, they are products (i.e. like startup products). Only a handfull get the vast majority of playtime. Incidentally, if you are a game developer, think of making a game like if it was the only one you'd be making. Whats so special about it?
This is what so depressing about the CS biz. Any senior developer can provide the data that firmly explains why a product like Stadia does not work. Still, some of these “beyond belief” garbage marketing people think that somehow, they are going to circumvent basic physics principles.
Fire everybody involved.
Fire everybody involved.
They pay full price per game to stream is Stadia's problem, not physics. It technically works very well. They just never even came close to a compelling business model.
I use the Xbox streaming all the time, it is works very well. What makes it work is it comes bundled with Game Pass - so you can download and game in the library, or stream most of them. Streaming is an amazing way to try games without committing to multi-GB downloads. Saves time, disk space, and bandwidth when you are a dabbler.
I use the Xbox streaming all the time, it is works very well. What makes it work is it comes bundled with Game Pass - so you can download and game in the library, or stream most of them. Streaming is an amazing way to try games without committing to multi-GB downloads. Saves time, disk space, and bandwidth when you are a dabbler.
Never heard of XBox streaming. The lag on Stadia was ominent from the get go and basic calculus tells why.
Would have tried Stadia but if streaming then GamePass Ultimate is just a much better value. Already does the same + huge library + you can play on PC and Xbox too. Stadia was just the streaming and top of that you had to buy the games too (70€ is the new standard for AAA games). It was doa.
Another decade another failed cloud gaming service.
Is Playstation Now really the only successful/stable one? A key observation being that its not even advertised as a cloud gaming service and is just integrated into other offerings.
The other services don’t seem to have age on their side for me to compare.
Is Playstation Now really the only successful/stable one? A key observation being that its not even advertised as a cloud gaming service and is just integrated into other offerings.
The other services don’t seem to have age on their side for me to compare.
And that is why nobody should every uild anything critical on Google's services. Any of their products but search can evaporate in a second. Even Gmail and Google Docs/Drive/Apps/for Work/or whatever they call their office suite these days.
It seems like Stadia was just a proof of concept for Google Stream which they will white label for partners (like AT&T Batman partnership). I initially thought that Google Stream was a side project for Stadia but it seems that Stadia was the side project.
This reveals a very worrying prospect of where gaming discourse will go.
Playstation Vs Xbox vs PC arguments are toxic enough as it is, could you imagine what they'll be when you run the very real risk of your whole collection disappearing if you back the wrong horse?
Playstation Vs Xbox vs PC arguments are toxic enough as it is, could you imagine what they'll be when you run the very real risk of your whole collection disappearing if you back the wrong horse?
"Scary" -- today's leading Condescending word. "Change is scary" coming along right behind.
How TF do they know what you find "scary" or not? Or does it just let them weasel out of the fact that you just don't believe them?
How TF do they know what you find "scary" or not? Or does it just let them weasel out of the fact that you just don't believe them?
I really hope they'll release a firmware update for the controller, before they shut down Stadia, so it can be used as a regular Bluetooth HID controller. It already works like that through a USB-C cable, but not wirelessly, unfortunately.
Google do what Google do. I stopped using any newer Google products. Can’t trust them.
Guys I know some of us are excited to see Google fail but DO remember this is a rumor.
As an engineer who used to work on cloud gaming, I know the biggest challenge of cloud gaming is not achieving low latency, but achieving low latency at reasonable cost.
The reality is that the economic numbers don't really add up.
The reality is that the economic numbers don't really add up.
If money was no object, what would technologically be possible right now in terms of latency?
Google could install a Stadia data center in every block of every city and town on Earth, at least any where there is a Stadia customer. Some version of this is the only way to reduce latency significantly.
In a more realistic version, it is exactly what Netflix does - they pay to have Netflix streaming servers running in local ISP centers in much of the world where there are Netflix customers.
In a more realistic version, it is exactly what Netflix does - they pay to have Netflix streaming servers running in local ISP centers in much of the world where there are Netflix customers.
Netflix does not need low latency - only bandwidth. They can buffer client side.
Sure, but the solution helps with both (bandwidth because they only need to stream data once over the internet to each data center, not once for every client connected to that datacenter; and latency because there are fewer hops between client and content source).
An infinitely-resourced online play service could pay to install machines that run the games the same way Netflix pays to install their streaming boxes, and would care about both latency and bandwidth (since more bandwidth => better resolution video).
An infinitely-resourced online play service could pay to install machines that run the games the same way Netflix pays to install their streaming boxes, and would care about both latency and bandwidth (since more bandwidth => better resolution video).
You just can't trust any Google product anymore. They shut down your account by mistake and it's almost impossible to get it back. Or they shut down an entire service and all value you had in there is gone.
Prediction: the Google brand will be shut down at some point to make room for a brand that won’t have the stigma of shutting down products. Or a new Alphabet venture arm will be spun out so Google can buy them.
Nearly called it when Stadia was announced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19434347
Force game developers to port their games to Linux / Vulkan, when neither PS nor XBox use these toolchains, with the uncertainity of Google products, no wonder it never took off.
I love Stadia. I use it every day but I have spent a lot of money on games. To lose access to them with no recourse after barely a year of use will leave a _nasty_ taste in my mouth.
Hopefully one of those team members/memberettes can go on to implement some standard protocols like client side caldav and carddav on Android since, you know, Google is so open.
The Nvidia GeForce Now model is nicer. I connect my steam and other libraries, and although not 100% of titles can be played, I still keep my library when I switch services or tech.
I have no proof but I called it on day one. This never stood a chance. It made no sense. They could've saved billions of dollars by just talking to me for 5 minutes, a gamer.
People don't want a lot of choice. They want iOS or Android. PS5 or XBox. Republican or Democrat. ATT or Verizon. Comcast.
Honestly I'm surprised there's not only two auto makers.
Honestly I'm surprised there's not only two auto makers.
They kind of are almost, given that many car brands belong to the same mother company.
Example, https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/group.html
Example, https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/group.html
I knew it. I predicted it some time ago. As if it was something hard to predict. If it's from google and it is not about search or ads, then it will be shut down for sure.
If they do, Google should refund all hardware and game purchases.
There should probably be more regulations to protect both the users and the environment from hardware that becomes e-waste the moment a cloud service shuts down.
But as for the software side, it's pretty much down to users to realise they they don't 'own' any digital content unless it's completely DRM free and not reliant on somebody else's servers. Stadia was always high-risk and quite likely to fail, but how many years can you guarantee that something like Steam or iTunes will remain up for?
(And even if the servers remain up for many decades to come, you could potentially lose access to all your 'purchases' for other reasons... perhaps your near-future social credit score will drop below the required threshold for continued access?)
But as for the software side, it's pretty much down to users to realise they they don't 'own' any digital content unless it's completely DRM free and not reliant on somebody else's servers. Stadia was always high-risk and quite likely to fail, but how many years can you guarantee that something like Steam or iTunes will remain up for?
(And even if the servers remain up for many decades to come, you could potentially lose access to all your 'purchases' for other reasons... perhaps your near-future social credit score will drop below the required threshold for continued access?)
I would have loved Stadia and we've considered Google cloud for our business, but for obvious reasons have chosen differently. Which makes it kinda self-fulfilling.
Not gonna say I called it, but...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19442272
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19442272
Is anyone surprised? Google literally can’t commit to anything. They only survive off their ad revenue and ever diminishing brandname.
Any bets on the next failed Google venture?
Any bets on the next failed Google venture?
An anecdote, but I recently found out a friend games on Stadia (Destiny 2).
He's actually quite happy with the platform, especially because of the portability.
He's actually quite happy with the platform, especially because of the portability.
Hah. I've had an alert set up for "Stadia cancelled" since the day it was announced. The only surprise is that it took this long.
I love how half the people in any Stadia thread are always assuring me the latency is awful when I use it regularly and it works great.
How to know if a Google project is getting shut down: Is it ad-related? If not, it's already dead and just doesn't know it yet.
I am fearful of adopting Flutter for this reason.
Flutter is different as it is 100% OSS so if Google cancels it, its development could theoretically be continued outside of Google. Of course, this depends on the presence of enough demand for that. Mozilla has laid off their full time Rust staff (including some people whose actual responsibility was different but they still contributed to the Rust compiler) and the Rust project survived. Instead these people got hired by companies like Amazon and Futurewei. Some are less involved in Rust now, some return. Some risk remains though, as if nobody is using Flutter, nobody will keep it alive.
It's a Google service that isn't search or ads. Of course it's getting shut down, it's just a matter of when.
This would be the least surprising Google product shutdown to date. It's been basically unsupported for a year or more.
[deleted]
To put things in perspective, Microsoft lost a billion dollars a year for four years before turning a profit on Xbox.
While it was always doomed from launch, I can't imagine the impressive debut of the steamdeck helped matters.
I hope the Linux ports of the games in the service get some extended life, but most likely they will just vanish.
Hey Google, buy EA and the FIFA licence renewal and Stadia will take off for sure.
There should be a drinking game: take a shot whenever Google shuts down a service.
I remember applying to do engineering there and not getting a reply. Fair ‘nuf!
nice to see Google's business practices biting it in the backside
exactly the same reason I would never recommend to my employer to use any Google services, ever for any reason
say what you want about MS, they're not going to abandon Azure
exactly the same reason I would never recommend to my employer to use any Google services, ever for any reason
say what you want about MS, they're not going to abandon Azure
Any idea why Stadia didn't catch up? It never went live in my country.
Still using my steam account that I created 18 years ago when it launched.
Truthfully, I was under the impression it was already shut down.
I decided to try Stadia just now. Their games page has lots of games saying "try for free X minutes", so I tried picking one. Selected the Google account to use, and then I get a 403. Tried a different game with a different Google account. Also 403.
Safe bet: Google discontinuing an service with a smaller user base.
Hey if that is true it sucks as I have a few good games there.
Maybe they could pivot and turn it into another chat app?
Can't a class-action lawsuit be filed against this?
[deleted]
Jesus google, is there a service you won’t put down?
I heard netflix is planning a cloud gaming service.
Oh no! Literally nobody saw this coming! /s
me think they will repurpose it and pivot to Google Verse before giving up
I miss times of GERFORCENOW pwned VM with admin access. RDR2 babyyy
[deleted]
[deleted]
So J. Lo is from Brooklyn now? Lol
and nobody will notice
"there'd be no license transfer of any sort, which means that any purchases made on Stadia would effectively be nullified as the service closes down."
It lasted less than three years and will leave players with nothing to show.
This is what people were predicting when Stadia lauched and part of the reason why it had poor adoption.
It lasted less than three years and will leave players with nothing to show.
This is what people were predicting when Stadia lauched and part of the reason why it had poor adoption.
> Q: If the Stadia service is discontinued, do we know what (if anything) will happen with game purchases?
> Andrey Doronichev, then Stadia Director of Product:
> We get this a lot. I hear you. Moving to the cloud is scary. I felt the same way when music was transitioning from files to streaming. I still have all my old CDs in the garage… although it's hard to find a CD player these days :)
> The same happened to Movies and Photos and my Docs and other files… And it’s great! Games are no different. Eventually all of our games will be safely in the cloud too and we'll feel great about it.
> [..]
> Of course, it’s ok to doubt my words. Theres nothing I can say now to make you believe if you don't. But what we can do is to launch the service and continue investing in it for years to come. Exactly how we've been doing with gMail, Docs, Music, Movies and Photos. That’s exactly what we’re committed to.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Stadia/comments/ceuy4w/hi_im_andrey...
(I've been holding onto this bookmark for a while)
> Andrey Doronichev, then Stadia Director of Product:
> We get this a lot. I hear you. Moving to the cloud is scary. I felt the same way when music was transitioning from files to streaming. I still have all my old CDs in the garage… although it's hard to find a CD player these days :)
> The same happened to Movies and Photos and my Docs and other files… And it’s great! Games are no different. Eventually all of our games will be safely in the cloud too and we'll feel great about it.
> [..]
> Of course, it’s ok to doubt my words. Theres nothing I can say now to make you believe if you don't. But what we can do is to launch the service and continue investing in it for years to come. Exactly how we've been doing with gMail, Docs, Music, Movies and Photos. That’s exactly what we’re committed to.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Stadia/comments/ceuy4w/hi_im_andrey...
(I've been holding onto this bookmark for a while)
The best part is how he just completely avoided actually answering the question. They simply refused to ever give a clear answer. Because they know the answer, and we know the answer, and it's all bad for them. Rather than engineer a system where the answer could be more positive, they stick their fingers in their ears (the most charitable interpretation).
I don’t understand why he didn’t just respond that your games will be gone. Or at least “in the worst case, your games might be gone”. People aren’t stupid, they know exactly what the evasive answer means, so why evade at all?
Not being explicit gives wiggle room for people to let their hopes override their logic when interpreting how it will work.
Some number of people will read that and say "it's safe, I knew they would assuage my concerns" that wouldn't otherwise if they just said "well, you might lose you games in that case.". Those are the people being targeted.
And by those people I include you and me, but for different things. It's impossible to be completely objective and rational all the time, and I'm sure you can come up with just as many instances as I where hope overrode reason for a while. Statements like these are specifically to keep us around when we fall into that category.
Some number of people will read that and say "it's safe, I knew they would assuage my concerns" that wouldn't otherwise if they just said "well, you might lose you games in that case.". Those are the people being targeted.
And by those people I include you and me, but for different things. It's impossible to be completely objective and rational all the time, and I'm sure you can come up with just as many instances as I where hope overrode reason for a while. Statements like these are specifically to keep us around when we fall into that category.
It's not just the strict denotative meaning. It's also the valence and emphasis of the statement. It doesn't concentrate the mind on "what if it disappears?", but on "how likely is it to disappear?", to which the (supposed; bullshit) answer is 'not likely'. Someone might - on rational analysis - know what it means, and still come away with a better impression than if they said it outright.
Because then no one has an exact quote they can point at where he says your games will be gone. It's obvious to most readers, but you can't simply say "he said X" and link to it/screenshot it, only say that he was evasive.
PR guys aren't paid to tell the truth, they're paid to say whatever is convenient for the company. Lying straight to your face is one of their core skills.
It’s Reddit - people _are_ sometimes stupid.
Classic SV "never mention tradeoffs" behavior.
It amazes me that this persists, it is such a bad sales tactic. If the person you're dealing with isn't a sucker, now you've destroyed trust. (You've destroyed it later with the sucker, when they realize what happened. Hope one sale was enough for you.)
It amazes me that this persists, it is such a bad sales tactic. If the person you're dealing with isn't a sucker, now you've destroyed trust. (You've destroyed it later with the sucker, when they realize what happened. Hope one sale was enough for you.)
The top reply to this is excellent.
It's ignorant to compare cloud gaming, where you NEED the cloud to play that game license, to docs/photos etc.. where you can download them if the cloud service shuts down.
Everyone on HN predicted this, and the only way I would have ever trusted Stadia would be with a CEO-level promise of refunding all purchases if they shut down within 10 years.
That's honestly the magic of Nvidia's streaming service. You're paying for the streaming, not the game. You then link your Steam account and play. So if Nvidia's streaming service shuts down, I still have the games I paid for in steam. It's genius, and the only way I'd ever consider paying for cloud gaming. While I don't like the Xbox game pass method, as you own nothing, at least you're renting and not buying, so you're not technically losing anything if you leave or they shut down.
It was utterly shocking that Google did not copy Nvidia's streaming games bough on other stores idea, especially with so many people are fearful of a Google shutdown.
It's also a mystery to me why Valve hasn't done what Nvidia did. Presumably they will at some point. Unless they don't want to risk other cloud providers from pulling their games from steam.
Everyone on HN predicted this, and the only way I would have ever trusted Stadia would be with a CEO-level promise of refunding all purchases if they shut down within 10 years.
That's honestly the magic of Nvidia's streaming service. You're paying for the streaming, not the game. You then link your Steam account and play. So if Nvidia's streaming service shuts down, I still have the games I paid for in steam. It's genius, and the only way I'd ever consider paying for cloud gaming. While I don't like the Xbox game pass method, as you own nothing, at least you're renting and not buying, so you're not technically losing anything if you leave or they shut down.
It was utterly shocking that Google did not copy Nvidia's streaming games bough on other stores idea, especially with so many people are fearful of a Google shutdown.
It's also a mystery to me why Valve hasn't done what Nvidia did. Presumably they will at some point. Unless they don't want to risk other cloud providers from pulling their games from steam.
> It was utterly shocking that Google did not copy Nvidia's streaming games
They wanted the lock in. They did it for profit margin. Because people like the Director of Product the GP mentions hops from one role to the next its all short term nonsense.
They wanted the lock in. They did it for profit margin. Because people like the Director of Product the GP mentions hops from one role to the next its all short term nonsense.
I remember the same debate when steam came out. Well if steam shuts down tomorrow all the games will be lost. So better keep your Gaming CDs.
Betting on steam worked out thus far. I really like how nvidia solved this problem. Elegant solution.
Betting on steam worked out thus far. I really like how nvidia solved this problem. Elegant solution.
with steam at least the data and executable are on my machine
it's just a small bit of hex editing away from being steamless
it's just a small bit of hex editing away from being steamless
I would have to buy some TB of additional storage to have the whole library on my machine.
This might also be a plus for steam.
For the hex editing, I would have to ask around on the internet, which would maybe also be a solution to storing everything locally
Funny as stadia might have seen huge adoption IF they didn’t have a reputation of killing services and leaving the service user to hang.
Killing of stadia only reaffirms peoples fear to use google products. This includes GCP.
Killing of stadia only reaffirms peoples fear to use google products. This includes GCP.
I have definitely avoided Stadia because I wanted to give it some 5 years to see if it wouldn't be another dead Google project. I really didn't want to be right but here we are...
I'm glad to be forever cautious with Google's new products, they've burnt me a few times the past 15 years.
I'm glad to be forever cautious with Google's new products, they've burnt me a few times the past 15 years.
I switched to geforce now after some time. You can play the games you bought on steam and other platforms and just pay for computing
Google could have side-stepped this by offering a Game Pass-style all-you-can-eat subscription service instead of full-price games. While I'll be bummed if one of those subscription services goes away, I won't feel as if something I own is being taken away from me.
Agree, I thought this was supposed to be a netflix of gaming. The other problem is Xbox and PS both have cloud offerings like this and are better options
They don't really have a reputation of that, except on forums like hn, which is not indicative of the broader market. Even among gamers, this reputation of Google doesn't exist.
