Quantcast
Do you think Google Stadia is doomed to fail?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do you think Google Stadia is doomed to fail?

Is stadia going to fail? (not be competitive, profitable?)

yes - (people wont pay for 4k subscription) 42 77.78%
 
no - (people want to stre... 12 22.22%
 
Total:54
Cerebralbore101 said:

???? Fiscal year 2017 was 32% percent digital for Playstation sales (not counting digital only games of course). I'm not sure what you're stance here is. If you are saying we will be all digital by 2030, I agree. If you are saying that physical will only account for a small percentage of the market by the time PS5/XB2/Stadia battle it out (to the point where my statements over physical media wouldn't matter), then I disagree. 

But anyway, my request for a source had to do with multiplayer. 

P.S. I bet Nintendo will still offer physical copies in 2030, because they are just so old fashioned. But if Xbox and Playstation don't by then, then the point is moot. 

You had made the point that gamers at large care about game ownership and the option to resell their games - therefore making it hard for Stadia to be an appealing product - to which I answered that there's a trend of gamers giving up their ownership rights.

Online multiplayer games spearheading the shift to digital is a logical conclusion because people like convenience. Multiplayer games get replayed way more frequently than single-player games, so a digital copy on the HDD to avoid disc-swapping is convenient. Games like The Division and Destiny 2 have also been reported to have a digital share that is notably above the average.

But regardless of the shift to digital games, there's no good reason to be paranoid about physical games going away.

To reiterate key points of this thread:

Neither pricing or game ownership rights will be a serious problem for Stadia's chances for success.

What will make or break Stadia is how much Google is willing to invest in exclusivity rights to draw gamers to their service, plus the general acceptance of game streaming as a whole where the typical problems are unstable internet connections and input lag.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

???? Fiscal year 2017 was 32% percent digital for Playstation sales (not counting digital only games of course). I'm not sure what you're stance here is. If you are saying we will be all digital by 2030, I agree. If you are saying that physical will only account for a small percentage of the market by the time PS5/XB2/Stadia battle it out (to the point where my statements over physical media wouldn't matter), then I disagree. 

But anyway, my request for a source had to do with multiplayer. 

P.S. I bet Nintendo will still offer physical copies in 2030, because they are just so old fashioned. But if Xbox and Playstation don't by then, then the point is moot. 

You had made the point that gamers at large care about game ownership and the option to resell their games - therefore making it hard for Stadia to be an appealing product - to which I answered that there's a trend of gamers giving up their ownership rights.

Online multiplayer games spearheading the shift to digital is a logical conclusion because people like convenience. Multiplayer games get replayed way more frequently than single-player games, so a digital copy on the HDD to avoid disc-swapping is convenient. Games like The Division and Destiny 2 have also been reported to have a digital share that is notably above the average.

But regardless of the shift to digital games, there's no good reason to be paranoid about physical games going away.

To reiterate key points of this thread:

Neither pricing or game ownership rights will be a serious problem for Stadia's chances for success.

What will make or break Stadia is how much Google is willing to invest in exclusivity rights to draw gamers to their service, plus the general acceptance of game streaming as a whole where the typical problems are unstable internet connections and input lag.

Right. I understood you were making the claims in the bolded. I'd just like to know what source these claims are derived from. Especially the 50% is multiplayer claim. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Cerebralbore101 said:
potato_hamster said:

Aww that's sweet that you think it's an unreasonable argument to point out real world examples where expectations of a future console based on a current console turned out to be incorrect.

Ahh, right. How could I forget that there were rumors that the Switch wasn't actually going to have any online presence at launch at it turned out the rumors
were to do with the "Nintendo Switch Online" service and not online multiplayer itself. Yeah, super unreasonable. Great job quote mining out of context!

But thanks for once again proving that you keep a document on me.

IMO rumors threads need to be quarantined in their own part of the forums. Most rumors threads are flat out wrong. What's worse is that even after a rumor gets debunked, people continue to post in said thread forever. I wish debunked rumor threads were just locked, or moved to purgatory. 

Right, I still have to settle the record for the bolded claim above. potato_hamster is trying to pull a fast one on this. More posts from the same thread are needed.

Here he reacts to the fact that Switch will have online multiplayer at launch. He is in denial and there are no rumors involved at all.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8269221

Here's his response when further questioned. A clear bias against Nintendo can be identified.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8269423

potato_hamster said:

Why do I doubt that there will be any online functionality? Because it's Nintendo. This is the same company that has sold and continues to sell Nintendo 3DSs without a power cord in the box. This is the same company that made a console that was so expensive to produce that it only recieved one price cut in its five years on the market. This would a very Nintendo thing to do, and should be a surprise to absolutely no one if the Switch launches without the ability to play with each other online.

