Google GDC Keynote Official Thread

[KBG29]

The_Liquid_Laser said:

My initial thoughts:

1.  The technology is extremely impressive.  There are two other factors that are even more important than technology though: game library and business model (discussed below).  Still, the tech is extremely impressive.  It could be a game changer depending on how the other two things play out.

2.  Game library is the most important thing.  They did announce that they have a first party development studio.  That at least shows they know a little bit about the gaming business.  However if you look at what territories they plan to launch it is basically North America and most of Europe.  To me it says that they currently have Western studios as most of their partners and have few Japanese partners.  Already it seems like their game library will be weak, but admittedly I am going off of little information here.

3.  Business model is the second most important thing and it has a unique roll given the new approach Google is taking.  I mean their business model could be terrible like the Ouya's business model and that will sink the platform.  But that is not even the worst case scenario.  The worst case scenario is that their platform becomes dominant but their business model kills off the gaming industry.  There is a big difference between being the "Netflix of gaming" and being the "Spotify of gaming". 

Netflix peacefully co-exists with movie studios and network TV.  It mostly got it's market from DVD sales and cable TV.  This is important, because Netflix did not attack content creation at it's source.  On the other hand Spotify crippled the Music industry.  Given the Music industry already took a few blows from other content sources before Spotify came along: Napster, iTunes, Pandora, etc....  But the crippling blow came from Spotify and the Music industry has never recovered.  Annual revenue is now just a fraction of what it was during the 20th century.  The quantity and quality of new music has measurably decreased.

So, basically what I am saying is: the business model matters a lot.  I would prefer that they have an account system like iTunes, where you actually buy and own your games.  That is a healthy, sustainable system.  The worst system they could use is one based entirely on ad revenue.  That is how Youtube works and Google does not make profits from Youtube and the vast majority of their content is made by amateurs on top of that.  Microtransactions...well if they go this route, they may find they attract a different type of gamer than the typical Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft gamer.  Business model can seriously affect how this whole thing turns out.

Final thought: the technology is very impressive but it is too early to tell how things will play out at this point.

I agree with you about the business model. How they allow access to this service is going to be important. I would love to see multiple options that fit all cases, just as the service is built to fit all needs.

I would like to see them offer a free ad based tier, a paid subscription tier, rental options, and full purchase. Let people choose. This gives access to everyone, and that is what it should be all about.

As far as library goes, I actually don't think library is that important. This is not a device you are buying into that you have to justify purchasing. This is a service that will be available on all the devices we already have, we can even use the Gamepads we already own. Even if you have no interest in 3rd party titles on the platform, you will be able to access Stadia exclusives with zero investment.