> this reputation of Google doesn't exist.
To be fair, most gamers I’ve talked to don’t even know what Stadia IS.
By definition, gamers play games. To do that, they almost always own a console or gaming pc to do so. As a result, they have no need for Stadia in the first place.
To be fair, most gamers I’ve talked to don’t even know what Stadia IS.
By definition, gamers play games. To do that, they almost always own a console or gaming pc to do so. As a result, they have no need for Stadia in the first place.
This is why I think things like Stadia are targeting a very small market.
You have casual gamers, that are perfectly happy playing natively on their phones or laptops at low settings.
Then you have “serious” gamers, that tend to be happy spending hundreds of dollars to make sure they have up to date hardware to get the most of their games (and thus, likely won’t be happy with the latency or game selection of Stadia).
Somewhere in between is a market of people that say “gee, I really want to play Destiny, at full graphics, and I’m ok with a little latency, but I can’t or don’t want to buy a better PC or $500 box for it”.
I’m sure that market exists, but it’s gotta be rather small in the best of circumstances, right?
You have casual gamers, that are perfectly happy playing natively on their phones or laptops at low settings.
Then you have “serious” gamers, that tend to be happy spending hundreds of dollars to make sure they have up to date hardware to get the most of their games (and thus, likely won’t be happy with the latency or game selection of Stadia).
Somewhere in between is a market of people that say “gee, I really want to play Destiny, at full graphics, and I’m ok with a little latency, but I can’t or don’t want to buy a better PC or $500 box for it”.
I’m sure that market exists, but it’s gotta be rather small in the best of circumstances, right?
Exactly. Google has such a strong reputation for killing products now that I’m just now willing to invest in anything they create any more.
IMO they need to fix the internal corporate culture and move it away from short-term OKR goals and promotions based on launching new stuff and a bit more towards helping to maintain and grow existing projects.
IMO they need to fix the internal corporate culture and move it away from short-term OKR goals and promotions based on launching new stuff and a bit more towards helping to maintain and grow existing projects.
Console gamers already have consoles to play games on. PC gamers already have PCs to play games on. The Gen Z generation play games on their mobile phones. What happened is that Google thought there were huge amounts of people out there that so badly wanted to play games, but couldn't because they can't afford the hardware, that they would flock to Stadia as their first gaming platform.
Those people don't exist in any significant numbers.
Every self-identifying gamer (me included) knew this service was DoA.
Those people don't exist in any significant numbers.
Every self-identifying gamer (me included) knew this service was DoA.
Which meminds me that I might need to spend day or two during my vacation to move all of the services from gmail to possibly more stable address...
Seems like he left and got into Crypto?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/doronichev/
He did. And before that he was in AR/VR. I know a few execs who have done similar hops: jumping from one hype space to the next in the hopes that one of them disrupts the whole industry and they get launched up in their career.
A sort of VC fund with an investment size of one, yourself.
A sort of VC fund with an investment size of one, yourself.
Nothing wrong with that. You owe nothing to the company. The company won’t be loyal to you, why should you be loyal to it?
As an executive, my expectations are a bit different. I’m more loyal to the company, and the company is more loyal to me.
To prevent the company from being too disloyal we have golden parachutes.
To prevent the company from being too disloyal we have golden parachutes.
I see what you’re saying and I respect it. You have to take care of yourself first.
However, as someone who worked in one of those fields, it’s draining when over half of your leaders are trend hoppers. They get up on stage frequently and talk about how excited they are, and how it’s a long journey ahead. And then as soon as the industry takes a slight downturn they all leave in unison.
Some of the leaders are truly passionate about the field and they’re still around. It’s very clear who is who from the way they act towards the employees.
The experience taught me to avoid hype industries unless I’m willing to make money the number one goal in my life, which is harder than I thought, since life has plenty of things more enjoyable than money.
However, as someone who worked in one of those fields, it’s draining when over half of your leaders are trend hoppers. They get up on stage frequently and talk about how excited they are, and how it’s a long journey ahead. And then as soon as the industry takes a slight downturn they all leave in unison.
Some of the leaders are truly passionate about the field and they’re still around. It’s very clear who is who from the way they act towards the employees.
The experience taught me to avoid hype industries unless I’m willing to make money the number one goal in my life, which is harder than I thought, since life has plenty of things more enjoyable than money.
It's not about company loyalty, it's about whether you actually believe in any of this tech. And you're supposed to, when you're a director with PR duties.
Until someone looks in that employee's wake and sees one dumpster fire after another and the employee being the common denominator. These people aren't just jumping from hype space to hype space, they are torching each of those projects to extract short term gains to the detriment of the teams under them.
Appreciate the sentiment, but if any employee does indeed have a track record like that, its on the company for hiring someone like that in the first place.
The real question is, why is the market so inefficient at sifting through bad employees, especially near the top of the ladder? The fact that this exec has been able to jump from one dumpster fire to another, often with a promotion, tells me that there’s something broken about the way senior execs are hired.
The real question is, why is the market so inefficient at sifting through bad employees, especially near the top of the ladder? The fact that this exec has been able to jump from one dumpster fire to another, often with a promotion, tells me that there’s something broken about the way senior execs are hired.
>Former Director of Product at Stadia.
>Former Director of Product at Google AR/VR.
>Former Head of Mobile, Group PM at YouTube.
Ouch.
>Former Director of Product at Google AR/VR.
>Former Head of Mobile, Group PM at YouTube.
Ouch.
Ouch? In todays economy that kind of title inflation can get you places. You might run everything you touch into the ground, but hey who cares?
Sometimes I wish I had the shamelessness some people have, it seems to be a great way to advance your career.
I wish I could figure out the secret handshake that gets you hired to one prominent, presumably high-paid, spitballin' and chattin' and "idea person" role after another, despite a track record of apparent mediocrity in actual results. Seems like it'd be really fun and—plainly—not very hard work.
At that level I think it's just more sales than substance. Many people are great salespeople without realizing it, I think this contributes to the phenomenon of failing upward.
> You might run everything you touch into the ground, but hey who cares?
In a more perfect world, when this resume hits the hiring committee's desk, they read it and think "this leadership role is too important to fill with someone who's never managed a downturn."
In a more perfect world, when this resume hits the hiring committee's desk, they read it and think "this leadership role is too important to fill with someone who's never managed a downturn."
> The same happened to Movies and Photos and my Docs and other files… And it’s great
When I think about it, my family still has photographs from 70 years ago sitting around in family albums.
Whereas I now struggle to find pictures I took 7 years ago.
When I think about it, my family still has photographs from 70 years ago sitting around in family albums.
Whereas I now struggle to find pictures I took 7 years ago.
Right but that's partially technology and partially habits.
My wife literally has track of zero printed / film photographs she ever took. She's got zero clue where they might be. Not even "shoe box somewhere" :->
Whereas, I have all my photos of last 20 years (since I first took a digital shot) chronologically sorted in folders by year then event (e.g. "Photos/2022/HalifaxTrip2022") on my NAS. It's barely any effort to organize in that way (no fancy tagging or sorting, just year and event, or generic yearly photos /photos/2022/2022_Photos as catchall), yet Typically it takes me seconds to minutes to find some obscure photo somebody remembers or wants, and near instantly for big events like trips, birthdays etc.
It's all about how much one treasures those photos / how obsessive compulsive one is :-). There's certainly ways to manage digital photo libraries, whether manually like I do, or automagically like Apple or Google do.
(we also print albums through Costco of fun trips etc. Nothing about digital prevents that)
To be fair though, When it comes to discussion about cloud and gaming though, it's an utterly disingenuous comparison. I fully and permanently own and control my digital photos in an universal format and can switch and back them up from provider to provider seamlessly. This is empathically triply not the case for stadia games.
My wife literally has track of zero printed / film photographs she ever took. She's got zero clue where they might be. Not even "shoe box somewhere" :->
Whereas, I have all my photos of last 20 years (since I first took a digital shot) chronologically sorted in folders by year then event (e.g. "Photos/2022/HalifaxTrip2022") on my NAS. It's barely any effort to organize in that way (no fancy tagging or sorting, just year and event, or generic yearly photos /photos/2022/2022_Photos as catchall), yet Typically it takes me seconds to minutes to find some obscure photo somebody remembers or wants, and near instantly for big events like trips, birthdays etc.
It's all about how much one treasures those photos / how obsessive compulsive one is :-). There's certainly ways to manage digital photo libraries, whether manually like I do, or automagically like Apple or Google do.
(we also print albums through Costco of fun trips etc. Nothing about digital prevents that)
To be fair though, When it comes to discussion about cloud and gaming though, it's an utterly disingenuous comparison. I fully and permanently own and control my digital photos in an universal format and can switch and back them up from provider to provider seamlessly. This is empathically triply not the case for stadia games.
> Whereas I now struggle to find pictures I took 7 years ago.
The only reasonable solution today with the current volume of photos is to put them all in some service and let it use machine learning to auto-tag everything for you, and compile highlight reels, organize things by person/location/event, et c.
As with everything else, the only solution that doesn't eat tons of time (so, will actually be accessible to most people, who'll neglect hand-organizing thousands of photos) is turning out to be search, and letting AI find the important stuff.
The only reasonable solution today with the current volume of photos is to put them all in some service and let it use machine learning to auto-tag everything for you, and compile highlight reels, organize things by person/location/event, et c.
As with everything else, the only solution that doesn't eat tons of time (so, will actually be accessible to most people, who'll neglect hand-organizing thousands of photos) is turning out to be search, and letting AI find the important stuff.
Well, I still print photos and I still listen to MP3 files.
The difference is that photos are conveniently took from my phone and that MP3 files are conveniently downloaded from a certain major Video Streaming website by a company with a name that is a reference to math. Every time I listen to those MP3s I make sure to watch some ads somewhere first.
Also, I get DVDs from the public library and use Handbrake to convert them so I can stream them on the living room TV from my NAS. When returning the DVDs, I, of course, I email the video files back to the library.
The difference is that photos are conveniently took from my phone and that MP3 files are conveniently downloaded from a certain major Video Streaming website by a company with a name that is a reference to math. Every time I listen to those MP3s I make sure to watch some ads somewhere first.
Also, I get DVDs from the public library and use Handbrake to convert them so I can stream them on the living room TV from my NAS. When returning the DVDs, I, of course, I email the video files back to the library.
I literally just dusted off this same bookmark and lo and behold, you beat me to it by four minutes.
Great minds think alike
People do cloud games all the time. Steam and geforce now and xcloud are great. We just don't trust Google because they don't give a damn.
Stadia was never marketed much and always had a tiny library with no cross play. The moment Nvidia stepped up, Stadia was dead.
Stadia was never marketed much and always had a tiny library with no cross play. The moment Nvidia stepped up, Stadia was dead.
Stadia has crossplay on several games now, though I absolutely agree their marketing has been an embarrassment.
All I could think during the entire pandemic was how Google should be showing off how easy it is to play games on Stadia. Lower the initial barrier to entry just a smidge and it could have been as simple as texting a link to your family groupchat and then you're all playing a game together in your browser. Even grandparents can figure out how to click a link in an email to open a webpage.
All I could think during the entire pandemic was how Google should be showing off how easy it is to play games on Stadia. Lower the initial barrier to entry just a smidge and it could have been as simple as texting a link to your family groupchat and then you're all playing a game together in your browser. Even grandparents can figure out how to click a link in an email to open a webpage.
Maybe better said as 'several games provided on stadia have crossplay'. I wonder if there is a better model of a user buying a license for a game, specifically a non-'live service' style game, and being able to use that on any platform that they provide the game for. I find myself buying two copies of more than a few games these days. Mostly picking it up on a more mobile platform like the switch after buying it on the pc.
I've seen this model work, primarily on digital tabletop games and their DLCs. Like you might have to buy the base game on each platform (which is usually pretty cheap) but then all the expansion packs are tied to your game account and work anywhere.
I think Uplay works similarly, and you can cross play and cross save with your sub on any device.
Microsoft GamePass is moving towards a similar direction, where your sub lets you cross play and save between PC, Xbox, cloud, and Android (via the cloud).
I dunno why Google never bothered doing that. Stadia tech wise is actually really impressive and comparable to nvidia's offering, with much better UX, but they just gave up almost immediately after launch. What a missed opportunity :(
I think Uplay works similarly, and you can cross play and cross save with your sub on any device.
Microsoft GamePass is moving towards a similar direction, where your sub lets you cross play and save between PC, Xbox, cloud, and Android (via the cloud).
I dunno why Google never bothered doing that. Stadia tech wise is actually really impressive and comparable to nvidia's offering, with much better UX, but they just gave up almost immediately after launch. What a missed opportunity :(
Yeah, that was always the dream, but I don't know how they botched the execution so hard. All the technology for that was already there, especially with their controllers and Google TV, but they just never finished connecting the dots. Why? It beats me. They got 80% of the way there and then just... stopped caring?
It's like they had a team of awesome engineers who built the thing but... no gamers? Like it just seemed that nobody at Google, on or off the Stadia team, actually wanted it to grow beyond tech demo status. Their library is still laughably small, years later, and only very very few games offer crossplay.
It's like they had a team of awesome engineers who built the thing but... no gamers? Like it just seemed that nobody at Google, on or off the Stadia team, actually wanted it to grow beyond tech demo status. Their library is still laughably small, years later, and only very very few games offer crossplay.
3 years is “years to come”
I am slowly moving all my customers/clients away from Google Analytics, mostly to Matomo. Couldn’t be happier. Some clients can also diversify their ad spending to other platforms. Google needs to start feeling what “customer service” means, for now it has none.
I am slowly moving all my customers/clients away from Google Analytics, mostly to Matomo. Couldn’t be happier. Some clients can also diversify their ad spending to other platforms. Google needs to start feeling what “customer service” means, for now it has none.
I didn’t even realize Stadia required you to actually buy games. I assumed the whole point of streaming is you pay a monthly fee for unlimited access to content. The business gets a cashflow it can securitize and sell on Wall St., and the customer gets unlimited content access, everyone’s happy. Really weird that Stadia required you to (also?) buy each game you wanted to play. If not for that, they never would have had to answer difficult questions like this.
The monthly fee is optional, you don't have to pay it to be able to stream games you have paid for.
It gives you access to a library of additional games you don't have to buy.
It gives you access to a library of additional games you don't have to buy.
Interesting. I wonder why not just have a monthly fee for unlimited streaming, and no other costs to play. No purchasing of games or anything like that.
And if they need more market segmentation, then offer an additional premium monthly fee that gets you early access to upcoming AAA games or some other similar value add like that.
It's just weird they decided to make some games unlimited and some for purchase. Maybe that was the best deal they could negotiate with the publishers, who knows.
And if they need more market segmentation, then offer an additional premium monthly fee that gets you early access to upcoming AAA games or some other similar value add like that.
It's just weird they decided to make some games unlimited and some for purchase. Maybe that was the best deal they could negotiate with the publishers, who knows.
He's not wrong. All my games are in the cloud and it is great; it's just not Google's cloud.
You know why I keep buying stuff on Steam? This is why... It is putting all the eggs in single basket, but at least it is the sturdiest and oldest basket.
It helps that Valve is privately owned and thus less likely to chase growth over other things.
Hopefully when the current owners age out the new leadership will continue as it is.
Hopefully when the current owners age out the new leadership will continue as it is.
Honestly, I have no idea what the hell Valve is chasing. They don’t need to chase growth, it comes to them :P
valve is worried about being made irrelevant by Epic Game Store, by whatever facebook uses to distribute games, by amazon, etc.
There are plenty of companies who already run or could run a competitor to steam, and slowly they could eat their lunch. Epic Game Store bought exclusives and gives away coupons to bolster their market share. IF everyone starts burning cash for market share, Valve will have to figure out a new way to compete.
Until then its sort of business like normal.
There are plenty of companies who already run or could run a competitor to steam, and slowly they could eat their lunch. Epic Game Store bought exclusives and gives away coupons to bolster their market share. IF everyone starts burning cash for market share, Valve will have to figure out a new way to compete.
Until then its sort of business like normal.
With Steam you can basically make your own personal Stadia with the steam link app, no need to re-buy any games again and no need to rely on anyone else's cloud services (as long as you have a decent connection and PC)
I saw something the other day that really struck home on this: for any given software technology you encounter, your best estimate is that it's halfway through its useful lifetime.
I know some TED level influencer had some story about basically everything in mail order catalogs from 100 year ago is still for sale somewhere today, so maybe it's wrong, or maybe software is just more prone to vanishing.
I know some TED level influencer had some story about basically everything in mail order catalogs from 100 year ago is still for sale somewhere today, so maybe it's wrong, or maybe software is just more prone to vanishing.
I backup all the games I have on Steam locally. If they ever go under, I will get a DRM crack.
In addition to Steam, I have GOG and Epic linked to my Steam Account, they sync my Steam purchases in their library if the publisher allows.
So I would imagine if Steam did go under, they would all be clamouring to help users transition to their platforms.
So I would imagine if Steam did go under, they would all be clamouring to help users transition to their platforms.
Notice how even after all that bloviation he doesn't actually answer the question.
>Theres nothing I can say now to make you believe if you don't
Why can't everything be licensed directly from the right owner of a game so that the license of a game can be transferred from one streaming service to another?
Why can't everything be licensed directly from the right owner of a game so that the license of a game can be transferred from one streaming service to another?
why allow people to pay once when people will pay more than once ? their logic
> Exactly how we've been doing with gMail, Docs, Music, Movies and Photos.
Assuming the rumor about Stadia is true, then in hindsight, this is directly tarnishing the reputation of those other products. Every canceled product does, but it's strange to see it in writing. Although I wouldn't give this comment much weight, it's clearly dodging the answer.
Assuming the rumor about Stadia is true, then in hindsight, this is directly tarnishing the reputation of those other products. Every canceled product does, but it's strange to see it in writing. Although I wouldn't give this comment much weight, it's clearly dodging the answer.
[deleted]
Thanks, I googled for a minute trying to find that quote but couldn't remember it exactly.
>I hear you.
If you read this - run. Or ignore everything that comes after as it's filled with lies.
If you read this - run. Or ignore everything that comes after as it's filled with lies.
“You will own nothing and you will be happy”
Hahahahaha you called it
This is why I don't sign on to anything new google does for a few years now. It's going to be buggy but promising initially, then be poorly supported, and then be cancelled leaving you high and dry.
If I was a large shareholder I'd be yelling to ditch Sundar everyday. The guy is a total idiot just floating by on ads dollars. Google could be so much more if they reorganized into conventional dedicated teams and stopped trying to cover their shortcomings with political virtue signalling.