Here he is employing his usual tactic of backpedaling and accusing others of having poor reading comprehension.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8269718

potato_hamster said:

No, I spent "two whole pages" arguing that we don't actually know if there will be online play at launch, not that I thought there wouldn't be. There are two totally different things. but hey, why try and actually pay attention to what I'm saying when you can insult me instead?



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Cerebralbore101 said:

Right. I understood you were making the claims in the bolded. I'd just like to know what source these claims are derived from. Especially the 50% is multiplayer claim. 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-11-03-more-than-50-percent-of-destiny-2-console-sales-were-digital-downloads

"We mentioned last year that our historical digital mix was about 20 to 25 per cent for Call of Duty and more in the 30 to 40 per cent range for Destiny and Overwatch on console," fellow Activision boss Spencer Neumann continued, adding more colour. "Historically, we've been seeing that digital mix increase at about five points a year. With Destiny 2 digital at over 50 per cent console sell-through so far, we believe we're seeing some acceleration in that digital shift."

The bolded is important because the news article is from November 2017, so more than 1.5 years old.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:

Digital ratios of game sales have been steadily growing and are commonly exceeding 30% by now while online multiplayer games are approaching 50% already. That's a trend of proper game ownership ceasing to be an important factor, so Stadia doesn't face a significant disadvantage here.

Okay, so here you are saying that multiplayer games are approaching 50% digital sales ratios. Either that or you are saying that multiplayer games are approaching 50% of all sales of video games period. I'm not 100% sure which one you meant, but I'm betting on the former.

RolStoppable said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Right. I understood you were making the claims in the bolded. I'd just like to know what source these claims are derived from. Especially the 50% is multiplayer claim. 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-11-03-more-than-50-percent-of-destiny-2-console-sales-were-digital-downloads

"We mentioned last year that our historical digital mix was about 20 to 25 per cent for Call of Duty and more in the 30 to 40 per cent range for Destiny and Overwatch on console," fellow Activision boss Spencer Neumann continued, adding more colour. "Historically, we've been seeing that digital mix increase at about five points a year. With Destiny 2 digital at over 50 per cent console sell-through so far, we believe we're seeing some acceleration in that digital shift."

The bolded is important because the news article is from November 2017, so more than 1.5 years old.

Okay so Activision seeing it's multiplayer franchises reach near 50% digital sales, means it is the same for the entire industry? A 5% yearly increase in digital ratios for Activision's multiplayer games =/= a 5% yearly increase in digital ratios for the AAA console games industry as a whole. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 28 June 2019

The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:

RolStoppable said:

Digital ratios of game sales have been steadily growing and are commonly exceeding 30% by now while online multiplayer games are approaching 50% already. That's a trend of proper game ownership ceasing to be an important factor, so Stadia doesn't face a significant disadvantage here.

Okay, so here you are saying that multiplayer games are approaching 50% digital sales ratios. Either that or you are saying that multiplayer games are approaching 50% of all sales of video games period. I'm not 100% sure which one you meant, but I'm betting on the former.

RolStoppable said:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-11-03-more-than-50-percent-of-destiny-2-console-sales-were-digital-downloads

"We mentioned last year that our historical digital mix was about 20 to 25 per cent for Call of Duty and more in the 30 to 40 per cent range for Destiny and Overwatch on console," fellow Activision boss Spencer Neumann continued, adding more colour. "Historically, we've been seeing that digital mix increase at about five points a year. With Destiny 2 digital at over 50 per cent console sell-through so far, we believe we're seeing some acceleration in that digital shift."

The bolded is important because the news article is from November 2017, so more than 1.5 years old.

Okay so Activision seeing it's multiplayer franchises reach near 50% digital sales, means it is the same for the entire industry? A 5% yearly increase in digital ratios for Activision's multiplayer games =/= a 5% yearly increase in digital ratios for all games. 

1. Yes, I meant the former. Digital sales ratios for multiplayer games are approaching 50%. I said approaching because not all of them have had digital ratios as high as Destiny 2.

2. I've showed you an excerpt of Sony's breakdown for all PS4 games before:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/sony-q4-fy-2017-ps4-software-digital-sales-reach-43-ratio.39046/

Q1 2016 vs. Q1 2017 - 29% vs. 39%, an increase of 10 percent points.
Q2 - 22% vs. 27%, an increase of 5.
Q3 - 23% vs. 28%, an increase of 5.
Q4 - 37% vs. 43%, an increase of 6.

So there is a yearly increase of 5 percent points for all games.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Okay, so here you are saying that multiplayer games are approaching 50% digital sales ratios. Either that or you are saying that multiplayer games are approaching 50% of all sales of video games period. I'm not 100% sure which one you meant, but I'm betting on the former.

