It lacks players because there're no games.
It lacks games because there're no players.
Bring the players by expanding the platform to other countries.
Bring the games by drastically improving the porting experience.
It seems they know what to do, but will they do it?
Posted May 31, 2022, 10:39 PM UTC
[deleted]
The opportunity for this product has come and gone.
As with so many products before, it was a half-assed effort by Google. They have always operated like this. Throw shit out there and hope for instant adoption. If not, take no risk and ditch it and move on.
They have been doing this for literally two decades and it's why people were so wary of Stadia from the beginning...turns out they were right.
Seems like you're too quick killing Stadia. It's still alive.
"Never obsolete", "4k 60fps and beyond!"
I'm sure the hardware overhaul is just around the corner, so are all the new AAA titles and the latest Indie gems. /s
We can literally say the same about xCloud 1080p cap, GFN no 4K on PC nor TVs without specific devices, PSNow capped at 1080p 60fps, Amazon Luna 1080p cap, etc etc etc.
Biases don't help in a debate. xCloud has barely no AAA titles, Amazon Luna has barely nothing at all, GFN is expensive compared to alternatives and lacks integration with anything (no youtube/twitch streaming, no tv compatibility, etc)
Does xCloud not have the Game Pass library on it? If that is not enough AAA for you then how are you even defending Stadia at all. Plus Xbox doesn’t force you to stream. They offer this novel thing called hardware that can play games better than streaming. Plus they are committed to the PC platform as well. Stadia has no future when the competition offers the same service, but better and as just one option of how to play.
[deleted]
I think one issue that cloud platforms are all dealing with right now is that the typical XBox/PlayStation customer isn't interested in Cloud, because the shopping/buying/owning experience is the central part of their hobby. The reason Stadia has any mindshare at all is because they marketed the Premier Bundle as a "console" - a physical thing that console gamers can buy. Once games reach their 20s, it almost doesn't matter where their friends are playing - the core audience really just wants to get caught up in the buying frenzy. Stadia missed their big shot by not co-marketing with EA to be the cheapest place to play Madden. They need to focus on attracting the much larger audience of low-income gamers that can't afford to drop $400 on a console, but still buy one or two games a year, rather than the AAA core gamers who are set in their ways.
Both Sony and Microsoft have cloud gaming options PlayStation Now is a cloud service and of course xCloud is. Their consumers are very aware and open to cloud. They just choose to not use Stadia. I would say focusing on bringing the services to more countries is a better option. Gamers in America and some European countries are spoiled and most will want AAA games and dont care about cost and will find away to get the system and games they want.
Other countries should 100% be the main objective for Stadia. The fact that getting Stadia into Brazil wasn't a primary objective from the start blows my mind.
That's less of a problem with each passing year.
Competition is still an important part of the equation. Games represent an important investment for people: of time, money and affection. They won't abandon reliable ecosystems to flock to Stadia just because games are on Stadia too. If Google wants to succeeds in this, they need content or features exclusive to their platform. The former is nowhere to be seen, performance has by now fallen behind every other competitor except Nintendo, and the convenience of streaming will be soon available on many other platforms.
You do understand how easy that is to fix in the grand scheme of things, right?
Bring users by offering good exclusive content.
Oh wait, they shut down their Studio.
I don't think that's a wise idea, nowadays.
They could buy games (like, paying Fortnite to port to Stadia), they could make games, they could do a massive advertising campaign.
However, those are very expensive and high-risk strategies. They were wise in 2019-2020. In 2022, if Stadia got Fortnite, nobody would care. We have free-to-play no-account-required PUBG. And nobody cares.
Sure, we could have our own exclusive AAA next-gen Cyberpunk 2078, but what if the game is not that good? What if they don't achieve their goals, which is normal in the game industry? Then it's a complete failure. Hundreds of millions wasted for nothing. Which is what happened with Red Dead Redemption 2 by the way. https://wccftech.com/google-stadia-10s-of-millions-single-ports-red-dead-redemption-2-2/
My two suggestions (expanding the service & simplifying porting process) are not as expensive, they're low-risk (even if Stadia died, it would be profitable for Google Cloud & Immersive Stream), high-reward (even in worst scenario, Stadia would increase userbase).
Simple porting process is also cheap.
Stadia could have their own Studio to make games that are more cloud specific by actually using the few advantages cloud gaming has.
They also could have just bought content... but they chickened out and everybody saw it coming. The simpler porting tools should have existed on day one.
Stadia could have their own Studio to make games that are more cloud specific by actually using the few advantages cloud gaming has.
Sure, but what if their multimillion game is a failure and doesn't bring people to the platform. That's too high-risk.
They also could have just bought content...
That's actually a good idea, but too expensive today.
The simpler porting tools should have existed on day one.
Indeed.
That does seem to be the first step of the plan, yes.
That would have been a viable plan about two years ago.
It's still plenty viable. You're imagining the cloud gaming industry as something that it isn't.