If I was a large shareholder I'd be yelling to ditch Sundar everyday. The guy is a total idiot just floating by on ads dollars. Google could be so much more if they reorganized into conventional dedicated teams and stopped trying to cover their shortcomings with political virtue signalling.
Yeah, I'm always very skeptical of new Google services. I use GSuite and Chromebooks, but I know those are heavily used internally at Google and I believe that they'll continue to invest in those. But every other service, nah.
Between their inability to provide support while a service is up and their consistent lack of long term vision/ investment for the services they create, it's just not worth it.
I can't imagine I'm the only one making significant financial decisions based on this sort of thought process.
Between their inability to provide support while a service is up and their consistent lack of long term vision/ investment for the services they create, it's just not worth it.
I can't imagine I'm the only one making significant financial decisions based on this sort of thought process.
Exactly. Lol I'm just imagining a company trying to use their chat services. "OK guys sorry, I know we just did this three weeks ago, but they've launched a new chat service and are deprecating the old one. Yeah, again. What's new? Uh... there's a new logo this time. And you can install it as a progressive web app."
They overcompensate by plugging chat functionality in every app. Maps, GPay India and Drive all have chat features
A few years ago, they added a compatibility layer for Google Talk inside Hangouts, which I think then became Meet.
In other words... they built a chat app inside their chat app.
In other words... they built a chat app inside their chat app.
I didn't trust it, but we tried https://hire.google.com/ because of this belief in GSuite products being stable. It was a great product. Had to move to Greenhouse.
Have you tried the most recent ms office suite updates. Give it a solid month of use before brushing it off.
Can’t say google workspaces is better.
Can’t say google workspaces is better.
The GSuite + Chromebook integration is really nice.
> This is why I don't sign on to anything new google does for a few years now. It's going to be buggy but promising initially, then be poorly supported, and then be cancelled leaving you high and dry.
I can't really understand how people can trust google domains.
I can't really understand how people can trust google domains.
Domains are transferrable. If a registrar goes belly-up you can always and easily transfer the domains out to a new registrar, and if the old registrar doesn't want to release the domain the TLD registry can and will intervene on your side.
Mmmm. It's easy on paper, but I don't trust it anyway.
Sundar is doing what the shareholders want. Grow ads revenue while distracting regulators from a google anti trust lawsuit.
I don't know, I'm not sure that's sustainable in the long term. They need to branch out, even if it's just to find new places to put ads-- like in streaming games. But they never fully commit. Strong hyped launch, not follow through. Google has more than enough resources that they should have been able to get major game publishers to sign on to allow owners of their games on l, say, Steam to freely game access on Stadia. Heck even a very minor player like GOG was able to do this in a limited way! Linked my steam account to GOG and was able to get free Gog copies of about a dozen games I already owned on steam that way.
But it seems like Google put practically zero effort into growing Stadia into having a respectable library at all. It looks like they gave up almost immediately and the last few years have been the inevitable stagnation into the graveyard.
But it seems like Google put practically zero effort into growing Stadia into having a respectable library at all. It looks like they gave up almost immediately and the last few years have been the inevitable stagnation into the graveyard.
Note that most of the GOG free license games are games which GOG, or their parent company CD Projekt, had a stake in, either as developer, publisher or porter
Exactly, technically I don't think shareholders much care about where the revenue comes from. Killing off product that don't make a profit within a year launch might actually be what shareholders want.
We tend to forget that modern shareholders don't care much about which companies their money is invested in, it's just a stock with some numbers in a spreadsheet making the difference between investing in Google vs. Exxon.
We tend to forget that modern shareholders don't care much about which companies their money is invested in, it's just a stock with some numbers in a spreadsheet making the difference between investing in Google vs. Exxon.
Good tech CEOs also plan for the long term. Google needs a near-death experience to get some management discipline.
I’m not sure there exists any business that is as high of revenue and margin as ads. So google cannot diversify without impacting its financials.
You could argue bezos was a genius in this regard by religiously avoiding disclosing to wall street his true margins.
You could argue bezos was a genius in this regard by religiously avoiding disclosing to wall street his true margins.
Maps, Voice, and Docs, seem to be here to stay. Not sure about anything else. Except Search, of course, I suppose they won't close that down any time soon.
Voice doesn't seem too well. It had no new features in a long while, and some essential features, like connecting to third party voice number, still require logging into old website... I use it daily but I worry that it will be gone any time.
I've been idly looking at migrating my stuff away from voice, but it's problematic because some 2FA stuff is on the underlying phone number because various stuff refused to accept Google Voice numbers due to it being a SIP number... and not everything will allow you to just disable 2FA while you're doing the switch, some stuff wants to always be tied to a functional phone number.
Thinking the solution may be that next time I upgrade my phone, I get a new SIM and run both phones at the same time for a month, transfer the google voice number to the new phone, and then do all the 2fa transfers to google voice (now AT&T) number.
(if anyone has any tips to get google voice numbers to be recognized as a cell and not a SIP I'd be delighted... that's the major functional complaint I've got with GV.)
Thinking the solution may be that next time I upgrade my phone, I get a new SIM and run both phones at the same time for a month, transfer the google voice number to the new phone, and then do all the 2fa transfers to google voice (now AT&T) number.
(if anyone has any tips to get google voice numbers to be recognized as a cell and not a SIP I'd be delighted... that's the major functional complaint I've got with GV.)
I don’t think voice is as sure as you say it is. They has a push recently to kick off low traffic users. I’m concerned about my voice number personally.
Don't use it myself but friends do. Didn't know about the changes.
Not just google. See playsforsure, amazon drive etc
Yeah I just noticed Amazon Drive is going away. No more uploads after 2023 January, no more access for non-photo/video files some time toward end of 2023.
Years ago I got tired of the mess that was Google Picasa and transferred all photos, videos, and most important docs to Amazon Drive. Now I need to find yet another service.
Years ago I got tired of the mess that was Google Picasa and transferred all photos, videos, and most important docs to Amazon Drive. Now I need to find yet another service.
Listen sir, cloud storage is forever, it frees you from having to worry about the details of having to store your files like you would have to with physical storage. Just upload once and they'll be there forever. Pinky swear.
It seems when it comes to cloud storage, you best bet is going with a company who's main product is cloud storage, and not just an afterthought or value-add like it was for Amazon.
Or build your own NAS is you have the time and experience.
Or build your own NAS is you have the time and experience.
I’ve been pretty happy with my NAS choice (knock on wood).
I spent about $1000 on a synology and drives and that’s given me 10 years of 10TB so it’s actually pretty cost effective too. Cheaper than Dropbox or OneDrive.
I only wish there was some community disk swap program that would be good for reliable off sites. I looked into storj but you have to share like 100mb or something to make enough to pay for 1mb.
I spent about $1000 on a synology and drives and that’s given me 10 years of 10TB so it’s actually pretty cost effective too. Cheaper than Dropbox or OneDrive.
I only wish there was some community disk swap program that would be good for reliable off sites. I looked into storj but you have to share like 100mb or something to make enough to pay for 1mb.
Amazon had a short period where they offered unlimited storage… and a few people took advantage of it too much so they stopped that. The product never really took off as a value add (too many other services).
Amazon is also known to kill products but only ones no one uses.
Amazon is also known to kill products but only ones no one uses.
Oh yeah I forgot about that. I think they originally planned to have integration with Plex too, but for somewhat obvious reasons that got axed.
The NAS works until one's house burns down. My in-laws home is too close as an alternative, everyone else is too far away.
Actually, this strategy works for google. Google enters these markets and then kills it for any possible future competitors. In the short run, it's a loss, in the long run, you nullify new possible competitors.
> Actually, this strategy works for google. Google enters these markets and then kills it for any possible future competitors. In the short run, it's a loss, in the long run, you nullify new possible competitors.
They're no longer in the market. Now others are also slow to enter the market, in this case video game streaming as a service, and it's good for Google? This new product market isn't a core competency for Google and only tangentially fits into their wider portfolio. This 5D chess is quite the take.
How about this instead? Google isn't a great product company. The work of making a product good isn't the same as the work of solving the engineering challenges to launch a product. Google overwhelmingly enjoys and excels at the latter, not the constant iteration and polish and listening to stakeholders of the former.
Edit:
To expand on this a little. Stadia no doubt received a lot of buyin internally from engineers because of the technical challenges. Keeping latency low, potentially hardware level challenges to running / rendering the games at scale and optimizing for costs, etc. I bet many promotions were given for the various contributions.
Now that it's launched, the not so fun work that won't get much recognition due to Google's culture, but is important:
- Iterate on the user experience
- Iterate on performance: latency, frame rates, streaming quality. Potentially add support for higher resolutions, etc..
- Fix bugs, keep it running
- Work with video game publishers, large and small, on licensing agreements. Since Stadia only has a small market share, Google has to go to them. This isn't a position Google likes to be in.
- Work with video game developers on the SDK or other technical challenges. Answer their questions. Get their buyin. Support them during development. This isn't a position Google likes to be in.
The last two points are interesting. When was the last time, outside of an acquisition (YouTube, Android both acquired), Google actually built a successful platform? This is what Stadia needed to be.
They're no longer in the market. Now others are also slow to enter the market, in this case video game streaming as a service, and it's good for Google? This new product market isn't a core competency for Google and only tangentially fits into their wider portfolio. This 5D chess is quite the take.
How about this instead? Google isn't a great product company. The work of making a product good isn't the same as the work of solving the engineering challenges to launch a product. Google overwhelmingly enjoys and excels at the latter, not the constant iteration and polish and listening to stakeholders of the former.
Edit:
To expand on this a little. Stadia no doubt received a lot of buyin internally from engineers because of the technical challenges. Keeping latency low, potentially hardware level challenges to running / rendering the games at scale and optimizing for costs, etc. I bet many promotions were given for the various contributions.
Now that it's launched, the not so fun work that won't get much recognition due to Google's culture, but is important:
- Iterate on the user experience
- Iterate on performance: latency, frame rates, streaming quality. Potentially add support for higher resolutions, etc..
- Fix bugs, keep it running
- Work with video game publishers, large and small, on licensing agreements. Since Stadia only has a small market share, Google has to go to them. This isn't a position Google likes to be in.
- Work with video game developers on the SDK or other technical challenges. Answer their questions. Get their buyin. Support them during development. This isn't a position Google likes to be in.
The last two points are interesting. When was the last time, outside of an acquisition (YouTube, Android both acquired), Google actually built a successful platform? This is what Stadia needed to be.
I'd phrase it differently.
Google got lucky in the sense that they set out to build a search engine, someone said "hey why don't we do text ads," it made money, and they've been riding that ever since. They're the kind of company that drilled a few holes, found oil once, and is now drilling holes everywhere without understanding where oil comes from.
Google got lucky in the sense that they set out to build a search engine, someone said "hey why don't we do text ads," it made money, and they've been riding that ever since. They're the kind of company that drilled a few holes, found oil once, and is now drilling holes everywhere without understanding where oil comes from.
The other issue is that search makes A LOT of money. Even if they find oil, it’s such a small amount compared to search that it doesn’t seem to move the needle internally.
If you look at the opportunity cost of supporting a small side business va building a bigger business.. you drop the small thing. Google engineering is expensive and they have a somewhat polished brand that they don’t want to muddle with a bunch of “non winners”.
Amazon has the opposite problem. They build everything and have to find a way to scale their internal orgs to handle lots of tiny side revenue streams. I signed up for a magazine subscription through Amazon and they had a website redesign that accidentally (?) removed the management portal link for a few weeks. They do so much they can’t even stay internally consistent.
If you look at the opportunity cost of supporting a small side business va building a bigger business.. you drop the small thing. Google engineering is expensive and they have a somewhat polished brand that they don’t want to muddle with a bunch of “non winners”.
Amazon has the opposite problem. They build everything and have to find a way to scale their internal orgs to handle lots of tiny side revenue streams. I signed up for a magazine subscription through Amazon and they had a website redesign that accidentally (?) removed the management portal link for a few weeks. They do so much they can’t even stay internally consistent.
Right, that's why for example it made sense from Google's perspective to kill things like Google reader because that doesn't really move the needle.
The biggest issue with that approach is that they're burning customer goodwill, and that affects their odds down the line of getting customer acceptance. Stadia is just another project in a long line of cancelled projects that leaves customers screwed over and less willing to use Google products in the future.
Your point about Amazon is pretty interesting, IMHO I think that's why in the long term Amazon will keep on beating GCP in the cloud space. Amazon having such a large set of offerings is that it makes their cloud offering particularly compelling, especially considering they seem to keep old services alive and have relatively stable interfaces. Their offerings might not be as polished as GCP's, and some of them are laughably awful, but at least I feel confident that Amazon won't change the API or deprecate/retire the service.
The biggest issue with that approach is that they're burning customer goodwill, and that affects their odds down the line of getting customer acceptance. Stadia is just another project in a long line of cancelled projects that leaves customers screwed over and less willing to use Google products in the future.
Your point about Amazon is pretty interesting, IMHO I think that's why in the long term Amazon will keep on beating GCP in the cloud space. Amazon having such a large set of offerings is that it makes their cloud offering particularly compelling, especially considering they seem to keep old services alive and have relatively stable interfaces. Their offerings might not be as polished as GCP's, and some of them are laughably awful, but at least I feel confident that Amazon won't change the API or deprecate/retire the service.
Nobody understands where oil comes from. Anyone who did would have drilled there already and would be a new letter in FAANG (maybe MANGA instead now that FB -> Meta?).
Since no one knows where oil comes from, the best way to find it is to drill everywhere (for which you’ll need lots of resources) and hope you strike. This is pretty much just Darwinian capitalism; companies in the market compete on whatever they think will give them the win (drill), and everyone who happened to be wrong dies or is bought out (no oil), and everyone who happened to be right (oil) becomes the monopoly.
Google is so huge and rich from ads it’s able to effectively implement Darwinian capitalism inside itself. This is almost the opposite of “riding the wave” - they are constantly trying new things and (smartly) canning them when it’s clear they aren’t worth the investment. By doing this, they are at least able to push the odds a bit in their favor that the next oil well is found by Google instead of startup #10327.
Hindsight is 20/20 and it’s pathetically easy to look at other services (e.g., MS or NVIDIA’s game streaming services) and say “obviously what the winner did is right and what google did is wrong, and google is therefore stupid for trying”. Think of how many apps (Vine, Cinemagram) tried to compete with FB/Insta and lost. Then TikTok came along and has beaten FB so bad that FB/insta is changing to be more like TikTok. TikTok’s market success is the lucky result of the flip of a coin whose weight no one understands. In hindsight, sure, TikTok’s win came from having done x, y, and z better than everyone else, but no one, not even FB, knew what x y and z were ahead of time (or they would have beaten TikTok to it). Google is in-house-developing Vine and Cinemagram (failures) in the hopes of hitting the next TikTok (success).
In a strange ironic twist, success in capitalism is brought by trial and error, a blind search… which just so happens to be Google’s bread and butter.
Since no one knows where oil comes from, the best way to find it is to drill everywhere (for which you’ll need lots of resources) and hope you strike. This is pretty much just Darwinian capitalism; companies in the market compete on whatever they think will give them the win (drill), and everyone who happened to be wrong dies or is bought out (no oil), and everyone who happened to be right (oil) becomes the monopoly.
Google is so huge and rich from ads it’s able to effectively implement Darwinian capitalism inside itself. This is almost the opposite of “riding the wave” - they are constantly trying new things and (smartly) canning them when it’s clear they aren’t worth the investment. By doing this, they are at least able to push the odds a bit in their favor that the next oil well is found by Google instead of startup #10327.
Hindsight is 20/20 and it’s pathetically easy to look at other services (e.g., MS or NVIDIA’s game streaming services) and say “obviously what the winner did is right and what google did is wrong, and google is therefore stupid for trying”. Think of how many apps (Vine, Cinemagram) tried to compete with FB/Insta and lost. Then TikTok came along and has beaten FB so bad that FB/insta is changing to be more like TikTok. TikTok’s market success is the lucky result of the flip of a coin whose weight no one understands. In hindsight, sure, TikTok’s win came from having done x, y, and z better than everyone else, but no one, not even FB, knew what x y and z were ahead of time (or they would have beaten TikTok to it). Google is in-house-developing Vine and Cinemagram (failures) in the hopes of hitting the next TikTok (success).
In a strange ironic twist, success in capitalism is brought by trial and error, a blind search… which just so happens to be Google’s bread and butter.
Hindsight is not all it is though. Plenty of people here, myself included, were calling that the need to rebuy games (compared to MS's all in one sub model, or nvidia letting you use your existing licenses), combined with Google's track record with lacking commitment to its services were fatal flaws to Google's value proposition.
The reply was that Spotify and Netflix worked, but all music streaming services have basically the same selection these days, and movies are deemed more disposable than games as seen by the rise of people rotating subscriptions as movie video streaming fragments, so they were never perfect indicators. The one worry was that Google would buy its way in with exclusives and introductory pricing a la Epic, but Google's pride probably prevented that.
The reply was that Spotify and Netflix worked, but all music streaming services have basically the same selection these days, and movies are deemed more disposable than games as seen by the rise of people rotating subscriptions as movie video streaming fragments, so they were never perfect indicators. The one worry was that Google would buy its way in with exclusives and introductory pricing a la Epic, but Google's pride probably prevented that.
What? The streaming games market started way before Google (OnLive, Sony, etc.) and now it's mostly Nvidia and Microsoft. Google entered late, never invested much in it, never advertised much... they just totally botched the execution and their competitors got all the players. Nvidia's service is getting better all the time.
[deleted]
In this case, I think that's a good thing in the long run. This entire class of game streaming product is as anti-customer as it's possible to be. It's basically the wet dream of DRM control freaks in the industry.
If the death of stadia kills the category, stadia's impact was a net positive.
If the death of stadia kills the category, stadia's impact was a net positive.
That only plays out if you offer anything to customers once the competitors are gone. Also: there’s still PlayStation, Xbox and even Apple Arcade doing perfectly fine in this space
Is Apple Arcade doing fine? In my small world I don’t know a single person who uses it.
Looks like overall Apple subscriptions have solid growth. [0]
I use it after I got bored of Netflix and other programs, because it’s ad and in-app purchase free and loads quickly on all devices. The games are obviously not the best, but then again the PS4 games I have don’t really justify the long start up time and I don’t have enough spare hours for Civilization.
