Stadia, Google Game Streaming platform [2019-2021]

Stadia isn't for me, and even if it was my awful internet would rule it out, but the almost gleeful attitude from some folks about Stadia's many launch issues is just weird to me.

Increased competition in a sector isn't a bad thing. It's not, competition is how products and services get better. Google competing with Microsoft and Sony will make Microsoft and Sony try harder. Everybody will try harder. Consumers will get better products.

Ask yourself, are you pleased Stadia is failing? If you answer yes honestly, then ask yourself why. What's in it for you? :???:
 
Easy answer for a lot of folk - they don't want gaming to move to the cloud where gaming consists of ongoing fees to rent your games and IQ and responsiveness get notably worse than locally-rendered games. Stadia's model is shite - you buy a game, and then rent the opportunity to play it from them in crappovision (despite promises to the contrary), which one day they will stop. Even if it is a success it'll be stopped one day, but if it isn't, with Google's history, the expectation is the plug will be pulled very quickly taking those investments with it. Most gamers prefer where they buy (or rent/hire purchase) a physical box and buy games and play them in pristine graphics quality and responsive controls. 20 years from now, if they want to keep that box and play those games, they can; they won't be playing them knowing some day the console makers will flick a switch disabling their box.

If Stadia was a good service, I think responses would be suitably balanced. As it is, it's a big company thinking it can waltz into their hobby and mess it up, and is doing a laughable job about it. This is heading into schadenfreude territory. If Google fail, what's in it for gamers? The quicker it dies, the less people get burnt with wasted game purchases and the more wary other companies may be about moving gaming onto laggy, blurry steamed services.

I also think this sort of vocalised feedback is good for Google. If they can see how people feel, they can choose to adapt. How about Stadia lets you play PC games you bought from elsewhere like Steam, and you just rent the service to stream on devices? Then it's just an optional service without the crazy costs and drawbacks. If everyone just claps politely and says, "nice try, Google" like they're a three-year-old, they'll have less impetus to re-evaluate their service and/or less understanding of why people aren't subscribing to it.
 
Easy answer for a lot of folk - they don't want gaming to move to the cloud where gaming consists of ongoing fees to rent your games and IQ and responsiveness get notably worse than locally-rendered games. Stadia's model is shite - you buy a game, and then rent the opportunity to play it from them in crappovision (despite promises to the contrary), which one day they will stop.

Easy solution, if this product/service paradigm isn't for you, vote with your money. Hating on something that doesn't appeal you you just isn't healthy. I wash all my clothes at home but I'm not hating on launderettes!

Stadia's model of 'ownership' isn't a big departure from where Xbox and PlayStation's streaming services are going, or where PSNow and GamePass already exist. You don't own jack (including bought digital titles) and can't play game if the ecosystem goes away. The only mitigation is to buy hardware and games on discs - and hope these is no dial-back licence authentication even for the disc version.

Even if it is a success it'll be stopped one day, but if it isn't, with Google's history, the expectation is the plug will be pulled very quickly taking those investments with it
Every single one of Google's services lastest longer than Kinect. I'm sure Sony has thrown a ton of stuff under the bus too, I just can't think of any.

It feels like Microsoft and Sony get a pass, but it's okay too irrationally shit on Google. And believe me, I try to avoid Google's services where possible but I'm not oblivious to the weird hate for Stadia even before it launched. It's like people are afraid or something. Messed up whichever way you cut it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Definitely no glee here regarding their troubles, I just find their position, messaging, and delivery of their product/service really strange. Their success doesn't really matter one way or another to me, as I feel like I'm in a position with mainstream games where I can pretty much take it or leave it, similar to 99.9% of TV and film. If they were to somehow represent the death of the industry as we know it, I'm morbidly curious enough to just say, "fuck it" and let it all burn down.
 
Definitely no glee here regarding their troubles, I just find their position, messaging, and delivery of their product/service really strange.

I agree, Google's model seems really odd and as I've voiced a few times, I still don't fathom how they intend to monetize this or how Stadia fits into Google's primary ad business. Every single Google product or service, in some way, contributes to their ability to serve better targeted ads.

Bad launches are rarely fatal for big companies or any sign of things to come long term. Look at PlayStation 3 and Xbox One. Clusterfucks that became decent products.
 