Oh no, the cloud gaming industry is still very much alive. I'm sure it will remain an important part of the gaming landscape in the future, increasingly so.
But Stadia almost certainly won't be a significant part of that future.
Given the choice between streaming Forza, Halo, Battlefield etc. on Microsoft's Game Pass or "Race with Ryan" on Stadia, the choice isn't difficult for most gamers.
Given the choice between streaming Forza, Halo, Battlefield etc. on Microsoft's Game Pass or "Race with Ryan" on Stadia, the choice isn't difficult for most gamers.
This, what you see right now, isn't the end game. It's a way of retaining the stickiest demographic of players who use the service: people with kids.
But Stadia almost certainly won't be a significant part of that future.
Why? Because in Spring/Summer of 2022, their game collection kind of sucks?
They know. They will do what they want to do. It's up to you whether you want to buy into that or not.
Also getting competent advertising would help...
What everyone fails to see as it is set up as a console experience, it takes time to do this. GeforceNows biggest asset is that developers only need to opt-in for games to be on the platform. Stadia has to juggle, games, updates, expansion, hardware upgrades, and advertising. Not impossible but everything takes time, and we are impatient.
So in essence this means that Stadia's behind the competition in this regard, despite their headstart, because the competition gets the games, which gets the players.
And even if they get the porting up to a minimal process, they're still still slightly behind the competition in that regard, and because it's a porting process rather than straight up using an already existing version it'll still require it's own branch/support/Q&A line for the pub/devs which adds ongoing costs.
So best case scenario, at some point in the future porting will be next to nothing, but likely be behind on players still, and will need to catch up on adding games, none of which will be of their own creation, so the likelyhood is high the competition will also be offering those.
If the competition keeps improving their performance/ease of use, what's going to be Stadia's draw in the long run? It'll have to be something better than merely getting the games (which the competition also gets).
'It works fine for me, or my purposes' is not a good argument here if the competition fills that same purpose + more. That just makes it a matter of time till people peel off to the competition after they start using it because it has a game they can't play here, even if the intention isn't immediately to switch, it'll happen more and more when they realize they're not missing anything on Stadia when they do use the other service.
I could see unique cloud features potentially being a draw, but nothing they've added so far will ever be more than a slight gimmick without games designed around it. Heck there's been a fair number of things and you rarely hear about any of those features, even among the people on this forum.
Youtube integration, maybe? Though that's largely more useful for streamers, and that's assuming Youtube streaming is worth their while I guess. Advertising through Youtube would be a big step though, though it doesn't solve the above issue that even people that discover that might eventually peel off to other services that offer more.
If the competition keeps improving their performance/ease of use, what's going to be Stadia's draw in the long run?
Just look at how Google TV works today: you tell it something you want to watch, and it tells you where you can watch that thing. No reason why games have to work differently from that, and Stadia is primed to be the #1 option for a purchase in that situation. They can even advertise major new releases in the banner. Bonus points for integrating with other cloud gaming providers for a unified experience the way they do for video.
Stadia doesn't have to actively try to compete with console platforms to succeed, it just has to get the content once it has established the necessary reach -- which it hasn't yet.
So in essence this means that Stadia's behind the competition in this regard, despite their headstart, because the competition gets the games, which gets the players.
It seems to me like you're overestimating the competition.
Stadia, xCloud, GeForce Now, Amazon Luna, PSNow, Shadow Gaming... all have issues. There's no perfect cloud gaming platform.
The one with more & better games is GeForce Now, by far nowadays, but also the one with worst UX, expensive. Not natively compatible with Android TV, for example. It's performance is excellent though. Most people are satisfied with it's latency & quality.
xCloud has a nice balance between price & catalogue, but it's catalogue is not really good. It lacks almost all AAA games, apart from Bethesda games and xbox exclusives it's mostly indies or AA games. For example, no Cyberpunk 2077, GTA V, Resident Evil Village, It Takes Two, Elden Ring, Dark Souls, Sekiro, Red Dead Redemption 2, The Witcher 1|2|3, Death Stranding, Horizon Zero Dawn, etc. And, apart from a mediocre catalogue, it's a very mediocre cloud gaming platform. Up to 1080p 60fps, usually 30fps if the game is old, but looks a bit blurry and latency is there for a lot of people. It's main strength is that it comes with Game Pass Ultimate (PC & Xbox non-cloud catalogue).
Amazon Luna looks great, probably going to be a cool ecosystem with cool UX, but it's catalogue is a joke and will probably stay being a joke for long (that's the natural consequence of having a cheap subscription model), and it's only on USA.
PSNow is a joke. In catalogue, in performance (mostly 30fps), in latency, in quality. It's basically playing on a blurry PS4 or even PS3.
Shadow Gaming is cool, but $30 and bad UX. It's renting a PC, not a service to play games, so their UX for normal gamers is naturally bad. Also could have bad streaming performance (latency and stuff, depending on your location).