[0]: https://www.macrumors.com/2022/07/28/apple-860-million-paid-...
I use it after I got bored of Netflix and other programs, because it’s ad and in-app purchase free and loads quickly on all devices. The games are obviously not the best, but then again the PS4 games I have don’t really justify the long start up time and I don’t have enough spare hours for Civilization.
[0]: https://www.macrumors.com/2022/07/28/apple-860-million-paid-...
Still doing better than Stadia will be after shutting down, assuming this rumour pans out.
At least with Apple you know the service is gonna hang around for awhile, even if it doesn’t set the world alight.
At least with Apple you know the service is gonna hang around for awhile, even if it doesn’t set the world alight.
I have arcade through their Apple One subscription and uh I think sometimes my family tries to buy a game and it’s free so that’s nice?
But i don’t know anyone who intentionally uses it as a library. I assume that it’s just a nice way to redirect money to devs they like in a rare scheme to appease their game dev partners.
But i don’t know anyone who intentionally uses it as a library. I assume that it’s just a nice way to redirect money to devs they like in a rare scheme to appease their game dev partners.
Wut? Geforce NOW absolutely trampled Stadia. It was just no contest at all.
And if Geforce Now goes under I retain all my games, because it’s all linked to Steam and Epic.
And if Geforce Now goes under I retain all my games, because it’s all linked to Steam and Epic.
That being said, the user experience of Stadia is so much cleaner, GEforce now has much jank in linking accounts, staring up your instance, checking if a game you might buy is even supported, and then deciding the storefront to get it from if it is.
But I still prefer Geforce for exactly the reason you give--still having the games regardless of what happens with the streaming service.
But I still prefer Geforce for exactly the reason you give--still having the games regardless of what happens with the streaming service.
A better strategy would be to win the markets and profit from them.
lol yes, the uh "traditional" approach is just... discover market, deliver product, profit. This "new" strategy of "deliver product, lose money, shut product down" seems like it may not work well long term.
Geforce Now seems to be doing alright.
GFN solved stadia's main problem by integrating with Steam.
It also pre-dated Stadia by some number of years.
(I agree with you, if that's not clear: it didn't even create/define the market or take in any way significantly away from the incumbent.)
(I agree with you, if that's not clear: it didn't even create/define the market or take in any way significantly away from the incumbent.)
It is highly unethical to take away copies of the game that players had to pay full price for.
Stadia owes them a retail copy of the games they purchased.
Stadia owes them a retail copy of the games they purchased.
That is how all of this works. If Valve went out of business then you wouldn't have any legal right or way to get the games you purchased on Steam. If Amazon shut down Prime Video then you couldn't watch the movies you purchased on it. This is not a unique problem to Google Stadia.
If google were going out of business I'd agree with you, but they're not. As a business they have plenty of money. What they're (possibly) doing is shutting this service to save some money. I suspect they'll refund or at least credit the relatively small number of people who purchased games on the service.
It was always an odd setup to sell something for a fixed fee that potentially has an endless cost to deliver. Google have always been vague about how to square that circle. They could have sold fixed term or rolling licences but chose not to. I suspect had Stadia game sales reached a certain threshold they'd have done something like that but it's not something you want to talk about with a new system.
It was always an odd setup to sell something for a fixed fee that potentially has an endless cost to deliver. Google have always been vague about how to square that circle. They could have sold fixed term or rolling licences but chose not to. I suspect had Stadia game sales reached a certain threshold they'd have done something like that but it's not something you want to talk about with a new system.
I doubt they'll credit anyone. Why would they? You purchased a license to play a game through their service. Their service is no longer there. I haven't gone through any terms of service for Stadia but I can't imagine that they aren't covered for this.
They can put what they want in the TOS but they are selling to consumers in jurisdictions around the world and if it stops working so soon then they were clearly 'selling' something that wasn't fit for purpose. They could have sold it time limited or laid out their limitations if they wanted to protect themselves but they didn't.
I used the service and as a techie knew it wasn't really sustainable but the average consumer buying in good faith wasn't warned that their purchase might be so short lived. Might have been hidden in the TOS but that won't cut the mustard in many jurisdictions and will be an expensive battle.
I suspect they made a small amount of sales and it'll be cheaper and easier for them to credit than fight.
I used the service and as a techie knew it wasn't really sustainable but the average consumer buying in good faith wasn't warned that their purchase might be so short lived. Might have been hidden in the TOS but that won't cut the mustard in many jurisdictions and will be an expensive battle.
I suspect they made a small amount of sales and it'll be cheaper and easier for them to credit than fight.
I'm not so convinced. Maybe in the EU, but that would be it, certainly I think in the US you'd be fucked for sure. It might be cheaper in the short term to pay out vs the worst case scenario of fighting this, but they may never even get sued, the case may get thrown out if they do, it may be in their interest to protect that precedent on TOS and fight it in court, etc.
I'm not saying Google won't pay out, but I just think there's a lot of reasons why they might not.
I'm not saying Google won't pay out, but I just think there's a lot of reasons why they might not.
Seems likely there will be lawsuits though. Just too good of a case for publicity.
How many game sales did stadia even have. If it’s less than 100m usd just issue full refunds for all game purchases.
Might sound crazy but the 100m would be more effective to the brand than spending 100m on marketing.
Might sound crazy but the 100m would be more effective to the brand than spending 100m on marketing.
Well, the smaller the number of purchases the less impactful the negative marketing effects. The larger the purchases, the higher the financial impact on Google.
Further, Google exited this market. Do they really care about marketing to these people anymore? Their main revenue is non-consensual tracking, it's not like being mad at Google is going to matter unless you really go out of your way because of it.
Further, Google exited this market. Do they really care about marketing to these people anymore? Their main revenue is non-consensual tracking, it's not like being mad at Google is going to matter unless you really go out of your way because of it.
Something something EU consumer protection law, stuff needs 2 year warranty, and if it breaks in that time you either have to replace or refund the customers. Doubly so if you knew the product wouldn't last 2 years.
Not sure if the German Gewährleistung applies to video games, but if it does you might be able to wield that since not being able to play the game anymore definitely is a major defect.
Why would they? Because of the reputational damage of not doing so.
The Google play would have been to track user gameplay. That's currently a large number of user-hours that Google is blind to, given they have no offering in the dedicated console space.
... that said, I'd expect the margins were far lower / cost was higher than what Google was used to, and they financially decided the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
... that said, I'd expect the margins were far lower / cost was higher than what Google was used to, and they financially decided the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
Suspect that the service saw poor growth or even shrinkage of users. Costs were fixed to rising and nobody provided an answer on how to address. So google cut it.
The obvious difference is that games downloaded from steam are on your machine and are yours to keep forever - if Valve goes bankrupt you can still have copies(whether they would launch or not is a different question, but I'm sure someone would find a technical solution). When Stadia shuts down that's it, the games are gone, because you can't make an offline copies of them.
If you have to download a pirate's crack to play a game, you may as well download a pirate version of the game in the first place. I don't see much substantial difference between these two scenarios.
Steam is a DRM system with good branding, that gamers treat as special because it comes from Valve. Anecdotally, a lot of gamers believe and trust that Valve would free their games of DRM if Valve ever went out of business or otherwise shut down Steam. Of course this isn't true, they wouldn't have the legal right to do that with any game that wasn't their own (which is the vast majority of the games on Steam) and whatever informal promises Gabe made years aren't worth a damn. Nevertheless, this sort of mistaken expectation affords Valve/Steam a lot of good will they really don't deserve.
Steam is a DRM system with good branding, that gamers treat as special because it comes from Valve. Anecdotally, a lot of gamers believe and trust that Valve would free their games of DRM if Valve ever went out of business or otherwise shut down Steam. Of course this isn't true, they wouldn't have the legal right to do that with any game that wasn't their own (which is the vast majority of the games on Steam) and whatever informal promises Gabe made years aren't worth a damn. Nevertheless, this sort of mistaken expectation affords Valve/Steam a lot of good will they really don't deserve.
>>I don't see much substantial difference between these two scenarios.
In one you paid for the product, in other you didn't.
I'd think that's a pretty substantial difference?
In one you paid for the product, in other you didn't.
I'd think that's a pretty substantial difference?
His point is highlighting that even if you pay for it you don’t actually own the game. In this weird market you only own the game if you pirate it.
Ip laws are the worst and terrible for the market. Especially the media companies that just recharge you for for the same content just to watch it on a different medium.
Ip laws are the worst and terrible for the market. Especially the media companies that just recharge you for for the same content just to watch it on a different medium.
> In this weird market you only own the game if you pirate it.
That's a really good way of putting it, I'm gonna steal that (irony unintended). It's totally true - when you purchase software or services it's conditional. You have some voucher that can be redeemed at the discretion of the provider, and there are always many ways (EULA violation, company goes away) that the voucher can be negated.
But when you steal something you aren't beholden to anyone. You actually "own" that piece of software in a way more concrete way. Yes, someone could pursue legal charges and force you to remove it, but it's a totally separate system vs the built-in contract between customer/ service.
That's a really good way of putting it, I'm gonna steal that (irony unintended). It's totally true - when you purchase software or services it's conditional. You have some voucher that can be redeemed at the discretion of the provider, and there are always many ways (EULA violation, company goes away) that the voucher can be negated.
But when you steal something you aren't beholden to anyone. You actually "own" that piece of software in a way more concrete way. Yes, someone could pursue legal charges and force you to remove it, but it's a totally separate system vs the built-in contract between customer/ service.
>>His point is highlighting that even if you pay for it you don’t actually own the game
In the EU at least, you absolutely own the copy and are free to do with it as you please though, including making more copies for your own safekeeping. There are other comments in this thread pointing out that even in US with its crazy laws you also have this right, although I cannot comment on that personally.
In the EU at least, you absolutely own the copy and are free to do with it as you please though, including making more copies for your own safekeeping. There are other comments in this thread pointing out that even in US with its crazy laws you also have this right, although I cannot comment on that personally.
The two scenarios I'm comparing (and finding not much difference between) are:
> You "buy" the game from Stadia, it's taken from you, so now you pirate the game.
> You "buy" the game from Steam, it's taken from you, so now you download the pirate's crack to the game.
In either case, the original developer received compensation so I don't think you should feel any moral obligations to anybody. Morally they're equivalent, the only real difference is whether you have the gamefiles already downloaded or not. In both cases you need to dip into the shadier side of the net to get the game you "bought" to run.
> You "buy" the game from Stadia, it's taken from you, so now you pirate the game.
> You "buy" the game from Steam, it's taken from you, so now you download the pirate's crack to the game.
In either case, the original developer received compensation so I don't think you should feel any moral obligations to anybody. Morally they're equivalent, the only real difference is whether you have the gamefiles already downloaded or not. In both cases you need to dip into the shadier side of the net to get the game you "bought" to run.
Yeah I think I can agree with that. The two scenarios you posted are equal in my mind. I was thinking more about a scenario where you bought a game from steam, then used a pirate crack to play it, vs a scenario where you didn't buy a game, just pirated it. Those two aren't the same - obviously.
But the product you're using isn't the one you bought.
They're completely fungible, and the "damage" to the manufacturer, even a potentially contrived "piracy is theft" argument doesn't hold up. You already bought the game, the developer got paid as much as they would have if the service stayed up. Just because the service provider shuts down doesn't change those facts.
That's like saying that if you're watching a blu ray rip of your own purchased disc, it isn't the same product you bought. Technically correct, but it's completely legal to rip your own discs(at least in the EU, can't comment on other countries).
I'm not even thinking about legality.
My issue with "just download a crack" is that I have to spend time hunting down the crack, and I can't be sure the crack won't include malware, or won't introduce bugs which only appear later in the game. The last of these has happened to me on multiple occasions. A cracked game is no longer the product I bought.
By contrast, when I buy a game on GOG, I get a product that is DRM Free and will work forever—and because it's the product I actually purchased, I receive some minimal level of assurance from the retailer.
I would feel somewhat differently if there was a single "universal" crack that worked on all Steam games, or even which worked on 95% of Steam games and failed in a predictable way on the remaining 5%. This is the case for iTunes TV Shows, and so I have no problem paying for those, because I can run them through some software and I know the DRM will get stripped correctly every time with no quality loss. I'm not aware of any such software for Steam games.
My issue with "just download a crack" is that I have to spend time hunting down the crack, and I can't be sure the crack won't include malware, or won't introduce bugs which only appear later in the game. The last of these has happened to me on multiple occasions. A cracked game is no longer the product I bought.
By contrast, when I buy a game on GOG, I get a product that is DRM Free and will work forever—and because it's the product I actually purchased, I receive some minimal level of assurance from the retailer.
I would feel somewhat differently if there was a single "universal" crack that worked on all Steam games, or even which worked on 95% of Steam games and failed in a predictable way on the remaining 5%. This is the case for iTunes TV Shows, and so I have no problem paying for those, because I can run them through some software and I know the DRM will get stripped correctly every time with no quality loss. I'm not aware of any such software for Steam games.
You are correct of course. My point is that if Steam would disappear, a technological solution would appear to play your games. Just like even once every single PS1 on the planet turns into dust, we can still play PS1 games by other means. With stadia, this will never happen because you can't get a copy of a Stadia game I'm the first place.
I just question how much that matters in practice. In both cases, you can theoretically replace the game you bought with a pirated copy.
All PS1 games have been archived, yes, because the method of ripping a PS1 game is consistent across every title, and the total number of games released was relatively small. That's not the case with PC games today, and I think it's virtually inevitable that a lot of indie games released exclusively on Steam will eventually be lost to time. As will many of the indie games released without DRM on itch.io—but at least any game you downloaded from itch.io will be playable forever.
You can argue cloud gaming is even worse. Maybe so, but at least it provides a lot of extra utility, since you can play on low-end devices. Steam provides automatic updates, that's kind of nice I guess, but not in the same class as running Assassin's Creed on your phone†. (Even then, I personally wouldn't pay full price for a game I can only run on someone else's servers, but I understand why someone else might.)
I don't like Steam.
† In theory. I've always found cloud gaming has too much latency for me. But in theory, if it worked perfectly—which perhaps it never will—the promise is nuts.
All PS1 games have been archived, yes, because the method of ripping a PS1 game is consistent across every title, and the total number of games released was relatively small. That's not the case with PC games today, and I think it's virtually inevitable that a lot of indie games released exclusively on Steam will eventually be lost to time. As will many of the indie games released without DRM on itch.io—but at least any game you downloaded from itch.io will be playable forever.
You can argue cloud gaming is even worse. Maybe so, but at least it provides a lot of extra utility, since you can play on low-end devices. Steam provides automatic updates, that's kind of nice I guess, but not in the same class as running Assassin's Creed on your phone†. (Even then, I personally wouldn't pay full price for a game I can only run on someone else's servers, but I understand why someone else might.)
I don't like Steam.
† In theory. I've always found cloud gaming has too much latency for me. But in theory, if it worked perfectly—which perhaps it never will—the promise is nuts.
You seem to be saying (and be certain of) that in the EU, were Steam to be discontinued, it'd be completely legal for you to download a crack to bypass the DRM for the game you were previously licensed to play through Valve's platform. Is this established as a matter of law? Could you share any links on the topic?
If it wouldn't be legal, then downloading the crack to the game you paid to play through Steam but can't anymore would presumably be just as illegal as pirating the whole game to begin with. Did you really purchase the game or just an indefinite (but not necessarily eternal) license to play it?
If it wouldn't be legal, then downloading the crack to the game you paid to play through Steam but can't anymore would presumably be just as illegal as pirating the whole game to begin with. Did you really purchase the game or just an indefinite (but not necessarily eternal) license to play it?
I don't disagree, but there are other reasons to like Steam. I like Steam because they heavily invest into Linux support, even for games that are not theirs. I understand that they're not doing this out of altruism, they have several business-level reasons, but they happen to align with my interests and that's really all I can ask for in a for-profit company.
> If you have to download a pirate's crack to play a game, you may as well download a pirate version of the game in the first place. I don't see much substantial difference between these two scenarios
You can at least crack the local files or pirate a steam game. You can't do that for stadia games - they are special Linux versions running on bespoke hardware and they will be lost to time when stadia goes.
You can play the windows/Linux/console versions of most of the games, at least. Technically different but outside of preservation purposes, they won't be meaningfully different from the stadia versions as Google never really delivered on any of the game feature promises of their platforms. But stadia exclusives will vanish with the platform. Maybe one day they will get ports, assuming the stadia developer licensing allows it.
You can at least crack the local files or pirate a steam game. You can't do that for stadia games - they are special Linux versions running on bespoke hardware and they will be lost to time when stadia goes.
You can play the windows/Linux/console versions of most of the games, at least. Technically different but outside of preservation purposes, they won't be meaningfully different from the stadia versions as Google never really delivered on any of the game feature promises of their platforms. But stadia exclusives will vanish with the platform. Maybe one day they will get ports, assuming the stadia developer licensing allows it.
> "..they wouldn't have the legal right to do that with any game that wasn't their own.."
Both Gabe Newell, the founder/owner of Steam/Vale, and the official support response is now to state that they would provide means for users to continue to have access to their games should Steam shut down. Suggesting they are lying demands more evidence than a random claim, especially as that lie itself would likely be unlawful and open the door to lawsuits against them from any user who claims they would not have purchased their games if they knew this statement to be untrue.
When game companies go out of business, Steam will remove their product from the store, but continue enabling users who already purchased it access to it, and I expect this independence/guarantee of of access is part of their normal licensing. There is also already 'offline mode' for Steam, and setting the expiration of this mode to e.g. 100 years would be trivial from their side.
Both Gabe Newell, the founder/owner of Steam/Vale, and the official support response is now to state that they would provide means for users to continue to have access to their games should Steam shut down. Suggesting they are lying demands more evidence than a random claim, especially as that lie itself would likely be unlawful and open the door to lawsuits against them from any user who claims they would not have purchased their games if they knew this statement to be untrue.
When game companies go out of business, Steam will remove their product from the store, but continue enabling users who already purchased it access to it, and I expect this independence/guarantee of of access is part of their normal licensing. There is also already 'offline mode' for Steam, and setting the expiration of this mode to e.g. 100 years would be trivial from their side.
In the case of first party games owned by Valve, they may earnestly intend to do as they say, and consequently aren't lying when they say it. Nevertheless, such promises about what will happen when the company is departing are worth approximately jack shit. Whether it's Gabe (or his heirs) later deciding to sell the company or creditors carving up the company after it fails, there are many scenarios in which those earnest promises will fall through. Notch once promised to eventually open source Minecraft. Maybe he wasn't lying when he said it, he might have earnestly meant it. But that went straight out the window when Microsoft wrote him a big fat check.
