Whatever floats your boat.

Not really. Like Rol, I'm not too worried because I think there will still be a market for our kind of games, and that Nintendo will supply that market. Google has made it clear what they want Stadia to be, and I'm not interested. I think they are leaving themselves open for another company to give a better offer though, but it would be hard for any company to offer something that would make me interested in exclusively streaming games. I imagine Microsoft might be able to offer a true Netflix of gaming if they wanted to try, where they just charge you for something like Gamepass, except you don't even need a console and get 1080p or 4k depending on what you pay. That's better than Stadia because you don't have to pay for the games, just the service. So if they did that, Stadia would get crushed. But then you still have the issue that if Microsoft decided to take a game off, you lose the ability to play that game. Sure, you never paid for that game, so it doesn't hurt as much in that case, but I want to have access to a game for as long as the physical media will last, so I still would prefer physical. That said, if I could get, let's say a Nintendo Switch 2 in 2024 or 25 or whenever it comes out, and Microsoft offers a streamable Gamepass so that I can play games the Switch or Switch 2 would never normally be able to run, and the price was right and Nintendo was still making games for their system that were physical and ownable, I'd probably give that streaming service a try and like it. I mean if you get a Switch 2 and can buy the latest Smash, Mario Kart, and Zelda, you'd be pretty happy right? So if all you had to pay was a small monthly fee on top of that and you could also play Halo Infinite without having to buy it or an Xbox to play it on, that wouldn't be too bad right? I mean, I'd rather Microsoft just make Halo MCC and Halo 5 playable right on the hardware, but if Halo Infinite were too advanced and streaming was the only way to get it on my Switch (or Switch 2), and I just had to pay for the service, not the game, I'd probably try it. It'd be like the old days when you went to the arcade, except the games are better.

Lol, I love it when an individual apparently represents an entire group of people made up of a wide variety of demographics. Yeah, totally reasonable.

Explosion, people tend to hang out with people who share similar likes and dislikes. People also tend to associate with those who are of the same demographic. So those around you being in agreement is confirmation bias. Look outside your small world.

My kids have little to no understanding of media ownership, they are growing up in a digital streaming world. Not everybody is exactly like you.  Older folks may whine about streaming games, the younger generation won't think twice.  

Even with big discounts, I still feel that games are too expensive for mobile players. With a 75% of discount, a $60 is still $15 and that's still too high. In a place dominated by F2P games, it's hard to sell anything, let alone anything that costs more then $5. Not to mention the time it would take for the price drop 75%.

Going to subscribe to Stadia just so I can say I'm a subscriber and annoy people.

I have been hoping that consoles will fail for years and nothing happened. It's as if people just don't care how bad I believe their preferred method of consuming entertainment is.

I'll definitely use the service myself. Either by buying a game there or through the Ubisoft subscription depending on how that cooperation works out/which games are playable through streaming there.

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.

If Stadia gets souls and monster Hunter I may sign up, and stop paying for PSN+.