Pricing models for Google Game Streaming Service, Stadia?

BRiT

(>• •)>⌐■-■ (⌐■-■)
Moderator
Legend
Supporter
Is anything known about the pricing models for Google's game streaming service?

I haven't seen anything about consumer facing costs.
I haven't seen anything about developer or publisher costs.
 
I'm almost certain Google will offer services (@ a premium cost) for gamers wanting more gaming compute power than the reported standard spec'd configuration.

Google: Do you have the bandwidth, speed, and display on running games beyond 4K/60fps? Then we have a diehard gamer package for you!
 
How will the engine providers charge for use on Stadia? Especially Unreal and Unity engines. Just the other month Unity had revoked license to a different "game host" that ended up not having an agreement for rehosting services. Will it be by average use, or unique use, or per unique virtual use? Peak usage or average usage per some time period?
 
Right now I can only get YouTube ad-free with Music for 16,99. Who knows what they’ll ask or bundle with it. I’m not holding my breath.
 
odd. For now, Stevia is just smoke and mirrors. Actually, the fact that they didnt show the price is worrysome. They might be waiting for others to make the first move and price the service accordingly
 
odd. For now, Stevia is just smoke and mirrors.

No. Stevia is a sweetener and sugar substitute. Stadia seems to be a large unknown on price. I'm sure we'll eventually get details on pricing.
 
How will the engine providers charge for use on Stadia? Especially Unreal and Unity engines. Just the other month Unity had revoked license to a different "game host" that ended up not having an agreement for rehosting services. Will it be by average use, or unique use, or per unique virtual use? Peak usage or average usage per some time period?

Presumably they will take a percentage of any revenue developers receive from the platform, just like they do on sales.
 
Presumably they will take a percentage of any revenue developers receive from the platform, just like they do on sales.

So then what do developers earn for the other platforms like PSNow or Xbox Games Pass? How is their share determined and measured? If a consumer plays the same game for 2 different months is it 2 revenue units or just 1 since its only 1 consumer?
 
So then what do developers earn for the other platforms like PSNow or Xbox Games Pass? How is their share determined and measured? If a consumer plays the same game for 2 different months is it 2 revenue units or just 1 since its only 1 consumer?
This is back in the day and totally different economies of scale but back in 2011 OnLive revenue split model was 40/60 (60% for publishers) for a newly released games offered on their service
https://www.mcvuk.com/development/onlive-our-dev-revenue-split-is-6040

Outside of Epic the other online (non-streaming services) like Steam*, PSN, Xbox charge ~30% to offer their services.
You would think there are higher infrastructure expenses to implement and maintain a cloud gaming service, so might Google be getting at least a 30% cut?

*until recently if you sell over a certain threshold
 
Not all services use this pricing model, but it seems a good number are pushing for "per number of hours played" according to this tidbit from Twitter back in February. Some think this may be the potential Google pricing model too.

Little thread of potential horror:

I am getting very, very worried about the future of Netflix-like subscription models. In the last 6 months, I have been contact by over a dozen different services, who all want to put No More Robots games on their upcoming platforms.

But here's the catch:

None of these platforms want to pay anything upfront. Instead, they want to pay us "per number of hours" that their users play our games, compared to how many hours their users are playing games overall. Which is obviously going to be *shit* for indie devs

 
Ads, ads, ads.

You have to be signed in with your Google account.

Of course which games you play will factor into the ads that Google throws in your face as you browse when not gaming.

Or they could try to offer a purely paid service but if they actually have a 10 Tf console for sale, they're going to charge $400-500 and a monthly subscription?

Or maybe charge like $50 a month on a 2-year contract to cover the cost of the hardware and the service?

Actually the smartest thing would be to produce a portable form factor or let you use the service on your phone, with detachable controllers on the ends of the phones or maybe a controller with a cradle for the phone.

And a dock if they think they need to cover people used to gaming on a big screen. In that case, 4K HDR games of course.
 