In the case of third party games with DRM on Steam: Valve doesn't have a license to distribute those games without DRM, so they're effectively promising to become a pirate software distributor. They have the technical means to do this, but not the legal right. They're almost certainly self-deluding if not lying outright when they promise to do this. I lean towards flagrantly lying; they know they don't have a license to do what they're promising but they're promising it anyway. And if they're willing to lie about this, I think you should reevaluate their promises respecting first party games as well.
In the case of third party games with DRM on Steam: Valve doesn't have a license to distribute those games without DRM, so they're effectively promising to become a pirate software distributor. They have the technical means to do this, but not the legal right. They're almost certainly self-deluding if not lying outright when they promise to do this. I lean towards flagrantly lying; they know they don't have a license to do what they're promising but they're promising it anyway. And if they're willing to lie about this, I think you should reevaluate their promises respecting first party games as well.
> they know they don't have a license to do what they're promising
Do they not? Did you read the terms for publishing a game on Steam?
I didn’t, but it’s within reason it contains a provision for just this eventuality.
Do they not? Did you read the terms for publishing a game on Steam?
I didn’t, but it’s within reason it contains a provision for just this eventuality.
Such a term would be poison to most game developers, particularly in the early days of Steam when it had nothing more than a handful of first party games. Before Steam achieved market dominance, how would they have convinced third party developers to accept it?
Unless somebody shows me that term in the contracts, I don't believe it exists. It doesn't make sense for it to exist; the only reason to think it does is because you like Gabe and don't think he would lie to you.
Unless somebody shows me that term in the contracts, I don't believe it exists. It doesn't make sense for it to exist; the only reason to think it does is because you like Gabe and don't think he would lie to you.
> how would they have convinced third party developers to accept it?
Present it as a feature?
“In the event of the dissolution of Steam/Valve, we will endeavour to do everything reasonable to ensure that previously purchased licenses to your content keep working for subscribers in the absence of the Steam platform.”
Just because they try to keep it working doesn’t mean they have to make it DRM free (e.g. copyable between all computers without any checks).
Present it as a feature?
“In the event of the dissolution of Steam/Valve, we will endeavour to do everything reasonable to ensure that previously purchased licenses to your content keep working for subscribers in the absence of the Steam platform.”
Just because they try to keep it working doesn’t mean they have to make it DRM free (e.g. copyable between all computers without any checks).
It seems reasonable for developers (as I’m not a developer) as Steam was just selling licenses.
It would be the equivalent of Walmart saying they would let people buy copies of games and run them forever.
So it makes sense that Steam would be able to make it so the games sold keep running without Steam existing. It seems pretty simple technically too as they would just update their client to no longer phone home to Steam.
It would be the equivalent of Walmart saying they would let people buy copies of games and run them forever.
So it makes sense that Steam would be able to make it so the games sold keep running without Steam existing. It seems pretty simple technically too as they would just update their client to no longer phone home to Steam.
> Suggesting they are lying demands more evidence than a random claim, especially as that lie itself would likely be unlawful and open the door to lawsuits against them from any user who claims they would not have purchased their games if they knew this statement to be untrue.
If they shutdown due to bankruptcy (which seems unlikely at the moment, but could change, without much notice since they're private and don't have required public reporting), there may not be anything to collect or anyone to compell to fulfill the promise.
If they shutdown due to bankruptcy (which seems unlikely at the moment, but could change, without much notice since they're private and don't have required public reporting), there may not be anything to collect or anyone to compell to fulfill the promise.
Steam’s DRM “just works” and that’s why gamers don’t complain much about it. Also it’s the best way to play games under Linux.
I have a few hundreds games in steam and while maybe one day I may lose access to all of them it’s a risk I am willing to take because:
- I don’t think it will happen anytime soon because it’s a money making machine. The biggest risk for me is Microsoft acquiring it and stopping any work on Linux related stuff (I have been using steam solely on Linux for the past 7+ years)
- Even if I lose access to the library, Steam will have done a better job that I could. I know for sure that I lost the media for the first steam-enabled games I bought but I can still play them.
I have a few hundreds games in steam and while maybe one day I may lose access to all of them it’s a risk I am willing to take because:
- I don’t think it will happen anytime soon because it’s a money making machine. The biggest risk for me is Microsoft acquiring it and stopping any work on Linux related stuff (I have been using steam solely on Linux for the past 7+ years)
- Even if I lose access to the library, Steam will have done a better job that I could. I know for sure that I lost the media for the first steam-enabled games I bought but I can still play them.
> I have a few hundreds games in steam
those are rookie numbers, a couple months of humble bundle and your library can be full of shit you'll never play
those are rookie numbers, a couple months of humble bundle and your library can be full of shit you'll never play
Steam's DRM is also completely optional, publishers are under no obligation to use it and many don't.
That’s not really as true as you say, I remember in the mid-00s when I had trouble with the internet at home, that I couldn’t play offline games without logging in to steam.
There was a “remember password” option, but the session would still expire.
There would have to be some effort to unlink those games from the auth services.
There was a “remember password” option, but the session would still expire.
There would have to be some effort to unlink those games from the auth services.
Hi ;-)
Also, yes, but I mean you could find a solution I'm sure. As long as you have the copies a solution would be found - just like I can play my PS1 games without owning a PS1. With Stadia there aren't any copies to speak of. Once the servers go down that's it.
Also, yes, but I mean you could find a solution I'm sure. As long as you have the copies a solution would be found - just like I can play my PS1 games without owning a PS1. With Stadia there aren't any copies to speak of. Once the servers go down that's it.
I believe Valve has promised to unlock all games purchased through their platform in the event that they go out of business. Whether they stick to that is another story, but it should happen for at least some games.
They've been operating Steam for 20 years now. So the company has staying power.
Plus, the most likely thing to happen to Valve is a MS acquisition.
They've been operating Steam for 20 years now. So the company has staying power.
Plus, the most likely thing to happen to Valve is a MS acquisition.
I hope Valve isn't acquired by Microsoft. Gabe left Microsoft to found Valve so as long as he's around I can't ever see that happening.
Is it known who will helm Valve if Gabe decides to leave? Plagman has been a big name there with the recent SteamOS platform development but I'm not sure who the actual second-in-command would be.
Is it known who will helm Valve if Gabe decides to leave? Plagman has been a big name there with the recent SteamOS platform development but I'm not sure who the actual second-in-command would be.
If Stadia is shut down, they should offer activation keys for each user's purchased games on Epic, GOG, Xbox, GeForce Now or Steam. Or where ever, really, it doesn't matter.
>They've been operating Steam for 20 years now. So the company has staying power.
This is true, but also this is all new. Sooner than later there will be a case of a 20 year old company who licenses media that burns their customer base. It's inevitable.
This is true, but also this is all new. Sooner than later there will be a case of a 20 year old company who licenses media that burns their customer base. It's inevitable.
They have a backup option built into the Steam client, so you're free to do that anytime. Offcourse, there's no guarantees with multiplayer games or always-on DRM as that's always been the case with publishers who choose to go down that route.
They almost certainly can't. If I remember correctly the "we can just release an unlock patch" comment was back when Steam was just that really annoying thing Valve forced you install to play Counter-Strike. The moment they started including third-party games was the moment that no longer became available. DMCA 1201 is very very clear that you cannot unlock other people's games for any reason, even a legal one.
[deleted]
It depends on the contract between the parties involved.
After their Linux move, Vlave really want to have nothing to do with Microsoft.
It would be a pity to lose the income from those 95% steam customers.
I don't think that's true so much as Valve really doesn't trust Microsoft, which is a very reasonable position given the company's history.
You’re of course entirely correct.
Valve feels different because you can install the games and play them on a machine of your choosing.
Maybe if Stadia allowed you to play the games on your machine OR Stadia, the would have been a more compelling offering. Personally, I would have loved a service like that. There are so many games that my machine can play and I don’t want to deal with even the slightest lag, but I’ve never been one to own an impressive gaming rig and dealing with a tiny bit of lag to avoid spending $3000 on a solid rig would be totally worth it.
Maybe valve should add a Stadia-like service in the future to allow you to play the game on their machines and stream it back when you want to.
Valve feels different because you can install the games and play them on a machine of your choosing.
Maybe if Stadia allowed you to play the games on your machine OR Stadia, the would have been a more compelling offering. Personally, I would have loved a service like that. There are so many games that my machine can play and I don’t want to deal with even the slightest lag, but I’ve never been one to own an impressive gaming rig and dealing with a tiny bit of lag to avoid spending $3000 on a solid rig would be totally worth it.
Maybe valve should add a Stadia-like service in the future to allow you to play the game on their machines and stream it back when you want to.
>>Maybe if Stadia allowed you to play the games on your machine OR Stadia, the would have been a more compelling offering. Personally, I would have loved a service like that
GeForce now and xbox cloud both seem to check those boxes, with geforce now offering more permanence. You buy a game on steam or GoG or epic or whatever, than play it offline on your computer or stream via geforce now. I was skeptical but loved it for the last year or so when my computer couldn't run cyberpunk 2077 and I didn't want to sell kidney for a rtx card :)
GeForce now and xbox cloud both seem to check those boxes, with geforce now offering more permanence. You buy a game on steam or GoG or epic or whatever, than play it offline on your computer or stream via geforce now. I was skeptical but loved it for the last year or so when my computer couldn't run cyberpunk 2077 and I didn't want to sell kidney for a rtx card :)
> GeForce now and xbox cloud both seem to check those boxes … You buy a game on steam or GoG or epic or whatever, than play it offline on your computer or stream via geforce now.
XBox Cloud doesn’t check that box, at least not on PC. You can transfer your streamed game saves to an XBox but as far as I know there’s no way to export them to a PC, and it wouldn’t matter because save files are not going to be compatible between your PC game and the streamed version which is an XBox port.
XBox Cloud doesn’t check that box, at least not on PC. You can transfer your streamed game saves to an XBox but as far as I know there’s no way to export them to a PC, and it wouldn’t matter because save files are not going to be compatible between your PC game and the streamed version which is an XBox port.
Geforce Now was probably the most consumer-friendly version of game streaming possible and every game publisher shat their pants and blocked it. Hell, even some indie developers blocked it. From a user perspective it's equivalent to renting an EC2 instance and installing Parsec and Steam on it, just automated. But the publishers looked at it like Nvidia had stolen their games to make their own bootleg streaming service.
The only reason why this didn't happen with Xcloud is that Microsoft already had pre-existing agreements that covered all the games on consoles. But that's moreso a testament to how much monopoly power platform owners have rather than Xbox developers being more consumer friendly.
The general principle that copyright owners have is "any time our work winds up on a new medium, we should get paid". This is the reason why game publishers won't help you port licenses out of failing platforms and successful platforms won't let publishers port them in[0]. Nobody wants license portability for game purchases. Why have that when we can charge people to buy a new one!? Sideloading? Emulators?! That's just piracy with extra steps!
The actual law doesn't support their level of copyright maximalism:
* RIAA v. Diamond supports a right of consumer format shifting (and also carved a huge hole into the AHRA DRM mandate in the process)
* Sony v. Connectix supports the legality of game emulation, including non-clean-room reimplementation of necessary system software to run games
The only reason why they are even remotely able to insist that ownership ends with the licensing platform is that the Copyright Office is afraid of adding DMCA 1201 exceptions for format shifting.
[0] Valve is one of the few exceptions; they will let their partner developers generate unlimited new license keys for free. Or at least they did - I do remember at one point they had to crack down on some scams that were abusing this.
AFAIK everyone else either does not allow partners to generate keys at all or has a strict cap of 100 or so.
The only reason why this didn't happen with Xcloud is that Microsoft already had pre-existing agreements that covered all the games on consoles. But that's moreso a testament to how much monopoly power platform owners have rather than Xbox developers being more consumer friendly.
The general principle that copyright owners have is "any time our work winds up on a new medium, we should get paid". This is the reason why game publishers won't help you port licenses out of failing platforms and successful platforms won't let publishers port them in[0]. Nobody wants license portability for game purchases. Why have that when we can charge people to buy a new one!? Sideloading? Emulators?! That's just piracy with extra steps!
The actual law doesn't support their level of copyright maximalism:
* RIAA v. Diamond supports a right of consumer format shifting (and also carved a huge hole into the AHRA DRM mandate in the process)
* Sony v. Connectix supports the legality of game emulation, including non-clean-room reimplementation of necessary system software to run games
The only reason why they are even remotely able to insist that ownership ends with the licensing platform is that the Copyright Office is afraid of adding DMCA 1201 exceptions for format shifting.
[0] Valve is one of the few exceptions; they will let their partner developers generate unlimited new license keys for free. Or at least they did - I do remember at one point they had to crack down on some scams that were abusing this.
AFAIK everyone else either does not allow partners to generate keys at all or has a strict cap of 100 or so.
> But the publishers looked at it like Nvidia had stolen their games to make their own bootleg streaming service.
nVidia was preloading games onto their service without licenses, and so they needed publisher approvals to do this. There are other cloud services that offer a gaming-capable PC and block storage and don't run afoul of this, since you need to install the games yourself.
nVidia was preloading games onto their service without licenses, and so they needed publisher approvals to do this. There are other cloud services that offer a gaming-capable PC and block storage and don't run afoul of this, since you need to install the games yourself.
This seems like a distinction without a difference. Them preloading game files shouldn't matter, because the actual games still require a DRM license in order to work.
It's broadly legal to run caching proxies, remote-hosted DVRs, and shared/deduplicated cloud storage. There's even specialized cache proxies for Steam. What would be the difference between what Nvidia did and, say, having a shared Steam cache server sitting between all of their streaming instances and Valve's servers?
It's broadly legal to run caching proxies, remote-hosted DVRs, and shared/deduplicated cloud storage. There's even specialized cache proxies for Steam. What would be the difference between what Nvidia did and, say, having a shared Steam cache server sitting between all of their streaming instances and Valve's servers?
> Them preloading game files shouldn't matter, because the actual games still require a DRM license in order to work.
> There's even specialized cache proxies for Steam. What would be the difference between what Nvidia did and, say, having a shared Steam cache server sitting between all of their streaming instances and Valve's servers?
The difference is that Valve, as part of their distribution agreement that publishers and developers sign to list on Steam, claims the right to host and distribute the files. Preloading the files is important, because it's a differentiation of the service -- you're not renting a PC in the cloud, you're signing on to a service where all your games are just sitting there, without your input, already patched and ready to go.
> There's even specialized cache proxies for Steam. What would be the difference between what Nvidia did and, say, having a shared Steam cache server sitting between all of their streaming instances and Valve's servers?
The difference is that Valve, as part of their distribution agreement that publishers and developers sign to list on Steam, claims the right to host and distribute the files. Preloading the files is important, because it's a differentiation of the service -- you're not renting a PC in the cloud, you're signing on to a service where all your games are just sitting there, without your input, already patched and ready to go.
>> But the publishers looked at it like Nvidia had stolen their games to make their own bootleg streaming service.
You still bought the game, you're just running elsewhere. They're worried about ports - they want to sell you that sweet android/iOS port of their game. That's why they block the games.
You still bought the game, you're just running elsewhere. They're worried about ports - they want to sell you that sweet android/iOS port of their game. That's why they block the games.
Gaming rigs don't cost 3k.
You can get a great machine for under the price of the latest iPhone.
And at least for most games - I'd MUCH rather deal with lower graphics than latency. Latency makes games not fun. And I'm not even talking about intense actions games... I mean any game that's not turn-based (and sometimes - even those are not fun if latency starts hitting ~200-500ms).
Assuming your rig lasts 5 years, you're almost certainly better off just buying it outright at $800, than paying google $10 dollars a month for 5 years for vaporware. Plus at the end of it, you likely still have a perfectly functional computer, more than capable of handling basic mail/web/videos, or serving content (I have machines going back 18 years sitting on the dirt in my basement serving content).
You can get a great machine for under the price of the latest iPhone.
And at least for most games - I'd MUCH rather deal with lower graphics than latency. Latency makes games not fun. And I'm not even talking about intense actions games... I mean any game that's not turn-based (and sometimes - even those are not fun if latency starts hitting ~200-500ms).
Assuming your rig lasts 5 years, you're almost certainly better off just buying it outright at $800, than paying google $10 dollars a month for 5 years for vaporware. Plus at the end of it, you likely still have a perfectly functional computer, more than capable of handling basic mail/web/videos, or serving content (I have machines going back 18 years sitting on the dirt in my basement serving content).
you can buy a decent system that runs the games better than stadia under $1k. you need 6600xt ($330), 16MB ram ($50), virtually any cpu ($150), motherboard $120, SSD - $80. That leaves you >250 for case, keyboard and mouse.
> 16MB ram ($50)
An amusing typo :)
An amusing typo :)
Plus you can play more than the ~100 games Google's hand-picked to play on their platform.
>>Maybe if Stadia allowed you to play the games on your machine OR Stadia, the would have been a more compelling offering.
And this is the #1 problem with stadia - it's a completely different platform, it's as far away from Windows as PS5/Xbox are. You can't just run Stadia version of games on your PC, even if you could download them. GeForce NOW is a much better product, because it runs normal Windows executables(just in the cloud).
And this is the #1 problem with stadia - it's a completely different platform, it's as far away from Windows as PS5/Xbox are. You can't just run Stadia version of games on your PC, even if you could download them. GeForce NOW is a much better product, because it runs normal Windows executables(just in the cloud).
A game streaming service is a solution to a different problem, not yours. It's much more reliable to control the performance by running it locally and tweaking the graphical fidelity than by running it remotely and adding unpredictable network performance as a factor. Instead, game streaming is meant to solve the problem of playing a game on a system that could never ever hope to run it, or to play it away from one's main system.
It is unique in that Google has plenty of money and is not going out of business. In fact it just posted excellent earnings this week.
To say this project failed and everyone is just out of luck would really shows what kind of company Alphabet/Google really is.
To say this project failed and everyone is just out of luck would really shows what kind of company Alphabet/Google really is.
If they do this, they're probably hoping that developers of the games themselves will hand out free Steam keys to their now-angry customer base. More than likely this would happen for several titles, and they're probably counting on it.
It really does feel like the company isnt being run by humans but a rudimentary AI somewhere.
