No, but you could become yogurt...
Stadia, Google Game Streaming platform [2019-2021]
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
No, but you could become yogurt...
Yeti is like a quasi-mythical creature right, like the Abominable Snowman or the Loch Ness Monster?
We live in an age with cameras everywhere -- out in space, in your pocket, in the air (drones), etc.
Yet no clear pictures of these creatures from the millions of picture taking devices out there or the billions of pictures shot all over the planet.
We live in an age with cameras everywhere -- out in space, in your pocket, in the air (drones), etc.
Yet no clear pictures of these creatures from the millions of picture taking devices out there or the billions of pictures shot all over the planet.
Ike Turner
Veteran
It's a streaming service. Unity's CEO just called it "Google's Cloud Gaming platform" to be announced tomorrow.
Nothing if you don't use it. Not that I have a data cap, but I doubt there will be anything there for me in the near future.
Streaming services are fine and all, but I think the biggest road block will be fragmentation of content. I'm not going to be subscribing to multiple services to get all the content I want. If Google wants to do their thing, EA, Microsoft, Sony, etc, it's not going to work.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
I dont see that as the only problem. Streaming services require a lot of users to make profit, specially if you include exclusive titles and want to make profit from them.
But on a 70 euros games you need a person for 7 months on the service to cover a single physical sale. And this is just for the same income, not the same profit.
The big problem, as I see it, it’s that the market is unbalanced. And not all people spend the same. I can see that when we talk about attach rates.
For instance, I will give an example using consoles: Sony claims about (exact number not required) 90 million consoles, and about 876 million games sold. An about 9.7 games per console attach rate!
But this number... means nothing, and does not represent any truth to the market.
I am a big console fan, owning several. And I spend a lot in games for them! Looking at my PS4 games colection, I own about 40 games. That’s over 4 times the attach rate!
What does this mean? Statistically, to keep the attachrate, that over 3 other PS4 owners have bought zero games. But since I do not belive people buy a console and have zero games, that means about 5 people have just one game.
This is the market truth. Some people spend a lot, other spend very little, either because do not have the possibility of more, because they do not have time for gaming, or whatever, and streaming services seem to forget this reality, looking at the whole market as having the same potencial. In reality there are those who spend a lot, and those who spend very little.
I even kid with this statistic: “If I eat two chickens and you eat none, statistically we eat one chicken each”. That means that in reality I would be a fat guy, and the other would be starving. But in statistical terms we would both have eaten very well.
A Streaming service, if the thing attracts you, represents a lot of value for those that spend a lot. In an example with a service like Gamepass (future Xcloud), I theoretically (this would require that all games I want would be on the service) could spend a lot less for the same content, spendind just 120 euros/year. The same as 1,71 games at 70 euros each.
Problem is... big spenders will spend less. But what about small spenders?
If I buy about 6 games per year and can spend just the same as 1,71 games, The platform owner will need to recover that loss with extra persons on the service. But if the new persons are also above the attach rate, more persons will be needed. So, to trully compensate for the loss, new user must be either new to the platform, or have an yearly attach rate bellow 1.71.
Question is. Are those small spending users willing to pay the monthly fee on a regular basis?
I have big doubts about these kind of services, specially when exclusives are involved on day one. That means they have no physical sales profits, and the service has to generate enough to pay for them. With game costs high as they are, the current model is dificult to mantain, and either quality has to decrease, or games must have microtransactions or be delivered over time.
Now you put a lot of players in this market, competing amongst themselves and you will see that it will be even harder for the model to mantain current game quality standards. We will end up with smartphone model games.
This is the reason I do not like Streaming or GAAS. Shure I could spend a lot less. But one of the reasons I go out on day one to buy a new more powerfull console, is to have better and more evolved games. So this model is not a real profit for me. I would spend less, but also get less. And I’m not in the market for quantity, but quality on all platforms.
Last edited:
Streaming movies has meant more revenue, not less. You can't lend a streamed movie unlike disks. So comparing that to games, a $70, 50 hour game won't be covered with a steaming service as you say, but it also won't be lent, and could see a few months worth of subscribing. It won't be lent, so everyone wanting to play will have to pay. And the average retail price of a disc game is far, far below the launch day price, so it's not a $70 comparison.
PSNow started in 2014. That's 4 years of data, and it's shown Sony that PSNow is worth increasing, not giving up on.
The main issue with streaming services is the quality. As long as they are an option and don't displace game sales, I see nothing wrong with them.
PSNow started in 2014. That's 4 years of data, and it's shown Sony that PSNow is worth increasing, not giving up on.
