By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel on 01 July 2019
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
thismeintiel said:

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.

Yes, Stadia will maintain a free streaming option. Most game purchases won't be streamed for enough hours to exceed the cut that Google takes from the game sale, so there will be a surplus that's not going to be offset by those game purchases that will be streamed for a high amount of hours. Then there is additional money coming in with subscriptions; subscriptions will be a minority of Stadia users and Google knows this because it's obvious. Their pricing structure already accounts for that.

I can give you the maths for Nintendo. They've built next to nothing, so they have very low costs that are more than covered by Switch Online subscriptions. Their bottom line wasn't hurting before the introduction of the paid subscription either, so they are charging not because it's necessary, but because they can due to other console manufacturers already doing the same.

Sounds like you agree with me on big companies staying in even in the face of setbacks.

Well, I'll keep this post in mind if that pricing structure changes.

Where's the maths?

And no, I don't agree. There are certain circumstances where companies will stay in a business, but Stadia isn't one of those circumstances. Google doesn't feel threatened by consoles or gaming, like MS did. This is just another way they think they can get a profit by piggybacking off of YouTube. If it fails to bring in that profit, they have no reason to continue. And no data collection is a poor reason, since the vast majority of users will already be using YouTube and Google, anyway. What little extra data they collect will not be worth selling.

Also, you are obviously wrong about them being fine with losing money on YouTube. They have been taking steps to actually start turning some profit, or at least break even. They added unskippable ads a few years ago. They made it harder to become a paid creator. And now they are adding two ads in front of vids. Again, they obviously aren't fine with YouTube continuing to lose money.