By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel on 30 June 2019
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
thismeintiel said:

Got a source to back up your little cost claim? This isn't the days were each company has their own servers. The Big 3 are providing their own networks for devs to use. And stores, which millions of people are downloading full games at over 25GBs a pop.

And there's a huge difference between a platform with 100s of millions/billions of users to a side project that is going to try to piggyback off of the former. If Google hasn't gotten millions of people people using the service in the first couple of years and are losing money on the venture, you bet your ass they will pull the plug.

Do you have a source to back up the claim that Stadia will have a mandatory subcription before too long? You also seem to think that hosting games for download necessitates an online multiplayer paywall to finance it. But the thing is that a console manufacturer takes about a $12 cut from a boxed $60 third party game that is sold at retail whereas they take an $18 cut from a $60 third party games that is sold digitally. $6 per game download covers the costs of providing servers for game downloads very, very easily.

Big companies don't pull out fast of markets if they have greater long term goals. Microsoft lost ~$4 billion on the original Xbox and kept making consoles because of a greater goal. Sony keeps investing in Virtual Reality despite dismal sales. No reason to expect Google to quit quickly in the absence of success, because Stadia is yet another venture that feeds into their huge data collection of user habits.

That is just a strong feeling I have. Do you think it will stay free if the majority of users are sticking to free? I would like to see the math on how much the servers and data centers cost that MS/Sony/Nintendo built cost compared to how much they make on their services. Please provide if you could. I am grateful Sony at least forced the other's hands in actually providing something in return besides just being a paywall to multiplayer, and in MS's case, apps.

Yes, MS stayed in, but it wasn't just because they wanted into the market. MS actually feared the PS would take over the PCs spot in the home. They figured if a console was going to do that, why not theirs. It was a move of fear and desperation. Of course, their fears turned out wrong. But, they had a big success with the 360, so why pull out, now? Of course, we see with another lackluster Xbox performance, they are already taking steps to back out if their next HW fails.

PS VR sales aren't dismal. Sure, they aren't on fire, but considering it is the most expensive peripheral put out for a system, I'd say it's pretty damn good. Suffice it to say, Sony definitely isn't losing money on the deal. Which is why they will be pushing VR again next gen.