The main issue with streaming services is the quality. As long as they are an option and don't displace game sales, I see nothing wrong with them.
That will happen anyway as the Cloud increases in power and new games try to attract you away from the old games. Games ten years from now will be significantly better than games launching on Google Cloud Gaming tomorrow.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
What you say is true.
Lending games is a way to decrease sales on the physical market. But not on the Digital one. And the used games market too, but also on the physical market, not the digital! And digital sales are increasing, so this a matter that will eventually be no more in the future. But even so, with the current situation, the model works. It has worked for 40 years, and continues to work today.
And I agree with you... Streaming services as an option, not disturbing game sales, are not a problem. But note, not all streaming services work like that. As far as I know, if it keeps the current model, only PSNow can garantee that. Let me explain:
Movies have several ways to provide income. First they get income from box office from showing in theathers/cinema. Then movies are placed on the physical/digital market and sell in DVD and BD format. Streaming is the latest step, with movies using it to increase income when all other markets are exausted.
Games do not have the cinema step. They go directly to sale on the Physical/digital market. PS Now is profitable because is a second step to this. PSNow goes parallel to the physical/digital market, receiving games only when their sales decrease. It´s a interesting service, that does not canibalize on the other. It´s an added income serviçe.
But a service that places it´s exclusives on day one in it, does not operate in the same way. It becomes even more atractive, but it canibalizes on the physical/digital sales. My above post, with my worries, was about this model, not the one used by PSNow.
All services that are starting now rest on the day one exclusives available on service model. And that is the model I question, not the one used by PSNow until now! PSnow is a cheap way to get games, but also a service where you cannot get the latest games. For that you have to stay on the current sales model. That means it's an working alternative that does not create any of the above doubts.
Last edited:
What you say is only true as long as you ignore Netflix originals. 
Netflix are spending crazy monies on exclusive, day 1 content, that users only pay a tiddly subscription fee for. However, given the sheer number of people subscribing, it seems worth it.
Netflix are spending crazy monies on exclusive, day 1 content, that users only pay a tiddly subscription fee for. However, given the sheer number of people subscribing, it seems worth it.It will be interesting to see the business model they come up with.
Nothing to say they don't just make it that you buy the games digitally.
The benefit in the gamepass model in my eyes is that it's basically curated. Then if someone wants to buy the game they can.
Could turn out that 3P will be wanting to pay to go on it for a few months rather than ms paying them. Due to the uplift that it seems to give the game.
Seen it with a few 3P games recently going to gamepass few months after release.
So it may not be just a subscription service like gamepass, could be a couple digital services.
Nothing to say they don't just make it that you buy the games digitally.
The benefit in the gamepass model in my eyes is that it's basically curated. Then if someone wants to buy the game they can.
Could turn out that 3P will be wanting to pay to go on it for a few months rather than ms paying them. Due to the uplift that it seems to give the game.
Seen it with a few 3P games recently going to gamepass few months after release.
So it may not be just a subscription service like gamepass, could be a couple digital services.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
What you say is only true as long as you ignore Netflix originals.
True... but they are not exactly hollywood blockbusters... and above all they're mostly series... Content distributed over time, just like GAAS .
But with a large number of clients a service like that can be profitable and overcome the problems. Question is, Netflix grew up a lot because there was no competition, but streaming services will not be like that. There are a lot of players already prepared to enter the market.
And they'll duke it out and die off and be bought out until 2 players remain, to both be bought by some Chinese super-conglomerate or Apple...
That's actually where MS and Google are well positioned, with deep pockets to finance long-term growth. Sony's strategy has to be the more conservative. Little upstarts haven't a chance, so it'll really be a battle of the giants. Amazon also well positioned in theory due to their cloud infrastructure. Really, it's the cloud computing companies that have the most chance to win and will fight hardest.
Well it would make sense on a Google platform, especially (only?) for YouTube streaming, to send the game stream from the source server instead of the client and inject any voice audio from the client only.
They are a publicly traded company, you can look up their statements. They have been posting quarterly profits in the hundreds of millions, on billions in revenue. They do have more than 130 million subs, google will be a while getting there if ever.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
Before we get to that, Streaming has to be a sucess. And that means market division due to fragmentation in several exclusivities along the services, decrease in quality of games, GAAS model with content delivered over time, usage of profitability models like the ones used in smartphones, meaning microtransactions and lootboxes.
That is not the future of gaming I want! So i guess that future will only happen if Gamers want it. And that decision is in the gamers wallets.
Similar threads
- Locked