Okay so Activision seeing it's multiplayer franchises reach near 50% digital sales, means it is the same for the entire industry? A 5% yearly increase in digital ratios for Activision's multiplayer games =/= a 5% yearly increase in digital ratios for all games. 

1. Yes, I meant the former. Digital sales ratios for multiplayer games are approaching 50%. I said approaching because not all of them have had digital ratios as high as Destiny 2.

2. I've showed you an excerpt of Sony's breakdown for all PS4 games before:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/sony-q4-fy-2017-ps4-software-digital-sales-reach-43-ratio.39046/

Q1 2016 vs. Q1 2017 - 29% vs. 39%, an increase of 10 percent points.
Q2 - 22% vs. 27%, an increase of 5.
Q3 - 23% vs. 28%, an increase of 5.
Q4 - 37% vs. 43%, an increase of 6.

So there is a yearly increase of 5 percent points for all games.

Alright, sure. So if we assume that this 5% increase is going to continue each and every year, then it should take about five years from Q4 2017 for digital sales to reach over 70% of all games. So by Q4 2022. That should be enough for Stadia's lack of physical games to not matter, all that much. But that kind of assumes that there's not going to be some sort of hard cap on how far digital can grow. At least a temporary hard cap that is. 

I'm pretty skeptical of this sort of thing though, because it reminds me of the sort of, missing the forest for the trees logic of Pachter. 

"Wii, PS3, and 360 had a combined console sales of 260ish million. But this generation the combined console sales are way behind that and will never catch up. Therefore this shows that the console market is shrinking and will soon collapse." - More or less what Pachter has said umpteen billion times. 

The problem is Pachter often glazes over important details that affect the market. Such as Nintendo's mishandling of the Wii U. Or the fact that when there's little reason to own an XB1, most people will just opt for a single system instead of having both (or to put this another way fewer people need to buy both systems when one of those systems isn't very appealing, or is redundant). 

Anyway, I'd give it 50/50 odds that there will be some fly in the ointment that will keep digital from reaching over 70% of all game sales so quickly. The same way that Pachter's bean counter logic glazes over important details, we may be glazing over important details too. 

If someone applied the same bean counter logic to the growth of a child, they would erroneously conclude that since Timmy grew 3 inches per year for the past five years, he will be 16 feet tall by age 70. Of course they just glazed over the simple fact that people eventually stop growing. But that's what happens when people just stare at the numbers all day, and never apply any other information. 

I respect your belief/stance that physical games sales will continually, and rapidly lose marketshare over the next five years. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because at this point I think that's all we can do. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 28 June 2019

The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Cerebralbore101 said:

Alright, sure. So if we assume that this 5% increase is going to continue each and every year, then it should take about five years from Q4 2017 for digital sales to reach over 70% of all games. So by Q4 2022. That should be enough for Stadia's lack of physical games to not matter, all that much. But that kind of assumes that there's not going to be some sort of hard cap on how far digital can grow. At least a temporary hard cap that is. 

I'm pretty skeptical of this sort of thing though, because it reminds me of the sort of, missing the forest for the trees logic of Pachter. 

"Wii, PS3, and 360 had a combined console sales of 260ish million. But this generation the combined console sales are way behind that and will never catch up. Therefore this shows that the console market is shrinking and will soon collapse." - More or less what Pachter has said umpteen billion times. 

The problem is Pachter often glazes over important details that affect the market. Such as Nintendo's mishandling of the Wii U. Or the fact that when there's little reason to own an XB1, most people will just opt for a single system instead of having both (or to put this another way fewer people need to buy both systems when one of those systems isn't very appealing, or is redundant). 

Anyway, I'd give it 50/50 odds that there will be some fly in the ointment that will keep digital from reaching over 70% of all game sales so quickly. The same way that Pachter's bean counter logic glazes over important details, we may be glazing over important details too. 

I respect your belief/stance that physical games sales will continually, and rapidly lose marketshare over the next five years. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because at this point I think that's all we can do. 

That has never been the point I was making. What I was saying is that the lack of proper game ownership on Stadia won't be an obstacle for the possible success of Stadia, because already today a lot of gamers are giving up their ownership rights for the benefit of convenience.

I think the core of the issue, something that I've noticed in various threads about Stadia, is that there is paranoia that any kind of success for Stadia will inevitably put an end to the console market at some point in the future. Even if Stadia is successful - something that isn't a sure thing - it will be a story of continuous slow growth rather than a runaway success, and that still won't result in an eradication of consoles, but rather a co-existence between different forms of gaming.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

IMO rumors threads need to be quarantined in their own part of the forums. Most rumors threads are flat out wrong. What's worse is that even after a rumor gets debunked, people continue to post in said thread forever. I wish debunked rumor threads were just locked, or moved to purgatory. 