Easy solution, if this product/service paradigm isn't for you, vote with your money.
People don't work that way. they've never worked that way. When MS announced Xbox One, there was much vocal anger. MS changed tact and I think the MS fans would argue very much for the better. It's also important to be vocal to influence other people in an attempt to shape the world how you want it. If people complained more about in-game consumables and loot-boxes in mobile games in the early days, perhaps those new gamers could have been swayed into supporting a healthier financial model and we wouldn't have the abomination that is modern mobile gaming requiring state regulation.

The more negativity generated around Stadia, the more consumer are steered off it and the more the haters win. Keeping quiet doesn't serve them in any way at all.
 
People don't work that way. they've never worked that way. When MS announced Xbox One, there was much vocal anger.

Anger? I don't remember this at all. Can you points to some instances or reporting?

I remember some people had some reservations about the credibility of it but that's it - mostly because this was in that period where Microsoft were throwing products into every market - music, TV, windows-powered tablets, PDAs, internet services, settop boxes, mp3 players.

edit: also - it's not normal for people to get angry about products that don't interest them and most people do not exhibit this behaviour. If this was a widespread psychology, society would have collapsed. When anger becomes a substitute for ambivalence, something is seriously wrong. Most people do not look at new products as some kind of threat - threat is a relatable trigger for anger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was plenty of anger around the "you don't own the games you buy - yippee! :LOL: " feature.

And it's so weird that most PlayStation and Xbox owners with digitral titles are not more angry, because they also don't own the games they buy! Google's model is different in that you buy the games in a conventional sense, but you rent the only equipment that can be used to play them.

But is it really that different to other services? You either buy or rent games. You either buy or rent the hardware to play it on. I think Stadia's appeal would broaden if you could tap into yourSteam library but that's clearly not how their service is setup. It's hard to say why thisis without understanding the economics of this product/service.
 
True, but PlayStation has been around for 25 years, XBox for 19/20. There's a degree of confidence built up around those platforms. Not so with Google, who are increasingly perceived as shuttering everything within a year or two. Except for Google search and YouTube, both of which are getting worse.

Maybe a lot of people are experiencing a certain sort of glee that a new competitor is floundering. I'm experiencing glee in the same sense that I experienced it when MS tried to push its luck and abolish the idea of ownership: "how dare you trot in with your shitty attitude and half baked idea and think this is going to go well. Enjoy the fruits of your labour. Ha ha haha haha ha."

I hope they get their act together, because it'll be great to see a substantial push for gaming on Linux. Also, as you said, the increased competition in the gaming industry.

Personally, I'd like to see them release an actual box. A Linux PC, focused on gaming, with your standard suite of Linux apps. Let users earn some store credit by picking a time of day during which they're okay with their box's usage being rented out.
 
True, but PlayStation has been around for 25 years, XBox for 19/20. There's a degree of confidence built up around those platforms.

Thanks for responding honestly. I thought it was about ownership, but it's just switched to something else. Trust. But it's good that you still trust Sony after PSP (poorly supported), Vita (poorly supported) and PSVR (poorly supported), after they pulled backwards compatibility from PS3, then linux support, then lost some of your personal data with the PSN hack.

Maybe a lot of people are experiencing a certain sort of glee that a new competitor is floundering. I'm experiencing glee in the same sense that I experienced it when MS tried to push its luck and abolish the idea of ownership: "how dare you trot in with your shitty attitude and half baked idea and think this is going to go well. Enjoy the fruits of your labour. Ha ha haha haha ha."

But why? Why do you care about the fortunes of an almost-trillion dollar company who make a product that does't interest you? Why is their failing to provide more competition in the field you do care about good?

Do you now understand why I think it's nuts? :runaway:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
True, but PlayStation has been around for 25 years, XBox for 19/20. There's a degree of confidence built up around those platforms. Not so with Google, who are increasingly perceived as shuttering everything within a year or two. Except for Google search and YouTube, both of which are getting worse.
Agree, PS3 was coming of ps1 & 2.
X1 is coming of x360, and Xbox classic.

You can just as easily find companies that tried to get into gaming and failed as a comparison to make.

I for one have been positive about Google until last week or so. Doesn't mean I want them to fail or don't think it can't succeed in the long run. I'm very much for not just competition but doing things differently.