Corporations may be comprised of humans, but the corporation itself is not human. This is particularly true for large corporations with a lot of organizational complexity, like Google. They are forms of artificial intelligence, but instead of running on silicon they run on the organizational chart. Corporations are capable of doing things that no individual human in the organization personally agrees with but go along with anyway because of the way the organization is structured and enforces compliance with itself. Even the executives at the top, who may believe they're in charge, are ultimately components in the machine whose perspective and insight into the true workings of the machine are filtered by the machine itself.
Don't expect human decency from a corporation, because corporations aren't humans. They're alien intelligence constructed out of humans, but that humanity is not inherited.
related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain
Don't expect human decency from a corporation, because corporations aren't humans. They're alien intelligence constructed out of humans, but that humanity is not inherited.
related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain
Amazon once told me that the music I had purchased was no longer available. I lost access to a digital music purchase...
But Amazon sells MP3 downloads?
I can't download them anymore.
Once you download an MP3, you should protect it as you'd protect anything else you purchased instead of expecting that it would be available to re-download indefinitely.
Oh, my bad, it was from iTunes from ten years ago, not Amazon. I found the support email. (I still have the mp3s)
""" Thank you for contacting iTunes Store Support!
My name is Dianne, and I'm sorry to hear that you have been unable to redownload the album "Rachmaninov: Complete Piano Concertos", on your new computer. I can certainly understand how this could be disappointing for you, please be assured that I'm happy to help.
Unfortunately, this item is no longer in the iTunes Store, and only items that are currently available can be redownloaded.
If the content provider no longer offers these purchases on the iTunes Store, App Store, or iBookstore, your content will not be available for you to download again.
However, if you still have this album on the original computer, you can certainly transfer it to you new computer. You can do this in several ways. See the following article for how to transfer iTunes Store purchases using Home Sharing, an external drive, an iOS device (iPhone, iPad, or iPod), the Windows Migration Assistant, and CDs/DVDs: """
""" Thank you for contacting iTunes Store Support!
My name is Dianne, and I'm sorry to hear that you have been unable to redownload the album "Rachmaninov: Complete Piano Concertos", on your new computer. I can certainly understand how this could be disappointing for you, please be assured that I'm happy to help.
Unfortunately, this item is no longer in the iTunes Store, and only items that are currently available can be redownloaded.
If the content provider no longer offers these purchases on the iTunes Store, App Store, or iBookstore, your content will not be available for you to download again.
However, if you still have this album on the original computer, you can certainly transfer it to you new computer. You can do this in several ways. See the following article for how to transfer iTunes Store purchases using Home Sharing, an external drive, an iOS device (iPhone, iPad, or iPod), the Windows Migration Assistant, and CDs/DVDs: """
In addition to what everyone else who has replied said, Valve (or at least a support rep, so this doesn't carry as much weight as Gabe Newell himself saying it, but it was at least someone speaking in an official capacity) has said that in the event that the Steam service has to be discontinued, "measures are in place to ensure that that all users continue to have access to their Steam games".
Hearsay in an HN comment about an unnamed support rep making a promise in a comment taken out of context isn't a legal contract.
Meanwhile, here is what Steam's subscriber agreement says https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/english/
> Steam and your Subscription(s) require the download and installation of Content and Services onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a non-exclusive license and right, to use the Content and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms). This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license. The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services. To make use of the Content and Services, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.
> Valve may restrict or cancel your Account or any particular Subscription(s) at any time in the event that (a) Valve ceases providing such Subscriptions to similarly situated Subscribers generally [...]
Meanwhile, here is what Steam's subscriber agreement says https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/english/
> Steam and your Subscription(s) require the download and installation of Content and Services onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a non-exclusive license and right, to use the Content and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms). This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license. The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services. To make use of the Content and Services, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.
> Valve may restrict or cancel your Account or any particular Subscription(s) at any time in the event that (a) Valve ceases providing such Subscriptions to similarly situated Subscribers generally [...]
At least I can rest assured that pretty much anything that's been put on Steam has a cracked version out there, and if one day Valve disappears and I lose my entire library, I'll just go pirate whatever I want to play again.
Good luck doing that for a game that consumers were only ever sent frames of. If/when there's a streaming-exclusive game, it'll be conclusively lost to time when the company stops letting people play it.
Good luck doing that for a game that consumers were only ever sent frames of. If/when there's a streaming-exclusive game, it'll be conclusively lost to time when the company stops letting people play it.
Versions of this have been going on for years now. MMOs and multiplayer-focused titles die all the time, often with no way for players to access any of the content in those games. There might be a few exceptions where an extremely devoted fanbase reverse engineers the server code and runs instances of it, but that is hardly the rule.
This is the tragedy of game development. I heard the other day that copies of Anthem are selling for a penny at GameStop. When EA abandons that game (any day now), all of the work of those programmers, artists, and everyone else will basically be lost. Hundreds of thousands of man-hours of work, gone.
This is the tragedy of game development. I heard the other day that copies of Anthem are selling for a penny at GameStop. When EA abandons that game (any day now), all of the work of those programmers, artists, and everyone else will basically be lost. Hundreds of thousands of man-hours of work, gone.
You would still have your games files and be able to run them. Steam is not a rental or streaming service.
That's how GoG works.
That's not how steam works on its own. Steam explicitly a service where you buy a defined and limited license for permission to execute the files through proprietary framework that might one day disappear.
Don't get me wrong, steam is my preferred digital delivery platform and where I play majority of my games. But I am under no illusion that gives me any sort of permanence (without potential hacking and mods). If I want permanence I get a DRM free downloadable game from GoG.
That's not how steam works on its own. Steam explicitly a service where you buy a defined and limited license for permission to execute the files through proprietary framework that might one day disappear.
Don't get me wrong, steam is my preferred digital delivery platform and where I play majority of my games. But I am under no illusion that gives me any sort of permanence (without potential hacking and mods). If I want permanence I get a DRM free downloadable game from GoG.
>Steam explicitly a service where you buy a defined and limited license for permission
Simply not true. There is really no arguments here. You can run most games directly from the game files without steam. In the cases were you can't you would have issues with DRM in all other venues of purchase.
Simply not true. There is really no arguments here. You can run most games directly from the game files without steam. In the cases were you can't you would have issues with DRM in all other venues of purchase.
Runtime DRM is sometimes optional with Steam, but install‐time DRM never is.
It may look like that from the outside because you can go to the Steam library directory and double click a game executable directly, but this will still start the Steam runtime and do a DRM check. You can run a game in 'offline mode' for up to two weeks before another online DRM check is required though.
Not necessarily. The DRM part is optional.
You're not describing how Steam is meant to work, but rather how things are likely to play out for a lot of titles if Steam ever shuts down. Yes, if Steam shuts down, any game that (due to technical requirements) requires Steam to be up will be left unusable, and the customers will be left with pretty much no recourse. Not because legally they're not entitled to the products they paid for, but because it would be impractical to enforce such a right.
No, Steam sells permanent licenses.
No, Steam sells permanent licenses.
> No, Steam sells permanent licenses.
I don't know where you're getting this from.
To quote from https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/:
> [long list of things you can obtain/do via Steam] are referred to in this Agreement as "Content and Services;" the rights to access and/or use any Content and Services accessible through Steam are referred to in this Agreement as "Subscriptions."
> Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a non-exclusive license and right, to use the Content and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms). This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license.
> Valve may restrict or cancel your Account or any particular Subscription(s) at any time in the event that (a) Valve ceases providing such Subscriptions to similarly situated Subscribers generally, or (b) you breach any terms of this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use). In the event that your Account or a particular Subscription is restricted or terminated or cancelled by Valve for a violation of this Agreement or improper or illegal activity, no refund, including of any Subscription fees or of any unused funds in your Steam Wallet, will be granted.
There is zero legal entitlement to any given subscription in this agreement. The fact that they call it a "subscription", and that this is the "Subscriber Agreement" is not by accident. Rather, they explicitly reserve the right to cancel your "rights to access and/or use" their offers (aka subscriptions).
I don't know where you're getting this from.
To quote from https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/:
> [long list of things you can obtain/do via Steam] are referred to in this Agreement as "Content and Services;" the rights to access and/or use any Content and Services accessible through Steam are referred to in this Agreement as "Subscriptions."
> Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a non-exclusive license and right, to use the Content and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms). This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license.
> Valve may restrict or cancel your Account or any particular Subscription(s) at any time in the event that (a) Valve ceases providing such Subscriptions to similarly situated Subscribers generally, or (b) you breach any terms of this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use). In the event that your Account or a particular Subscription is restricted or terminated or cancelled by Valve for a violation of this Agreement or improper or illegal activity, no refund, including of any Subscription fees or of any unused funds in your Steam Wallet, will be granted.
There is zero legal entitlement to any given subscription in this agreement. The fact that they call it a "subscription", and that this is the "Subscriber Agreement" is not by accident. Rather, they explicitly reserve the right to cancel your "rights to access and/or use" their offers (aka subscriptions).
>>Steam sells permanent licenses.
I mean, no? Just no. Kindle doesn't sell you permanent irrevocable licenses and neither does steam, nor origin etc. They've each been revoked in the past and it's demonstrably true. Their TOS is clear and trivial to read. They all grant personal, limited, non-transferable, revocable and non-exclusive licenses.
You may be able to crack the downloaded steam game files to get them to run. But that's lateral to steam and irrelevant to discussion. if you're going to run cracked files skip steam and go to piratebay.
I mean, no? Just no. Kindle doesn't sell you permanent irrevocable licenses and neither does steam, nor origin etc. They've each been revoked in the past and it's demonstrably true. Their TOS is clear and trivial to read. They all grant personal, limited, non-transferable, revocable and non-exclusive licenses.
You may be able to crack the downloaded steam game files to get them to run. But that's lateral to steam and irrelevant to discussion. if you're going to run cracked files skip steam and go to piratebay.
Many/most Steam games use Steam servers to authenticate ownership. It's a store, but it's also a DRM provider. Many games would require cracking to keep working.
>most Steam games use Steam servers to authenticate ownership
Not true. Maybe if you mainly play ubisoft tiles.
Not true. Maybe if you mainly play ubisoft tiles.
You can test this. Delete steam, restart your computer and launch a title.
You'll get a message about steam.dll missing or being unable to authenticate.
You can also sign out of steam, unplug from the internet and try to launch - and again, you won't be able to except this time steam will launch and tell you to login.
You'll get a message about steam.dll missing or being unable to authenticate.
You can also sign out of steam, unplug from the internet and try to launch - and again, you won't be able to except this time steam will launch and tell you to login.
Can you be more specific or offer any evidence? That Valve offers DRM through Steam is unambiguously true. Here's their developer document on it: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/drm
And here's a list of games which are sold through Steam but which nonetheless do not use Steam DRM: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/The_big_list_of_DRM-free_g...
Why would such a list be necessary if games sold through Steam that used Steam DRM were the minority?
And here's a list of games which are sold through Steam but which nonetheless do not use Steam DRM: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/The_big_list_of_DRM-free_g...
Why would such a list be necessary if games sold through Steam that used Steam DRM were the minority?
Any game using Steamworks behaves this way, which is a pretty massive chunk of them. Ubisoft uses their own DRM which is an entirely different system.
I think what you may be saying is the behavior if you open a Steamworks game while Steam is opened, it just executes as normal. Any authentication or nonsense happens in the background. Try opening a Steamworks game with steam closed, it will force steam to open and login before the game can be played.
I think what you may be saying is the behavior if you open a Steamworks game while Steam is opened, it just executes as normal. Any authentication or nonsense happens in the background. Try opening a Steamworks game with steam closed, it will force steam to open and login before the game can be played.
Or a single last update from the servers that made every server check come back legit.
That's always just been a wishful statement of intent with no legal backing. Valve might be unable or unwilling to actually follow through on that urban legend if they do ever shut down for some reason.
Steam DRM might not easily allow this, although I trust in Valve's ethics to permit offline play if shit hits the fan.
In fact I remember reading from a community representative that there are plans for this in place (not the best source but whatever https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/18mzcn/i_asked_steam...)
In fact I remember reading from a community representative that there are plans for this in place (not the best source but whatever https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/18mzcn/i_asked_steam...)
It also helps that Steamworks DRM is trivially bypassed. All it takes are a couple of replacement DLL files in the games directory and it runs normally (minus multiplayer support, of course).
This isn't even a sketchy crack thing, it's an open source tool. Look up Goldberg emulator.
This isn't even a sketchy crack thing, it's an open source tool. Look up Goldberg emulator.
Not very much - many of those game files actually have Steam Runtime or Steam executables blended in. It is not a strong DRM - but you are still going to need to look for cracked copies if Steam went down.
Yes but if Steam shut down you’d have no way to get to the installers again and you’d be left crossing your fingers the machine you installed them on doesn’t die.
Think it through. Of cause you cant get the games files if the provider goes offline. You can make a backup of any of your games in steam, which will make it possible to install it again offline on other machines.
The game won't run on another machine, at best you have a two weeks time window before the DRM checks start to fail.
There's this family sharing thing though, where you can share your Steam library between 5 accounts and up to 10 computers:
https://store.steampowered.com/promotion/familysharing
There's this family sharing thing though, where you can share your Steam library between 5 accounts and up to 10 computers:
https://store.steampowered.com/promotion/familysharing
I've bought a copy of Iron Dragon for the PC - I can even find the license key in my ancient google mail. It was published by http://www.antigravitybox.com/ and the game's website is http://www.irondragon.org/
I don't see too much of a difference other than Steam has more proven longevity - even if the developers that sold games on Steam don't. I can still download Dungeons of Dreadmor from Steam even though the company appears to have disappeared in 2016.
I don't see too much of a difference other than Steam has more proven longevity - even if the developers that sold games on Steam don't. I can still download Dungeons of Dreadmor from Steam even though the company appears to have disappeared in 2016.
Hacks already exist to make the games not check the servers, and only stop working after new Steam updates. If Steam were to never update again it seems likely the hacked dlls would work forever.
I've already resolved that if this were to ever happen, I would go back to my teenage ways of pirating every video game I want to play.
I already make an effort to buy games on GOG or itch.io before Steam in order to have DRM-Free copies when I can.
I already make an effort to buy games on GOG or itch.io before Steam in order to have DRM-Free copies when I can.
> I already make an effort to buy games on GOG or itch.io before Steam in order to have DRM-Free copies when I can.
It’s important to save the offline installers too. I keep a rather large external for my GOG library.
It’s important to save the offline installers too. I keep a rather large external for my GOG library.
Legally you may be right (probably depends on the country, idk) but it’s still an ethically shitty move and would make me think twice about doing business with Google in the future, even though I personally am not affected.
That's absolutely false under US law[1]. Once you have a legal copy, you are free to run the software without a license, including making additional copies for archival or as necessary to use it (for example, copying the program from disk to memory for execution).
The anti-circumvention statutes mean DRM complicates matters, but you definitely have a legal right to the game files themselves. For what it's worth, I believe that a competent lawyer could successfully argue that disabling DRM is an "adaptation" that's an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program." Get the case in front of Judge Alsup or some other computer literate judge and the argument would probably even prevail.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
The anti-circumvention statutes mean DRM complicates matters, but you definitely have a legal right to the game files themselves. For what it's worth, I believe that a competent lawyer could successfully argue that disabling DRM is an "adaptation" that's an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program." Get the case in front of Judge Alsup or some other computer literate judge and the argument would probably even prevail.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
I agree with you that their TOS and all the contracts say 'we leave the business you lose your content'. They are within their legal right to do that.
However is it the right thing to do? Will it damage their reputation to do that?
If they wanted to dodge that beating they'd offer steam/epic/xbox/ps5/switch keys to their customers to claim. Any game their customer bought is probably over a year old at this point and they can cut a deal with the publishers to get deeply discounted keys and eat the costs.
However is it the right thing to do? Will it damage their reputation to do that?
If they wanted to dodge that beating they'd offer steam/epic/xbox/ps5/switch keys to their customers to claim. Any game their customer bought is probably over a year old at this point and they can cut a deal with the publishers to get deeply discounted keys and eat the costs.
So it isn't really a purchase but rather rental
Are you sure about that? It rather seems like the opposite, just like for buying/renting anything. You absolutely do have a legal right to compensation, but if a company goes bankrupt you might only get it in part and you will have to sue to get it.
[deleted]
The result of this will be that Google will be an anathema in the gaming space.
That doesn't work that way outside the US. There would be repercussions.
What we need is a portable digital license. Like a card we can store in a sort of internet wallet and present to storefronts to get access to a game. That way publishers wouldn’t be able to bully customers to the extent they currently do.
No way the gaming community would be opposed to such a thing.
No way the gaming community would be opposed to such a thing.
[deleted]
It is a little absurd that I could have to repurchase each game on each console / platform.
I’d be willing to pay a game developer a premium for a universal license that works on all platforms. Steam, Switch, Stadia, etc for example.
I bet they’d make more revenue this way than from the people who just rebuy the game multiple times.
I’d be willing to pay a game developer a premium for a universal license that works on all platforms. Steam, Switch, Stadia, etc for example.
I bet they’d make more revenue this way than from the people who just rebuy the game multiple times.
didn't we already have that for certain games? I remember when I bought WoW in 2010 it came with a code. If I wanted to reinstall the game I would put in the same code, this was before battle.net client.
Publishers and developers wouldn't sign onto that because they don't want a resale market. How would you convince them to support that?
Make the license non-transferable. Then there is no resale market.
nft non ironically?
HN hates crypto too much to realize the importance of self ownership and custody.
I suspect they'll just refund all users that complain.
Adoption of stadia was sufficiently small that Google will pay the full refund cost just to prevent PR damage or lawsuit losses (and take the loss themselves, because the game developer isn't going to want to give a refund).
Adoption of stadia was sufficiently small that Google will pay the full refund cost just to prevent PR damage or lawsuit losses (and take the loss themselves, because the game developer isn't going to want to give a refund).
> I suspect they'll just refund all users that complain.
Problem is, it's Google. Who are you going to complain to, and where? You'll be lucky if there's even a way to submit a complaint, much less one that gets read by a human. I suppose you could use the good old Tell HN technique!
Problem is, it's Google. Who are you going to complain to, and where? You'll be lucky if there's even a way to submit a complaint, much less one that gets read by a human. I suppose you could use the good old Tell HN technique!
Other big tech platforms have chosen to do full refunds when they shutdown. I'm thinking in particular of Microsoft- when they shut down their eBooks division, they issued a full refund for all their books and when they shut down Kinect fitness* they gave on platform credit for paid workouts.