Right, I still have to settle the record for the bolded claim above. potato_hamster is trying to pull a fast one on this. More posts from the same thread are needed.

Here he reacts to the fact that Switch will have online multiplayer at launch. He is in denial and there are no rumors involved at all.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8269221

Here's his response when further questioned. A clear bias against Nintendo can be identified.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8269423

potato_hamster said:

Why do I doubt that there will be any online functionality? Because it's Nintendo. This is the same company that has sold and continues to sell Nintendo 3DSs without a power cord in the box. This is the same company that made a console that was so expensive to produce that it only recieved one price cut in its five years on the market. This would a very Nintendo thing to do, and should be a surprise to absolutely no one if the Switch launches without the ability to play with each other online.

Here he is employing his usual tactic of backpedaling and accusing others of having poor reading comprehension.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8269718

potato_hamster said:

No, I spent "two whole pages" arguing that we don't actually know if there will be online play at launch, not that I thought there wouldn't be. There are two totally different things. but hey, why try and actually pay attention to what I'm saying when you can insult me instead?




Man ohh man. Digging through the salt mines of several year old threads, and doing it poorly... and you think that makes me look bad? Adorable.

Let me reiterate one more time. I could not care less about my reputation with you or anyone else. I don't care if you think I have a "anti-Nintendo bias" because I'm unafraid to point out Nintendo's continued efforts to take advantage of their customer's good will. But let's have a laugh, because you actually couldn't be more wrong.

"
"Users will be able to try out Nintendo Switch online services for free during a trial period after launch. Then it will become a paid service beginning in the fall of 2017. We will provide additional details on this paid service and its features on our home page at a later date." (emphasis mine)

Does that say "at launch"? No? So again, we don't actually know if Online play will be available when this console releases, or if it will be available in the weeks that follow. Sorry, I'm not going to assume "March" means "launch day" like you are."

As it turns out "Nintendo Switch online services" didn't mean "online play". It meant Nintendo's paid online app and subscription service, which, to be clear, did not launch on release. It launched several months after the Switch did. So the quote Rol is saying that I was "shown proof the Switch will have online at launch" actually didn't prove that at all. Zorg was wrong. Rol was wrong. That quote didn't say what they thought it said, and as it turns out my interpretation of the wording of that quote was the correct one. I, along with Zorg, Rol and other's were just wrong about what "Nintendo Switch Online services" actually meant. In fact, it seems that Rol is still wrong about it, and is in denial over it. So let's be clear:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/everything-you-need-to-know-nintendo-switch-online/

"It took more than a year after launch, but the Nintendo Switch received its online service in September 2018

Well. Would you just look at that.

So as it turns out, the "anti-Nintendo bias" that that actually supports not interpreting Nintendo's PR as favorably as possible as Rol insisted I should have, because whatever bias Rol has leads to interpreting Nintendo PR incorrectly. Perhaps at this point Rol, you should consider that you likely have a severe "pro-Nintendo bias" that clouds your judgement. You're objectively wrong about your interpretation of the conversation that went on in that thread from two years ago.

Let's move on to the next quote, and let me emphasize something

"If this type of shit isn't ready at launch, delay your console and spare yourselves the embarassment! It has to be obvious to you at this point that the launch of the Switch has been rushed. This console isn't ready. This platform definitely isn't ready. But fuck it. Rushing things out the door in the video game industry has never worked out poorly, has it?"


Last I checked, saying "IF this type of shit isn't ready at launch", isn't "a definitive claim", is it, Rol? Since Nintendo did have an online multiplayer ready at launch, it means I didn't think they rushed the console and it was ready. How awful of me.

Rol, all you're proving is that you've have reading comprehension issues for a long, long time. That, or you're so biased you can't even realize that even when you dig up your little document on me and try and discredit me the quotes you pull out actually don't say what they think they do!

But hey, why actually analyze things objectively as you can when you can analyze them the Rolstoppable way? Keep trolling through that document you have on me to argue with strangers on an anonymous internet forum and try and one-up them! It's noble work you're doing Rol!

banned by the-pi-guy

Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 28 June 2019

potato_hamster said:

(...)
Let's move on to the next quote, and let me emphasize something

"If this type of shit isn't ready at launch, delay your console and spare yourselves the embarassment! It has to be obvious to you at this point that the launch of the Switch has been rushed. This console isn't ready. This platform definitely isn't ready. But fuck it. Rushing things out the door in the video game industry has never worked out poorly, has it?"


Last I checked, saying "IF this type of shit isn't ready at launch", isn't "a definitive claim", is it, Rol? Since Nintendo did have an online multiplayer ready at launch, it means I didn't think they rushed the console and it was ready. How awful of me.

(...)

Is the highlighted part a definitive claim?



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club