The trouble is stadia right now has very few positives (possibly only one, quick start), and all that power they was touting is nowhere to be seen either. Its far from a early start to next gen, just about matching this one.
Obviously latency was always given.

Thanks for responding honestly. I thought it was about ownership, but it's just switcher to something else. Trust. But it's good that you still trust Sony after PSP (poorly supported), Vita (poorly supported) and PSVR (poorly supported), after they pulled backwards compatibility from PS3, then linux support, then lost some of your personal data with the PSN hack.
Probably peoples general views are those aren't the core consoles that their interested in. In regards to that ps1 and ps2 was very successful with PS3 having a it's major issues.
 
Anger? I don't remember this at all. Can you points to some instances or reporting?
Google it. ;) XBox One faced a lot of verbal criticism, from game ownership concerns (see Sony's excellent PR ridicule with their 'how to trade games' video) to complaints about Mandatory Kinect from XB fans who didn't want the thing. I don't know how you can recall Xbox One's launch period without being keenly aware of the confused messages and heated words!

It's not normal for people to get angry about products that don't interest them and most people do not exhibit this behaviour.
It's a product in the hobby that interests them. Non-gamers couldn't care less about Stadia's fortunes; gamers do because it's representing a change towards something they don't want. You'll also find shared opinions on critiques of products and events in that hobby sphere. eg. Ouya - lots of people with no interest in it passing opinions on its value and viability.

See similarly the vitriol that Epic Game Store has managed to attract from people who aren't interested in using it.
 
And it's so weird that most PlayStation and Xbox owners with digitral titles are not more angry, because they also don't own the games they buy!
How so? You can still buy your games on disc if you want, and if you downloaded them on a hard drive, you can keep them as long as you want, you can even mod them.
 
Ask yourself, are you pleased Stadia is failing? If you answer yes honestly, then ask yourself why. What's in it for you? :???:

Attitude would be vastly different if Google's response wasn't so incredibly arrogant and backwards on most everything about it.
 
When people do a poor job, I sure as fuck get progressively happier the more disastrous and humiliating the results are. The worse the fall, the better is the learned lesson. And right now, google has a lot of learning to do.

Laughing at somebody's else's misfortune is healthier than irrationally being angry. It's why, maybe a bit disappointingly as a species, we sometimes laugh when we see somebody slip and fall over comedically. :LOL:

Probably peoples general views are those aren't the core consoles that their interested in. In regards to that ps1 and ps2 was very successful with PS3 having a it's major issues.

Welcome to the cognitive dissonance group. People not interested in PSP, Vita and PSVR can ignore the issues, people not interested in Stadia somehow cannot. :???:

Google it.

I did, I found nothing which is why I asked for links. It was a while ago and it would unfair to press somebody over their recollection of something almost twenty years back. But as somebody who is not a great fan of Google (apart from search and maps), I'm getting a weirdly distinct hate on Stadia from the instant it was mooted (when nobody knew anything about it) to pre-launch to post-launch.

It's definitely feels like the fanboy field effect is strong here.

Attitude would be vastly different if Google's response wasn't so incredibly arrogant and backwards on most everything about it.

Like both Sony and Microsoft have not displayed far worse displays of arrogance over the years. Get two jobs to buy PS3, denying RRoD, Xbox One TV/TV/Sports/TV. Always online #DealWithIt. Cross-platform support on PS4. The rules for Microsoft and Sony are very different to the rules for Google.

How so? You can still buy your games on disc if you want, and if you downloaded them on a hard drive, you can keep them as long as you want, you can even mod them.

Digital titles on both platforms have ephemeral licences that need renewing. Almost all DRM schemes are predicated on periodic verification of digital licences, including Steam. It happens in the background, as long as those service's servers continue to operation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did, I found nothing which is why I asked for links. It was a while ago and it would unfair to press somebody over their recollection of something almost twenty years back.
:-? Xbox One release was six years ago.

But as somebody who is not a great fan of Google (apart from search and maps), I'm getting a weirdly distinct hate on Stadia from the instant it was mooted (when nobody knew anything about it) to pre-launch to post-launch.
I don't think there was any hate until the details started coming out. Obviously upon first announcement, Google haters would be vocal and everyone else would be silent. As gaming websites reported on the gaming service, gamers came out with their criticisms, and as Google as fumbled with both the service and the PR, they've brought more negative attention and reaction on themselves. then you have the association with Phil Spencer who's career spans a number of gaming turkeys since leaving Sony.