Stadia has the best streaming quality, the best accessibility (it's available basically everywhere), the best features (chats, squads and stuff). But it has a mediocre performance in most games, due to terrible optimization sometimes and insufficient hardware other times. It's catalogue is not as bad as people tend to believe, in terms of having "big games", we're probably second next to GFN. We have Sekiro, which is unavailable in any other cloud gaming platform. We have Cyberpunk 2077, which is only available on GFN and Stadia. We have Red Dead Redemption 2, which is unavailable in any other cloud gaming platform. We have Destiny 2, which is only available on GFN and Stadia. I could keep going on. We have a decent catalogue of juicy and big games.
So best case scenario, at some point in the future porting will be next to nothing, but likely be behind on players still, and will need to catch up on adding games, none of which will be of their own creation, so the likelyhood is high the competition will also be offering those.
Not really. Due to businesses models, unless things change, xCloud and Amazon Luna subscription models won't attract juicy AAA games. That's just maths. Cyberpunk 2077 prefers to sell a $60 game + $30 expansion rather than being included in a $10 subscription with all included.
Stadia & GFN have (and will have, unless things change) the lead in juicy big games from third-party publishers.
Youtube integration, maybe?
We already have YouTube integration (direct streaming). I guess you mean more features. Amazon Luna has a better Twitch integration, for example.
I generally agree with you, if competition starts to get better (specially xCloud and Luna), Stadia will be left alone. Stadia's momentum was lost, we're stranding in the nowhere.
But you're overestimating rivals situations.
Some of the points you are making makes no sense.
All most every game you named is avaliable on PlayStation or Xbox , doesn't matter If it's cloud or not. It's still gamers playing Xbox or Sony, Nintendo, PC and not Stadia. Cloud is not a deal breaker for most people right now. But not having access to AAA titles and playing with friends is.
Sure, but we're talking about cloud gaming competition.
There's nothing to talk about if you want to compare xbox to Stadia, ignoring the cloud aspect. It blasts every single feature of Stadia, puts Stadia on the floor and murders it with a finger.
No It doesn't, if people really wanted to play Stadia and other cloud gaming services they would and some indeed are. I invested early on in it, and dont see much use of it right now. maybe that will pick up again in the future. For now my PS5 and Switch satisfies my gaming needs.
It seems they know what to do, but will they do it?
They are already doing it.
They are improving the porting experience. The words tossed about is "low change porting". They will continue to improve it to make it the most "turn key" (aka next to no change) porting process they can make for as many games and game engines as possible.
As for regional expansion... I imagine they are working on that too, but that is expensive as it is data center, edge nodes, and infrastructure build out. Not a trivial thing in cost or effort. Not to mention legalities for local country laws, and other such contractual agreements they must obey. In short it is not as easy to do as people would like to think, and it is not just a matter of money. (Though it will be a lot of money too...)
Until Stadia gets the current games that people play most (Call of Duty, Apex, Fortnite, etc.) and new releases when they are still new, it will never be a legitimate player. Since Google is no longer investing in getting AAA games, this will never happen.
im pretty sure its due to porting and profit. im oretty sure 2k said to themselves, "after this work of porting and little amount of money made... im out" and who knows, these devs could tell other devs to watch out. if stadia can find a way to turn the window ports into linux within minutes or hours, then im sure more devs would come
Could just spin up their own version of proton.
Porting games isn't any great difficulty. Has almost nothing to do with availability, which is why GFN is swirling the drain even though it requires almost zero effort from developers to get onto the platform.
Porting games isn't any great difficulty
Weeks of work, at best. Months, at worst. That costs money. Not all studios have that money.
Weeks of work, at best. Months, at worst
Prove it. Again, I direct you to GFN where all devs have to do is opt in. And they still have a worse selection of AAA than Stadia. How do you explain that, if porting is the bottleneck?
They need cyberpunk 2.0 . A big app. Elden ring would have been good.
Alongside a really good sever upgrade and a huge advertising push.
Look it's very simple. They need to accept that to get gains in the future they have to make big losses first. They have to hire porting studios to port big games because studios aren't gonna do it, cause no gamers.
Then they have to advertise the shit out of it, which is not that hard since they own enough platforms to cheaply advertise on that ones.
Then they have to make good deals, you got to grab people away from other platforms or at least seduce them. And find your target audience. Working dad's? Hardcore gamers? Young folks who want to game in their room and in their parents living room?
Google has to invest up, they have the money, but lack the dedication.
Yep they want the Return , but don't want to make the investments.
I think they still see their own platform as not ready for prime time and they don't want to make the final push until they have most of the features up and running.
Something caused them to change their mind right after the official launch and it's like they went back into engineering mode instead of pushing ahead into content creation and advertising modes.
They just shifted their focus. They are not investing at all at the moment. The stadia team is downgraded to the bare minimum, starting around when they closed their studio up until Grace from Google left...
There is no future plan except gaming as a service for companies. Streaming games as white label. That is what they want to do to make easy cash. Not more.