VAMatt said:
You compared the price per game of someone playing 100 games over 7 years to someone playing 2.5 games per year over 7 years (17.5 games). If dude wants to play 15 big games, plus 85 cheap games (such as most of the games available on Gamepass and PS Now) on Stadia, his average price would be far, far lower. That would be a more reasonable comparison. Also, Stadia will be available without a monthly subscription. That changes the math substantially. Then there's the fact that Stadia doesn't bind one to a console. The Stadia player can fire up his games at his friend's house, in his hotel room, etc. That's a lot harder to do with a console. So, there's really no comparison in terms of convenience. And, as a lifelong gamer myself, this is where I see appeal in streaming services. I don't need to buy consoles for every TV in my house to be able to game in any room. I don't need to miss out on gaming when I'm traveling, etc. |
Well I was trying to be generous to Stadia by only assuming the Gamepass user would have a value of 100 games. In reality there are hundreds of games on Gamepass and PSN. But sure let's assume our Stadia user is playing 15 big name games for $60 on release, and 85 $20 games. After the $10 monthly price of a 4K Stadia sub their average price per game would be $34.4. That's still higher than the Gamepass user's $17.60, and we haven't even factored in possible internet overage charges, or the cost of a Stadia Controller + Dongle. I intentionally left those two things out of the comparison because I wanted to give Stadia a favorable comparison.
Also, Stadia will be available without a monthly subscription. That changes the math substantially.
Sure, but XBL and PS+ are optional too. And a 1080/60 with lag gaming experience isn't comparable to a 4K/30-60 gaming experience with no lag. It has to be a 1:1 comparison. So I left Stadia Pro in. And again, to give Stadia a leg up I left XBL or PS+ in as well. You need Stadia Pro to do 4K. You don't need PS+ or XBL to do 4K.
Finally, even if the average price per game is lower over a seven year period, that doesn't take into account the time value of money. That $500 upfront purchase is a different animal than an occasional outlay for a game, or even a monthly subscription.
Sure thing. Let's assume somebody put the $500 they saved into stocks that gave a 5% return per year. After inflation and seven years of interest that $500 would be worth about $700. And a used console even from last gen usually sells for $100. So there's a time to value difference of $100. But you're also saving money from gamepass and we would have to account for the time value of not paying $34.4 on average per game (and instead paying $17.60 on average.)
I think the ability to play anywhere is overvalued. But that's subjective so I'll leave it alone. I'd like this conversation to be about the value of Stadia vs the value of Gamepass Ultimate + Scarrlett and/or PS Now + PS5.