Like both Sony and Microsoft have not displayed far worse displays of arrogance over the years. Get two jobs to buy PS3, denying RRoD, Xbox One TV/TV/Sports/TV. Always online #DealWithIt. Cross-platform support on PS4. The rules for Microsoft and Sony are very different to the rules for Google.
That's completely wrong. Sony got huge backlash with Sony Arrogance for PS3, and MS got huge backlash with the XB One moves. There have been heated debates between opposing sides of emotional detractors and corporate-apologists. The rules here for Google are the same as everyone else and there's no difference in consumer reaction. The only difference here is Google has next to zero fans defending them or Stadia because they have no reputation past info-hording, advertising, and dropping products. ;)

Digital titles on both platforms have ephemeral licences that need renewing. Almost all DRM schemes are predicated on periodic verification of digital licences, including Steam. It happens in the background, as long as those service's servers continue to operation.
That's quite the accusation. You're saying that if I don't connect my PS3 or PSV to the internet, at some point I'll switch it on and my downloaded games will refuse to work? Any evidence of that?
 
:-? Xbox One release was six years ago.

Ah, Xbox One. Sorry I'm whiplashing from the a variety of arguments which include Google as a 'new entrant' in gaming in this business - in which case they should be afforded the same consideration at least as Sony when introducing the original PlayStation and Microsoft when introducing the original Xbox, as everything in-between.

That's completely wrong. Sony got huge backlash with Sony Arrogance for PS3, and MS got huge backlash with the XB One moves. There have been heated debates between opposing sides of emotional detractors and corporate-apologists.

And yet in the intervening years, the 'ownership' model of games did not change so why should it do so for Google? They entered the market at the precise DRM status quo of the market.

The rules here for Google are the same as everyone else and there's no difference in consumer reaction. The only difference here is Google has next to zero fans defending them or Stadia because they have no reputation past info-hording, advertising, and dropping products. ;)

And yet it doesn't feel as though as though it is. Google has adopted a policy where users do not own their games, which is effectively no different to Sony's and Microsoft's digital models. Maybe Google's customers are smarter or more literate than those of their competitors?

That's quite the accusation. You're saying that if I don't connect my PS3 or PSV to the internet, at some point I'll switch it on and my downloaded games will refuse to work? Any evidence of that?

Do it. Actually do it. Sony do not, AFIAK, publish documentation which documents this, but as someone who worked in a secured network environment, put it to the test yourself. Once the digital licence reaches its expiry, if your PlayStation cannot connect to PSN, your software will not run. On PS4's UI have you visibility of the licence status. I am sure the same is true for Xbox.

That is absolutely the goal of digital licensing.
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    418 bytes · Views: 0
  • image.png
    image.png
    418 bytes · Views: 0
And yet it doesn't feel as though as though it is.
To you. Feelings are very unscientific.

Google has adopted a policy where users do not own their games, which is effectively no different to Sony's and Microsoft's digital models.
It's very different. Google's model has you buy the game and have to rent the servers. If the rental service stops, so does your game. For MS and Sony, you own the box and buy the games, so as long as your hardware doesn't break, you're 'safe'. If you buy a console at the beginning of a generation and buy a download game, you can play that game ten years later (assuming no hardware failure). If you buy a Stadia game now, there's a very good chance you won't be able to play it ten years from now. There's a pretty good chance you won't even be able to play it 5 years from now. Some will even question if you'll be able to play it two years from now...

Do it. Actually do it.
Well I can, but it'll be some years to test. I think you're way off the mark here though and are speculating from a different field. Once you download the game, the license is downloaded with it and tied to the hardware AFAIK. That's why you can't swap a PS3 HDD to another PS3 and have it work. There's a unique hardware ID for a reason.

On PS4's UI have you visibility of the licence status.
To differentiate between bought games and PSN games, no doubt. I can't see any situation where Sony can revoke a license for a bought and installed game without having explicitly declared to buyers that they can do that. It should be clearly explained in the T&Cs, and where the T&Cs state a license is revocable (part and parcel for transferring the license to different PS4's when game sharing etc), I see nothing in the T&Cs saying periodic internet access is required to refresh licenses.
 
Back
Top