Actually the smartest thing would be to produce a portable form factor or let you use the service on your phone, with detachable controllers on the ends of the phones or maybe a controller with a cradle for the phone.

5g phones will make a significant difference to away from home latency. I'm surprised they didn't include a phone holder with the controller
 
It's all cloud based so Google won't be releasing an actual console.

As for pricing, I have no idea. I suppose a lot of it depends on how they will sell games. Will you have to buy the games separately? Will it all be part of a subscription? Or will it be some kind of hybrid where there is an additional fee for newly released and/or high profile games?

Personally I think consoles are very hard to beat value for money wise when you think of it. Assuming you get 3 to 4 years of usage out of your console, depending on the hardware you buy, you're eventually only paying $7~15 a month. Less if you use it longer or sell it. I'm not sure Google could offer access to their hardware for such a low price.
 
5g phones will make a significant difference to away from home latency. I'm surprised they didn't include a phone holder with the controller

Because 5G still is far from complete. Lack of networks, lack of 5G capable devices in consumer hands etc. Even if none of that was the case, you can still wonder if 5G is actually going to solve anything. When are you most likely to take your geeky looking phone transformer handheld with you? Not on short commutes because it will be a hassle to take out and set up. So you'll want to use it on longer commutes. What have most longer commutes in common? Relatively poor reception because most of the time you won't be passing through lesser populated areas. Terrain might also be an issue depending on you live. Lots of countries with mountainous terrain and tunnels. Airplanes will be a no go for obvious reasons.

So especially at a time you might want to play games on the go, you won't be able to because you have to rely on a stable internet connection. That and say goodbye to battery life and your data plan. Anything less than 3mbps will quickly start to look like a blurry mess even on a phone screen.
 
5G isn’t really needed from a latency point of view. When I measure latency from the desk I’m sitting at right now, 3G (!!) offers 35ms latence to the measurement servers, vs 5ms on 5GHz .11ac connected to fiber.
30ms is quite modest in comparison to the total latencies shown in the Digital Foundry video, and that was a 3G connection. In short, mobile platforms could well work decently on existing networks in the absence of WiFi.
 
I think if Google wanted to be really disruptive, they wouldn't charge a streaming fee. Just buy the games like any other console at retail pricing and just stream them. They could try to provide a gamepass-like monthly service as well as the next tier.

I'm sure that the hardware will constantly be utilized for tasks other than gaming so it's cost will be spread across many customers.
 
I think if Google wanted to be really disruptive, they wouldn't charge a streaming fee. Just buy the games like any other console at retail pricing and just stream them. They could try to provide a gamepass-like monthly service as well as the next tier.

I'm sure that the hardware will constantly be utilized for tasks other than gaming so it's cost will be spread across many customers.

I rather have a flat fee with a promise of no privacy issues than how google normally monetizes their free services.
 
I've good memory of my time spent on "Onlive", the issue was my internet connection. It was nice to be able to choose a game and launch it whether I was on desktop or laptop. As internet connection is ramping up I'm really looking toward the business model they will chose.
One thiing they have from themselves is that it would surprise me if they charge anything for playing online as MSFT and SONY do. If there is a subscription I believe it will come with a baisc selection of classic (as Onlive did).
A side effect of this announcement is that I could see is proper controller support in ANdroid games that would benefit from it. IF there is somebody that can pull this I think it is Google.
THey start at with a minus 10€/month and minus 400€ advantge. You can buy the controller but if you have a good connection (ioptical fiber) the difference may not be tha great for money pincher.
THe thing should integrated nicely inot their playstore, I hope they try to compete with Steam and GoG wrt to game pricing instead of aligning themselves with consoles games prices.

IF the thing deliver a good expeirence a great advantage they will have is that it is a given they are going to give away free one month trial like crazy. THey can reach anybody taht play with an internet connection.
 
Back
Top