Cheaper than just buy a game and right after that stream in 1080P@60FPS in any device you already have, using any controller you already have or keyborad and mouse, without paying any subscritpion whatsoever?
Short term just buying a game on Stadia for $60 without the need for hardware would be cheaper. Long term buying a console and subbing to either PS Now or Gamepass would be cheaper.
You have a choice between buying a $400 - $500 console and paying $5-$15 a month for access to hundreds of games, or paying $30 to $60 on a game by game basis with Stadia.
Even if you are the average consumer buying 2.5 games a year, a console + subscription service is the better deal. For example...
John gets Stadia pays $10 a month for the 4K and buys 2.5 games a year for an average price of $40 per game. (John waits for sales on games.) After seven years John has paid $840 for Stadia Pro and $700 for his 18 games. His average price per game is $85 after the cost of Stadia Pro.
Steve gets an XB Scarrlett for $500. He then subscribes to Gamepass Ultimate for $15 a month. After seven years Steve has paid $1260 for Gamepass Ultimate, and $0 for actual games. Steve has access to hundreds of games. Assuming Steve manages to play only 100 games over these seven years his average price per game is $17.60, after factoring in the cost of Gamepass Ultimate and the Scarrlette console ($1260 + $500 divided by 100 games.)
Both Stadia Pro and PSN/XBL offer free games, so these cancel each other out, and don't factor into this comparison.
If Google ever gives up on Stadia (which they most likely will) John is out $700 in games that he now has no access to.
Even if Steve buys a few games every year for full price digital download his average price per game would still never get close to the insane $85 per game cost of Stadia.
As this comparison shows Stadia is a rip off compared to Gamepass + a Scarrlette, or a slightly improved PS Now + a PS5.Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 17 October 2019