By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do you think Google Stadia is doomed to fail?

 

Is stadia going to fail? (not be competitive, profitable?)

yes - (people wont pay for 4k subscription) 42 77.78%
 
no - (people want to stre... 12 22.22%
 
Total:54
RolStoppable said:
thismeintiel said:
I seriously don't see the "free" 1080p streaming staying free. Not once Google sees that of the few that do use Stadia are going to just stick with the free model. Once they realize how much streaming is actually going to cost them, they'll put a price on it. It may only be $5, but any cost is going to turn off some. I also can see them jacking up the 4K price to $15. Google is not going into this business to take any losses or just make a small profit.

And there are plenty of gamers who will be turned off by having absolutely no access to your games if the internet goes down. Even with digital buyers, at least they know the game is there on their HDD and they can still play it without internet. People who actually buy Stadia games are going to get real pissed if there is a sudden loss of internet, either on their end or server side, and it drops them out of a game.

The fact that online multiplayer has been put behind a paywall on consoles must make people believe that there are significant costs involved, but there aren't. Besides, the costs for an online component are already covered by the price of any given game, so the paywall's purpose on consoles is to make gamers pay for the same thing twice, all under the disguise that they are getting good value for their money.

Google is more than willing to take losses. Their Youtube platform has been a money sink for many years, but they've been okay with it because of the synergy with their core business; that is, collecting huge amounts of data of users to provide them with ads of products they may like which in turn brings in lots of money from ads.

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.



Around the Network

People are saying that the mobile market is the target. My question is how? Obviously they are fine with playing cheaper games that aren't as involved as full AAA titles. They are perfectly fine playing with worse graphics than a console. And with touch controls. Why the Hell would they switch to a controller and eat up their data just to play the games they obviously don't really care about just because they have better graphics? If anyone is going to make the step to a more core gaming experience, but still wants it mobile, they will get a Switch, especially when it drops in price. Not many have the unlimited data needed to stream these games. And I doubt many parents are going to spring for paying so much extra for internet just so their kids can play some games over the net.



I am of the opinion the Stadia is targeted at PC gamers who are tired of upgrading their GPU every 2-3 years.



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.



CaptainExplosion said:
Amnesia said:
In 10 years, they will control everything. Mainstream and shit always win in every domains.
It is Google, they own already almost everything.

Well how do we prevent this?

We must travel in time, go to the past, and destroy Google when it was just getting started.



Around the Network
Chrkeller said:
I am of the opinion the Stadia is targeted at PC gamers who are tired of upgrading their GPU every 2-3 years.

PC gamers that can't afford to keep upgrading their hardware and mobile players are a good potential customer.



CaptainExplosion said:
Amnesia said:

We must travel in time, go to the past, and destroy Google when it was just getting started.

Ok, how do we do it without time travel?

Google will have a hefty competition with MS on the cloud gaming sphere. I am sure the best deal will end up being choosen by the majority.



CaptainExplosion said:
Amnesia said:

We must travel in time, go to the past, and destroy Google when it was just getting started.

Ok, how do we do it without time travel?

There is nothing to do. Google will slowly absorb everything, and the global quality of video games will slowly collapse, in the meanwhile it will absord more and more of our money, and as we already know, we will be the possessor of nothing because of the cloud concept.



CuCabeludo said:
Chrkeller said:
I am of the opinion the Stadia is targeted at PC gamers who are tired of upgrading their GPU every 2-3 years.

PC gamers that can't afford to keep upgrading their hardware and mobile players are a good potential customer.

Also, casual gamers that only really care about one or two franchises like CoD or FIFA.



There is no doubt in the victory of Google. Because this is a worldwide accurate strategy : merging every company into one super world single pyramid.
We can see more and more now that small company can't survive because of the fiscality and administration, where the biggest one have every advantages with the smallest taxes. Why do "they" want that ? because humans are easier to control and domesticate in a big company where they are just a number with a very limited range of action.
The ultimate goal is to have every humans mono-task working in one huge company with no possibility to escape. Google seems to be the one who is slowly absorbing everything around. Google is Skynet but many here know that already.