I do wish that a major government would pass a law to this effect- if you advertise something as "buy", "purchase", or "own" then you need to have and execute on a plan to ensure access in perpetuity, even if you go out of business.
* XBox fitness remains the best product I've ever used that didn't make it in the market.
I do wish that a major government would pass a law to this effect- if you advertise something as "buy", "purchase", or "own" then you need to have and execute on a plan to ensure access in perpetuity, even if you go out of business.
* XBox fitness remains the best product I've ever used that didn't make it in the market.
of games they purchased temporary license to use*
no games were actually purchased, so customers are free to take their complaints and do exactly nothing with them.
(yes, this is egregious)
no games were actually purchased, so customers are free to take their complaints and do exactly nothing with them.
(yes, this is egregious)
Yeah, I hear ya, better read the agreements you sign.
But I just can’t convince myself to pay full price for a game when it’s restricted to a platform like stadia.
I guess I’m a hypocrite because I own steam games and plenty of movies on my Apple TV. I feel like steam is a little different because I’m installing them on my own machine? (I know they can take the games away) I know I can’t trust Apple to not take my movies away but I think the likelihood that my Apple TV library won’t be accessible for the next 20 years is pretty low.
Google in particular disappoints me often. They haven’t created a great money generating product since search/ads which is the evergreen money tree which funds all other experiments.
Google gives up on new products far too often and far too easily. They seem to forget, or never learned, that unwavering persistence is a powerful foundation for building a product line. Apple didn’t give up on iCloud after the disaster that was MobileMe, they rebuilt it and kept on going.
But I just can’t convince myself to pay full price for a game when it’s restricted to a platform like stadia.
I guess I’m a hypocrite because I own steam games and plenty of movies on my Apple TV. I feel like steam is a little different because I’m installing them on my own machine? (I know they can take the games away) I know I can’t trust Apple to not take my movies away but I think the likelihood that my Apple TV library won’t be accessible for the next 20 years is pretty low.
Google in particular disappoints me often. They haven’t created a great money generating product since search/ads which is the evergreen money tree which funds all other experiments.
Google gives up on new products far too often and far too easily. They seem to forget, or never learned, that unwavering persistence is a powerful foundation for building a product line. Apple didn’t give up on iCloud after the disaster that was MobileMe, they rebuilt it and kept on going.
I strongly suspect just to avoid backlash they'll refund people.
But technically when you buy a game you're not really buying a game anymore, there's no physical item purchased.
You're merely purchasing a temporary non-transferable license to use it.
Back in the '90s if I gave you a Game boy game, it now belonged to you. I guess if I started a company renting them out Nintendo could sue me for copyright infringement though.
Now when I download a game, I'm merely permitted temporary usage. I can't give it to you
But technically when you buy a game you're not really buying a game anymore, there's no physical item purchased.
You're merely purchasing a temporary non-transferable license to use it.
Back in the '90s if I gave you a Game boy game, it now belonged to you. I guess if I started a company renting them out Nintendo could sue me for copyright infringement though.
Now when I download a game, I'm merely permitted temporary usage. I can't give it to you
Though it would be a total scumbag move not to compensate people whatsoever it might be a "good" scorched earth tactic. It ensures consumers will probably think even harder before adopting such a service. Meaning it will be even harder for competitors to succeed where Google themselves failed. Then again you will need to be sure never wanting to return to that particular market....
> Back in the '90s if I gave you a Game boy game, it now belonged to you.
Fip side is that if you lost the cartridge or it broke you had to buy it again. Granted, that almost never happened.
> Back in the '90s if I gave you a Game boy game, it now belonged to you.
Fip side is that if you lost the cartridge or it broke you had to buy it again. Granted, that almost never happened.
> It ensures consumers will probably think even harder before adopting such a service.
The few that used the service maybe. Most people have never heard of it.
The few that used the service maybe. Most people have never heard of it.
Blockbuster Video used to rent game cartridges/CDs and even consoles.
[deleted]
Not your disc, not your game.
I absolutely buy that Stadia might be getting shut down, but I really don't think the underlying tech is going anywhere. Google wants to white-label the service as Google Stream or something similar - they've done this already with T-Mobile[0].
If I had to guess, they'll shut down Stadia as a platform but keep the tech alive, rebrand, give everyone new URLs to play the games they've already purchased. Kinda similar to how they migrated everyone's songs/purchases from Google Play Music to Youtube Music when they shut down GPM.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/21/22738550/arkham-knight-g...
If I had to guess, they'll shut down Stadia as a platform but keep the tech alive, rebrand, give everyone new URLs to play the games they've already purchased. Kinda similar to how they migrated everyone's songs/purchases from Google Play Music to Youtube Music when they shut down GPM.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/21/22738550/arkham-knight-g...
> give everyone new URLs to play the games they've already purchased.
Call my cynical. But I don't see this happening.
Call my cynical. But I don't see this happening.
yeah, perhaps. It's just a guess - but I think the marginal cost of giving people links (that they would probably use much less than the usual stadia service) would be cheap considering the overall hit to Google's reputation. I could see it being justified from an accounting perspective, and I already think they're going to keep the underlying tech active albeit in a different form. So it wouldn't bee too operationally intensive, afaik.
That’s why I used Geforce Now instead where you don’t have to buy the game again if it’s in your steam library. I hope game devs will release all Stadia exclusives to GFN after this change because the library is a bit lacking.
Exactly. The value proposition, for me, of geforce now vs stadia is completely different. Plus I can play games both offline and stream through geforce now.
I would think it would be trivial for them to pay to let another service transfer the licenses. Of course, this would benefit potential future competitors' market share. So I guess they think it would be better to screw their customers?
(Granted, it's all a rumor so far)
(Granted, it's all a rumor so far)
My guess is that they're gonna. Google is starting to get a reputation for this, and this would be an ESPECIALLY egregious example. Nobody would ever buy a digital good from them again if they didn't do some version of this (lots of people are skittish about it already, but this would make it so much worse).
I don't think it's "trivial" though. They probably have to do some negotiation with both Steam as well as each individual publisher of games on the service.
I don't think it's "trivial" though. They probably have to do some negotiation with both Steam as well as each individual publisher of games on the service.
I think Google already has a reputation for shutting things down prematurely, not just on HN but with consumers more generally. And I think that reputation is a big part of the reason why Stadia flopped. People knew this would happen so they never bought in, causing this to happen. A sort of self-fulfilling prophesy, but this outcome was very obvious from the start.
Yeah, but they don't have to make it worse! If they do the right thing here and transfer the licenses somehow, it's way more likely that whatever their next thing is is going to go down smoother. If they don't do the right thing here, they're never going to be able to launch anything like it ever again. That must carry some weight. You'd hope, at least.
Yeah, if Google were to abandon the licenses then it would mean they'd just be giving up on gaming indefinitely. I don't see them doing that as all the big tech companies want to control the family room.
They're probably just going to rebrand it as "Chrome Games" and have people play in their browsers or any supported devices.
They're probably just going to rebrand it as "Chrome Games" and have people play in their browsers or any supported devices.
Bethesda did this when they shut down their own launcher - you could sign in with a steam account and all your purchases would be transferred there.
License transfer is the (relatively) trivial part. Porting stadia-exclusive games to another platform (PC) would be the slightly trickier part, whos effort would differ for each game.
This right here is why I couldn't give less of a shit about google's C++ replacement.
All they do is build hype and cancel without any trace even when things are successful.
I'm convinced they only kept search and gmail for ads and tracking.
All they do is build hype and cancel without any trace even when things are successful.
I'm convinced they only kept search and gmail for ads and tracking.
> This right here is why I couldn't give less of a shit about google's C++ replacement.
I think programming languages are a bit different. (Assuming they're not encumbered by patents / trademarks / copyright the way Java was/is.)
If Google decides to bail on Carbon, any design work, published implementations, etc. remain accessible for others to use or build upon.
If Google were to abandon Carbon, the main risk I see is that Google would not longer contribute to Carbon's refinement and implementation. So maybe that would reduce the odds of Carbon reaching critical mass, but it wouldn't flat out prevent people from legally continuing to use it.
I think programming languages are a bit different. (Assuming they're not encumbered by patents / trademarks / copyright the way Java was/is.)
If Google decides to bail on Carbon, any design work, published implementations, etc. remain accessible for others to use or build upon.
If Google were to abandon Carbon, the main risk I see is that Google would not longer contribute to Carbon's refinement and implementation. So maybe that would reduce the odds of Carbon reaching critical mass, but it wouldn't flat out prevent people from legally continuing to use it.
All good points, I've just been burnt too many times. Same reason I never pre order or beta a game, etc.
Google has gone beyond destroying my goodwill to the point I actively despise them. I loved chrome at first. Same with gmail, google voice, youtube shit even google maps. All started good all now garbage. Same with Facebook and Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, Uber, Doordash.
Burn me once shame on me...
Google has gone beyond destroying my goodwill to the point I actively despise them. I loved chrome at first. Same with gmail, google voice, youtube shit even google maps. All started good all now garbage. Same with Facebook and Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, Uber, Doordash.
Burn me once shame on me...
I have got to wonder if Google's known lack of commitment to any given product is hurting them on things that require commitment like GCP.
I pre-ordered a game on stadia over a year ago. Somehow I had a feeling the sevice wouldnt be around once the game came out.
why did you do that?
I had already tried Stadia with Cyberpunk, which was a great experience and better than the console launch of the game.
So I actually preordered 2 copies of the Baldurs Gate 3, as I wanted to play with my wife who does not have a gaming computer. I figured $50 gamble was better than a $1,000 computer investment. There was an early access component to the game, which is why I preordered instead of waiting for final release prior to purchase.
Played Cyberpunk on Stadia as well, mostly just to try the service out. Not a bad experience, honestly. Stadia had the technical stuff pretty nailed from day 1. It was just the business model that was out of whack.
I mean why preorder if it's going to be on the cloud? You can always just wait until it's out to buy it
I'm old enough to not play the latest thing when it comes out so the answer to the Preorder? question for me is always a firm No. Many games are flops, have tech issues or look like I might like them but then have an annoying (to me) thing which is evident after release. Then you can check reviews and game play vids to see what its like.
The game allowed early access, so you could play it while it was being developed and I think you gain some in game stuff on final release.
I'm not the person you asked but I've used stadia as my main gaming "platform" over the last couple years. That they were going to shut it down was obvious from the beginning, people in here bragging about that prediction are fools.
It's still by far the best game streaming setup for what I want. I spent about $100 figuring I'd get a year or two out of it and it would be worth it for that. It was. If it continues through the end of the year I'll have gotten a lot more than I expected to.
When they shut it down I will probably just stop playing video games again until a similarly simple and effective service pops up, probably years from now or possibly never.
It's still by far the best game streaming setup for what I want. I spent about $100 figuring I'd get a year or two out of it and it would be worth it for that. It was. If it continues through the end of the year I'll have gotten a lot more than I expected to.
When they shut it down I will probably just stop playing video games again until a similarly simple and effective service pops up, probably years from now or possibly never.
Aren't there a lot of current competitors to Stadia? What were the key differentiators to you that Stadia has which those don't?
Xbox Cloud Gaming https://www.xbox.com/en-US/play
GeForce Now https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce-now/
PlayStation Plus https://www.playstation.com/en-us/ps-plus/getting-started/#p...
Xbox Cloud Gaming https://www.xbox.com/en-US/play
GeForce Now https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce-now/
PlayStation Plus https://www.playstation.com/en-us/ps-plus/getting-started/#p...
They either didn't have the games I wanted to play or the latency was above the threshold that bothered me.
Have you tried Nvidia's streaming service? I think it's called GeForce Now.
Yes I've tried them all I think.
I think it is a valuable lesson for me ( and a loss ).
I got Cyberpunk on it ( at the time rationale was, I don't want to build a new PC so this is an acceptable trade-off ). Google name lent it some credibility and, admittedly, it was actually pretty impressive from technology point of view. It does help that the game was buggy as hell and made me lose interest early on.
That said, the fact that they are treating paying users this way makes stare in disbelief. How can they possibly get away with it? And, more importantly, the question quickly becomes 'to what extent ca I trust other platforms?'.
I got Cyberpunk on it ( at the time rationale was, I don't want to build a new PC so this is an acceptable trade-off ). Google name lent it some credibility and, admittedly, it was actually pretty impressive from technology point of view. It does help that the game was buggy as hell and made me lose interest early on.
That said, the fact that they are treating paying users this way makes stare in disbelief. How can they possibly get away with it? And, more importantly, the question quickly becomes 'to what extent ca I trust other platforms?'.
This will leave gamers with a strong, strong anti-Google perspective.
So what? What are they going to do - start using Bing and only watching videos on Vimeo and Nebula? Google can keep doing this for eternity as long as it doesn't result in people getting ads served from someone else.
It won't change search. It will make it much harder for Google to offer gaming-related services and be perceived as credible.
It IS going to shut down by the end of the autumn.
I mean it 'was' a streaming platform [0] as I already outlined from the future and called it, since it failed to get anyone using it back then, even in the pandemic and lockdowns and is still struggling today.
So it was expected and very unsurprising really.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27039202
I mean it 'was' a streaming platform [0] as I already outlined from the future and called it, since it failed to get anyone using it back then, even in the pandemic and lockdowns and is still struggling today.
So it was expected and very unsurprising really.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27039202
> It lasted less than three years and will leave players with nothing to show.
Well they got to play the games? Not sure what you'd want to show? Like high-scores?
Well they got to play the games? Not sure what you'd want to show? Like high-scores?
Are you serious? They bought the game, now they don't have the game. They didn't rent it.
Google still exists, and has plenty of money to make all Stadia customers whole by buying them a retail copy of all of the games. But they choose not to because they are greedy.
Note: I am not a Stadia customer because I figured this would happen.
Google still exists, and has plenty of money to make all Stadia customers whole by buying them a retail copy of all of the games. But they choose not to because they are greedy.
Note: I am not a Stadia customer because I figured this would happen.
> They didn't rent it.
It's a service isn't it? You play it online. You got to play it. Not sure what makes you think I can't be serious about that? If I want to play a game I don't care if I 'buy' it or rent it - I care about the playing.
They asked what they got from it - they got to play the game. Wasn't that the point?
It's a service isn't it? You play it online. You got to play it. Not sure what makes you think I can't be serious about that? If I want to play a game I don't care if I 'buy' it or rent it - I care about the playing.
They asked what they got from it - they got to play the game. Wasn't that the point?
Because Google is taking away their ability to play the game they paid for. Stadia sells copies of games ($60 a pop), and offers subscriptions for additional money for higher video quality and access to a smaller library of games. The people who purchased titles from Google are having those titles taken away from them.
I still play my copies of Diablo 2 and Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction that I bought on launch day, in checks wikipedia 2000 and 2001 respectively. On Single Player, with Plugy.
I think they were worth the price I paid for them.
I think they were worth the price I paid for them.
This is why I still buy games on bluray for my consoles. I have the gamepass for xbox and psplus premium for PS5, but I'd like at least to be able to resell stuff, if I need...
It's "netflix for games". I am baffled that anyone would "purchase" anything on a streaming platform.
It should have been "netflix for games". If it were, it would have been hugely successful.
As it was released, I had zero interest in Stadia for all the reasons mentioned elsewhere in this thread. And I am the perfect target consumer for Stadia. I have a large monthly budget for games, I travel enough that it makes sense to have a portable gaming platform, and I embrace tech early. Even with all this, I had zero interest in Stadia simply because it was a Google product that I knew would be canceled.
As it was released, I had zero interest in Stadia for all the reasons mentioned elsewhere in this thread. And I am the perfect target consumer for Stadia. I have a large monthly budget for games, I travel enough that it makes sense to have a portable gaming platform, and I embrace tech early. Even with all this, I had zero interest in Stadia simply because it was a Google product that I knew would be canceled.
But so what if it's canceled if you played some cool games for $10/month.
I wouldn't care if Netflix was canceled. I would just watch my movies elsewhere.
Good point
You'll own nothing and you'll be happy.
>It lasted less than three years and will leave players with nothing to show.
You'll have to pry my Stadia controller from my cold, dead hands.
You'll have to pry my Stadia controller from my cold, dead hands.
Mandatory XKCD piracy reference:
https://xkcd.com/488/
https://xkcd.com/488/
[deleted]
I've been saying this is exactly and the only sort of thing blockchain might be able to solve. Absolutely prove you bought a thing. Only question is how to get another service to care to respect that.
Maybe prove Y% of your X purchase went to the rights holder. So you can only be charged for Z-Y to get that same thing from another service.
Maybe prove Y% of your X purchase went to the rights holder. So you can only be charged for Z-Y to get that same thing from another service.
Three sure bets in life:
* Death
* Taxes
* Google shutting down services
Admittedly, google stadia was kind of a joke since the beginning, but I feel for consumers who buy into googles promises and even a bit for the google engineers who may be out of work soon.
* Death
* Taxes
* Google shutting down services
Admittedly, google stadia was kind of a joke since the beginning, but I feel for consumers who buy into googles promises and even a bit for the google engineers who may be out of work soon.
I wouldn't call Stadia a joke. It does in fact work quite well. But it's not really positioned to compete with the other first-party console alternatives, nor does it have compelling features that make it a better choice than products let you DIY an experience (e.g. Parsec + self-hosted gaming rig, Steam Remote Play, GeForce Now, GPU-accelerated VDI as a service like Shadow...).
For a while Google was literally giving away Stadia controllers, a Chromecast device to support using it with a TV, and games for free. Every power user/gamer type person I know that took them up on it fooled around with it, agreed that it was a good experience...and then pretty much never touched it again.
For a while Google was literally giving away Stadia controllers, a Chromecast device to support using it with a TV, and games for free. Every power user/gamer type person I know that took them up on it fooled around with it, agreed that it was a good experience...and then pretty much never touched it again.
> I wouldn't call Stadia a joke
What kind of gaming platform randomly bans high profile game devs. because an automated Youtube bot told them to? A bad joke of one.
> It does in fact work quite well.
Didn't they fake high res video streams by up scaling bad renders? Haven't used it but as far as I understand there was quite a bit of overpromising and underdelivering going on.
> other first-party console alternatives,
Their competition would be GeForce Now from NVIDIA. Which not only is still a thing but also predates Stadia by several years.
> agreed that it was a good experience...and then pretty much never touched it again.
So did the free trial run out? Where the games crap? Have you ever asked them why they decided that it wasn't worth using?
What kind of gaming platform randomly bans high profile game devs. because an automated Youtube bot told them to? A bad joke of one.
> It does in fact work quite well.
Didn't they fake high res video streams by up scaling bad renders? Haven't used it but as far as I understand there was quite a bit of overpromising and underdelivering going on.
> other first-party console alternatives,
Their competition would be GeForce Now from NVIDIA. Which not only is still a thing but also predates Stadia by several years.
> agreed that it was a good experience...and then pretty much never touched it again.
So did the free trial run out? Where the games crap? Have you ever asked them why they decided that it wasn't worth using?
Google's auto-ban/content moderation issues are a separate issue from the tech, which is fine. I never noticed issues with resolution or rendering, and haven't heard complaints about it from friends who tried it. We all ended up abandoning Stadia due to there being better options elsewhere, not because Stadia itself (aside from game selection perhaps) was bad.
Customers are paying for a service not just tech. Google makes some great tech demos, but seemingly has no idea what to do after that. They are really bad at providing services for money and auto-ban, game selection etc are all symptoms of the same issue.
Which is why Stadia is a bad joke.
Which is why Stadia is a bad joke.
> and haven't heard complaints about it from friends who tried it.
You mean the same friends that "just stopped using it"? There is something weird about the combination of purely positive feedback and everyone you know dropping it.
You mean the same friends that "just stopped using it"? There is something weird about the combination of purely positive feedback and everyone you know dropping it.
There's nothing weird about it all, and I'm confused as to why you chose to nitpick at that statement in particular.
That particular statement was with regard to suggested technical issues surrounding graphics. My friends and I generally found the play experience to be unobjectionable. My very statement explains that we all abandoned the product in favor of alternatives that provided a superior experience in one way or the other, not necessarily related to play experience. I for one prefer the versatility that a general low-latency desktop session via Parsec provides. Another friend that's deeply invested in the Xbox ecosystem preferred to use Microsoft's competing game streaming offering.
That particular statement was with regard to suggested technical issues surrounding graphics. My friends and I generally found the play experience to be unobjectionable. My very statement explains that we all abandoned the product in favor of alternatives that provided a superior experience in one way or the other, not necessarily related to play experience. I for one prefer the versatility that a general low-latency desktop session via Parsec provides. Another friend that's deeply invested in the Xbox ecosystem preferred to use Microsoft's competing game streaming offering.
It is a joke regardless of "technical" quality because it has been completely obvious from the first announcement that the only problem Stadia tackles is making your game depend on Google, relying on their traditional long-term loyalty to their own services and products.
Stadia works quite well if you live in a big city adjacent to their data centers. It’s pretty ass otherwise.
Yeah I gave it an honest shot when they sent out free Stadia Premiere Editions (controller + Chromecast Ultra) and committed myself to playing through Superhot: Mind Control Delete.
And let me tell you, the only reason I was able to finish it is because the entire gimmick of that game is that when you're not moving, time doesn't move forward. So I could just wait out the regular lag spikes that happened every single play session. I would never choose to play a game like that.
I live in a moderately-sized city in Canada (~250,000 people?)
And let me tell you, the only reason I was able to finish it is because the entire gimmick of that game is that when you're not moving, time doesn't move forward. So I could just wait out the regular lag spikes that happened every single play session. I would never choose to play a game like that.
I live in a moderately-sized city in Canada (~250,000 people?)
Did you try Xbox Cloud gaming? Cause I live in a pretty small town in Eastern Europe and it works flawlessly. Does Microsoft doing something better or Stadia was just that bad?
I've used xbox cloud gaming before. The lag made it hard to use, but I appreciate having a way to 'test out a game' before downloading 50-70 gb of install media. For that purpose, if nothing else, its a win.
The big difference, I think, for why google is made fun of for stadia but few people throw rocks at Microsoft is the game selection. Microsoft does not kill off their projects willy-nilly so game manufacturers, I assume, feel better about crawling into their bed than googles.
The big difference, I think, for why google is made fun of for stadia but few people throw rocks at Microsoft is the game selection. Microsoft does not kill off their projects willy-nilly so game manufacturers, I assume, feel better about crawling into their bed than googles.
Because even small towns in eastern Europe still have better internet than most part of US or Germany
"and then pretty much never invested it again."
That's the difference, there simply wasn't any point investing in Stadia, because, well, this. There was no value to achivements, generated media, friend circles or god-forbid buying games because we knew it was going to be cancelled.
That's the difference, there simply wasn't any point investing in Stadia, because, well, this. There was no value to achivements, generated media, friend circles or god-forbid buying games because we knew it was going to be cancelled.
People like myself have been pointing out that they had no legitimate audience for years and no one listened. Zombie organization made a decision years ago and was the walking dead.
The business model, specifically, is a joke. Did they talk to anyone before launch about it?
Does Google usually fire people when they shut down a service? I thought they were transferred internally to help build the next messaging app.
Depends on the people. In the Stadia case there were people hired to build first party games in Montreal and some of the skills needed for that don’t have a natural place to go elsewhere inside of Google. I don’t know this for sure, but I expect many of those people were given a package and had to find new employers. People with transferable skills were moved onto other teams at Google depending on who needed those skills - effectively they were broken up for parts. And of course the enterprise service is still there and some of the people are still needed to keep it going.
My impression is that Google has actually changed how new initiatives are funded from the exec layer, such that there’s less likelihood of completely overlapping products being created, such as a new messaging service. I could be wrong about that, and even if I’m right it might change again in the future, but at least for now I’d be surprised to see a new messaging service get launched.
My impression is that Google has actually changed how new initiatives are funded from the exec layer, such that there’s less likelihood of completely overlapping products being created, such as a new messaging service. I could be wrong about that, and even if I’m right it might change again in the future, but at least for now I’d be surprised to see a new messaging service get launched.
[deleted]
I think youtube music is also due for a rewrite. I mean, it's almost finished!
Or transferred to the strategy department to decide what the next in thing is so they can build multiple versions of it, seeing as they are now bored of messaging.
Nah - they're only taking a temporary break from messaging apps... They'll be back at it in a year or two.
Usually everybody gets a chance to transfer. With a hiring freeze that'll be a lot harder.
Now now. Google has cleaned up their acts and no longer has multiple messaging apps.
Can I interest you in a sixth, incompatible rewrite of Google Wallet instead that will only launch in India while you make Google Pay 7.0 ?
Can I interest you in a sixth, incompatible rewrite of Google Wallet instead that will only launch in India while you make Google Pay 7.0 ?
You know, in this case I don’t think Stadia was a joke. I think it was a completely sincere effort to compete with a new kind of “console” in the game industry. They had hired a gaming industry executive to lead the effort, started several in-house game dev projects, and starting negotiating streaming exclusives with many studios (much to the annoyance of people who owned games on GeForce Now who had them removed). I even encountered paid social media marketer trying to generate hype for the service.
But like everything Google these days, they made some poor initial choices, didn’t take in any customer feedback, dug in instead of pivoting, then slashed and burned when it failed to become a billion dollar business overnight.
Hope they sell the tech off to Sony or Microsoft which is actually capable of building sustainable consumer products.
But like everything Google these days, they made some poor initial choices, didn’t take in any customer feedback, dug in instead of pivoting, then slashed and burned when it failed to become a billion dollar business overnight.
Hope they sell the tech off to Sony or Microsoft which is actually capable of building sustainable consumer products.
> Hope they sell the tech off to Sony or Microsoft which is actually capable of building sustainable consumer products.
No need. Sony and Microsoft have their own (quite good) tech for this.
Sony's actually been in the game streaming game for nearly a decade. PS Now launched in 2014. I haven't used it personally, but I hear it's great.
Microsoft xCloud has been available for almost two years, in preview for a year before that. I got home once and found my wife playing Dragon Age II. I sat and watched for a little, then she quit the game, and only then did I discover she had been streaming it. My jaw hit the floor. I had no idea that it was being streamed. Truly impressive tech.
No need. Sony and Microsoft have their own (quite good) tech for this.
Sony's actually been in the game streaming game for nearly a decade. PS Now launched in 2014. I haven't used it personally, but I hear it's great.
Microsoft xCloud has been available for almost two years, in preview for a year before that. I got home once and found my wife playing Dragon Age II. I sat and watched for a little, then she quit the game, and only then did I discover she had been streaming it. My jaw hit the floor. I had no idea that it was being streamed. Truly impressive tech.
I have not used Sony’s game streaming. I have used Xcloud and it is technically the weakest compared to Stadia and Nvidia. I find there are a lot of compression artifacts and that the quality tends to degrade over an hour or 2. I have used it on several different gigabit connections and devices. Latency has always been good. I suspect issues with the data center Xbox hardware/software, not the connection to Azure.
> You know, in this case I don’t think Stadia was a joke. I think it was a completely sincere effort to compete with a new kind of “console” in the game industry.
I agree! They really gave Console as a Service a shot. But back in the day when it was launching, my take was that the "new console" part of it was secondary. The core goal would have been to get a foot in the game streaming market for their Android TV / Cast platform.
> dug in instead of pivoting
If this rumour is true, maybe that's exactly what's happening. They've proven that the experience is good enough for people to play games on it, and even pay for the privilege. So it's technically sound (depending on geography).
Gamers aren't going to play through the entire new Skyrim on Stadia, Google knows that. But what about Gamers (in the right geographical location) watching a Youtube video on their smart TV being served an ad? That ad for the new Skyrim has a "Play demo now" button, no download required, instant gameplay. Now that's an expensive ad if I've ever seen one.
I agree! They really gave Console as a Service a shot. But back in the day when it was launching, my take was that the "new console" part of it was secondary. The core goal would have been to get a foot in the game streaming market for their Android TV / Cast platform.
> dug in instead of pivoting
If this rumour is true, maybe that's exactly what's happening. They've proven that the experience is good enough for people to play games on it, and even pay for the privilege. So it's technically sound (depending on geography).
Gamers aren't going to play through the entire new Skyrim on Stadia, Google knows that. But what about Gamers (in the right geographical location) watching a Youtube video on their smart TV being served an ad? That ad for the new Skyrim has a "Play demo now" button, no download required, instant gameplay. Now that's an expensive ad if I've ever seen one.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Admittedly, google stadia was kind of a joke since the beginning
I don't see anything wrong with the premise of the service or even from what I understand the technical execution.
Seems like the failure was around business development, marketing, community management, and brand reputation.
I haven't followed to closely though so other would know better than me.
I don't see anything wrong with the premise of the service or even from what I understand the technical execution.
Seems like the failure was around business development, marketing, community management, and brand reputation.
I haven't followed to closely though so other would know better than me.
The technical side was initially plagued by lag in games that were ill suited for it but this has consistently approved.
I think the real failing is what you stated - biz dev and brand reputation.
Read the other replies and you will see folks say "There were no games" or "The selection was limited." Why in the world would a major game company hesitate to invest in google and google services? Well, if you have a reputation of killing off your services like the grim reaper, I imagine that would come up in an executive risk assessment.
Google can fix their reputation but its going to take a lot of work. Consider Microsoft's reputation in the late mid to late 90's on slashdot and other forums compared to their reputation today. It took a lot of work but possible.
Googles going to have to put down the scythe though.
I think the real failing is what you stated - biz dev and brand reputation.
Read the other replies and you will see folks say "There were no games" or "The selection was limited." Why in the world would a major game company hesitate to invest in google and google services? Well, if you have a reputation of killing off your services like the grim reaper, I imagine that would come up in an executive risk assessment.
Google can fix their reputation but its going to take a lot of work. Consider Microsoft's reputation in the late mid to late 90's on slashdot and other forums compared to their reputation today. It took a lot of work but possible.
Googles going to have to put down the scythe though.
> Google can fix their reputation but its going to take a lot of work.
To regain trust with enterprise customers (that's where the money is) it would take at least a decade of cleaning up their act very thoroughly.
I remember a poster proudly announcing that they will announce one year in advance when they plan to shut down a service on GCS.
Maybe they should look what happens when a company like HP announces end of support for OpenVMS 5 - 10 years in advance (as just an example pulled out of my ass with some Wikipedia backing the statement up) there's a lot of wailing and howling amongst their enterprise customers.
Those are the timescales big shops think in when it comes to their strategic IT decisions.
Frankly, I don't see Google ever satisfying such requirements backed by iron clad guarantees.
To regain trust with enterprise customers (that's where the money is) it would take at least a decade of cleaning up their act very thoroughly.
I remember a poster proudly announcing that they will announce one year in advance when they plan to shut down a service on GCS.
Maybe they should look what happens when a company like HP announces end of support for OpenVMS 5 - 10 years in advance (as just an example pulled out of my ass with some Wikipedia backing the statement up) there's a lot of wailing and howling amongst their enterprise customers.
Those are the timescales big shops think in when it comes to their strategic IT decisions.
Frankly, I don't see Google ever satisfying such requirements backed by iron clad guarantees.
> To regain trust with enterprise customers (that's where the money is) it would take at least a decade of cleaning up their act very thoroughly.
I disagree. It is much easier to regain trust with enterprise customers than with end users.
Enterprise costumers have contracts and lawyers on retainer. Google can draft a contract which binds them to performing a service. They can write in penalties with bite which shows to their enterprise customers that they mean it.
That is assuming that they really want to.
On the other hand this trick doesn't work with end users. They don't have lawyers to evaluate such an offer, and they have lot less of a chance of successfully suing google even if they would have favourable contracts.
I disagree. It is much easier to regain trust with enterprise customers than with end users.
Enterprise costumers have contracts and lawyers on retainer. Google can draft a contract which binds them to performing a service. They can write in penalties with bite which shows to their enterprise customers that they mean it.
That is assuming that they really want to.
On the other hand this trick doesn't work with end users. They don't have lawyers to evaluate such an offer, and they have lot less of a chance of successfully suing google even if they would have favourable contracts.
> Google can fix their reputation but its going to take a lot of work.
Every time they take a decision like this one, they are making the hole deeper.
Every time they take a decision like this one, they are making the hole deeper.
>Seems like the failure was around business development, marketing, community management, and brand reputation.
To be fair that's normally the case for Google.
To be fair that's normally the case for Google.
most of the user commentary I remember, and certainly my thoughts on the matter, were that Google would grow bored and shut it down pretty quickly...
The failure was around tech. We are not there yet. Speed of light is what needs to be overcome in order for this kind of service to be viable. Until then no amount of money, business development, marketing, brand reputation will ever make this viable.
The speed of light delay actually wasn't the main issue. It was only a small part of the total latency.
Wifi connections having high jitter (ie. usually the link is 1ms, but sometimes spikes up to 100ms) was a big issue.
Poor software design was also a big problem - so big in fact they had to modify the android OS and Chrome to have a special low latency rendering mode that cut out chunks of the compositor. Both Windows and Mac also have issues with getting data from the network card to the screen in less than a few milliseconds.
They could have pretty much solved the latency issues with a basic predictive neural network that predicts 'given that this set of keys have been pressed, and the screen looked like this, and this number of milliseconds have passed, what will the screen look like?'. Such a neural net could be very small, since effectively it will just deal with mouse movements, panning, scrolling, and maybe flashes like gunfire. On a per-pixel basis it would simply provide motion vectors and an additive R/G/B figure.
Wifi connections having high jitter (ie. usually the link is 1ms, but sometimes spikes up to 100ms) was a big issue.
Poor software design was also a big problem - so big in fact they had to modify the android OS and Chrome to have a special low latency rendering mode that cut out chunks of the compositor. Both Windows and Mac also have issues with getting data from the network card to the screen in less than a few milliseconds.
They could have pretty much solved the latency issues with a basic predictive neural network that predicts 'given that this set of keys have been pressed, and the screen looked like this, and this number of milliseconds have passed, what will the screen look like?'. Such a neural net could be very small, since effectively it will just deal with mouse movements, panning, scrolling, and maybe flashes like gunfire. On a per-pixel basis it would simply provide motion vectors and an additive R/G/B figure.
Using the (discontinued) Steam remote dongle over wireless device to put a game from my computer in one room to a TV in the living room about 5-10 yards away introduced noticeable latency to a game. Obviously things like Stadia are a lot worse. There is only so much that can be done with this kind of technology. I think people are more tolerant of it for specific use cases like being able to play any game you want on a hotel internet connection while you're traveling for work, but given how affordable hardware is it doesn't really make sense as a home entertainment service except for the third world, which was not their target market anyway.
I've played like 400 hours of endgame destiny on it during the pandemic, it's fine. The criticism that you need to be near a major city may be valid, I don't know because I'm near a major city. The wifi latency is a bigger factor than the rest.
> I don't see anything wrong with the premise of the service
You will own nothing and be happy. Great.
You will own nothing and be happy. Great.
Google is actually reviving a product they had left fallow for like 10 years. They acquired Feedburner like 15 years ago and stopped updating it almost immediately, but the other day it suddenly had Material UI applied.
I do feel bad for people who bought into it too. On the other hand they did not care about further normalizing not owning and running software themselves despite the negative influences streaming would have. Like excluding or monetizing and profiting from user content etc.
Perhaps it is not their responsibility but I guess they accepted the risk in the first place. I don't think Google will kill the service anytime soon though and this rumor is probably wrong. Won't get too many new users with them around either.
Perhaps it is not their responsibility but I guess they accepted the risk in the first place. I don't think Google will kill the service anytime soon though and this rumor is probably wrong. Won't get too many new users with them around either.
Rumor - true or false - is true.
If the rumor is true, the service is killed off.
If the rumor is false, well it sounds like something google would do, and consumers will hesitate to buy into it and businesses definitely won't. I've read and written my fair share of executive summaries before - I imagine this would make its way into it.
If the rumor is true, the service is killed off.
If the rumor is false, well it sounds like something google would do, and consumers will hesitate to buy into it and businesses definitely won't. I've read and written my fair share of executive summaries before - I imagine this would make its way into it.
Incredibly, some people still use GCP
GCP has been fairly stable: a lot of the old App Engine APIs from 2008 still function more or less the same.
IDK, I have stadia and it works just fine. I have a 5G router at home, with fiber is even better.
The offering is a bit limited but there are several really good games that are worth buying.
The offering is a bit limited but there are several really good games that are worth buying.
Same, I thought for an occasional gamer like myself it was a good value service with a very low cost of entry.
I am now pretty reluctant to pay to keep any games though with this rumour alive.
I am now pretty reluctant to pay to keep any games though with this rumour alive.
[deleted]
Mr. Killedbygoogle doesn't seem to be all that confident in this either, and is hiding behind a "I'm just a shit poster" defense: https://twitter.com/killedbygoogle/status/155293002348465766...