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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What if google stadia were to fail?

Having to pay for new games will destroy stadia anyway in regards to people like us, but then again stadia is for the casual mobile gamers.



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
Darwinianevolution said:

 Take myself for instance.  Would I rather get a new piece of hardware?  Yeah sure.  But I just started law school, and discretionary money is incredibly limited.  If there are next-gen exclusives that I'd want to play, I'm far more likely to buy it on Stadia.  The money is way more important to me than potential quality issues. I'm sure I'm not the only one with financial concerns that would make buying a new system an issue.

Another obvious market is those between 9 and 18 who are not working.  Next gen hits and there are some exclusives you want to play.  Convincing your parents to buy you a new system and a new game for 500+ dollars is going to be a lot harder than convincing them to buy a new game for 60 and potentially a controller for 70.

There are a lot of people who like games but for whom 4-500 dollars in their pocket will be more important than potential quality issues.  If you can't think of any people like that, then the problem is with your imagination.

An average local electronics store will have the option to purchase any console on monthly payments under finance schemes. People can also, you know, save money for upcoming or released products they're interested in, as they always have done. No one was ever forced to shell out medicine money to buy gaming hardware or software.

You might feel like it is a rational cheaper option, however the same was true for OnLive. Or buying a graphics card, slapping it to an average PC and pirating games to hell and back. But people don't buy things rationally and if anyone knew precisely what leads a product to succeed or fail, we wouldn't have flops left and right in any industry. Google itself has a gigantic pile of these lying in their trash bin.



 

 

 

 

 

Random_Matt said:
Having to pay for new games will destroy stadia anyway in regards to people like us, but then again stadia is for the casual mobile gamers.

I find that to be the biggest question to date.  While it has been confirmed that games require being purchased, what hasn't been announced (at least to my knowledge) is pricing.  If games are full priced (meaning $60) then my interest in Stadia is dead.  But if pricing is reduced a good deal, that opens up additional discussion points.  



When it comes to gaming I tend to think Google is a lot like Microsoft.  The original XBox was essentially a flop.  It lost Microsoft a lot of money.  Did they give up?  Nope, they are still at it to this day.  In fact they plan to launch another console next year in spite of losing money over and over again.  This is because Microsoft has deep pockets, and the money they lose from gaming is small potatoes compared to their core business.  Initially Microsoft got into gaming to protect their core business from Sony.  (Sony was talking about putting a computer in the living room, and that is what the PS3 originally was.)  But if you look at what Microsoft is doing lately with xCloud, Gamepass, etc..., then you can see that they are really gearing up to fight Google.

Likewise Google has extremely deep pockets too.  Any profits or losses that come from Stadia will be small potatoes compared to their core business, but like Microsoft, I don't think they plan to give up easily.  This is because what Google and Microsoft are really doing is fighting over control of the whole internet.  They simply see gaming as one potential battlefield.  Considering that Apple has just launched Apple Arcade, you can count them in this too.  Apple may have a very different approach, but all 3 companies are basically doing the same thing: fighting with each other over the fate of the internet.  They all want to be top dog, and they just see gaming as one battlefield.

Sony and Nintendo, they actually care about the profits or losses they sustain from gaming.  But if you look at these big IT companies, Google, Microsoft, and Apple, they are fighting over bigger stakes, so they aren't going to leave gaming easily even if their services fail at first.



Chrkeller said:
Random_Matt said:
Having to pay for new games will destroy stadia anyway in regards to people like us, but then again stadia is for the casual mobile gamers.

I find that to be the biggest question to date.  While it has been confirmed that games require being purchased, what hasn't been announced (at least to my knowledge) is pricing.  If games are full priced (meaning $60) then my interest in Stadia is dead.  But if pricing is reduced a good deal, that opens up additional discussion points.  

https://www.techradar.com/news/google-stadia-games-will-cost-the-same-as-full-price-console-titles-even-if-theyre-only-streamed



Around the Network
RedKingXIII said:
Chrkeller said:

I find that to be the biggest question to date.  While it has been confirmed that games require being purchased, what hasn't been announced (at least to my knowledge) is pricing.  If games are full priced (meaning $60) then my interest in Stadia is dead.  But if pricing is reduced a good deal, that opens up additional discussion points.  

https://www.techradar.com/news/google-stadia-games-will-cost-the-same-as-full-price-console-titles-even-if-theyre-only-streamed

Thanks, I had not seen that before.  Deal breaker for me personally.  If games are priced the same, Stadia ends up with no significant benefit over buying a ps5 or building a PC.  



Google has a history of abandoning things that aren't successful. If Stadia fails, I think they'll scrap it, leaving MS and Sony to compete on streaming in the future.



haxxiy said:
JWeinCom said:

 Take myself for instance.  Would I rather get a new piece of hardware?  Yeah sure.  But I just started law school, and discretionary money is incredibly limited.  If there are next-gen exclusives that I'd want to play, I'm far more likely to buy it on Stadia.  The money is way more important to me than potential quality issues. I'm sure I'm not the only one with financial concerns that would make buying a new system an issue.

Another obvious market is those between 9 and 18 who are not working.  Next gen hits and there are some exclusives you want to play.  Convincing your parents to buy you a new system and a new game for 500+ dollars is going to be a lot harder than convincing them to buy a new game for 60 and potentially a controller for 70.

There are a lot of people who like games but for whom 4-500 dollars in their pocket will be more important than potential quality issues.  If you can't think of any people like that, then the problem is with your imagination.

An average local electronics store will have the option to purchase any console on monthly payments under finance schemes. People can also, you know, save money for upcoming or released products they're interested in, as they always have done. No one was ever forced to shell out medicine money to buy gaming hardware or software.

You might feel like it is a rational cheaper option, however the same was true for OnLive. Or buying a graphics card, slapping it to an average PC and pirating games to hell and back. But people don't buy things rationally and if anyone knew precisely what leads a product to succeed or fail, we wouldn't have flops left and right in any industry. Google itself has a gigantic pile of these lying in their trash bin.

Ummm... sure?  It sounds like you're arguing against a point that I didn't make.  I didn't at any point say or imply that stadia was the only option. People who would rather do so can spend money, up front or over time, on a console.  If I'm willing to put up with the lag and don't care about any of the system's other features, I can buy it on stadia, and buy 4-500 dollars worth of games, buy my family decent holiday gifts, buy 4-500 Cadbury Creme Eggs, buy a moderately priced prostitute, go to some concerts, buy tickets to see the Jets lose, or just fill my bathtub with pennies and splash around in them.

Point is any way you choose to spend money on a new console, it's money that could be spent on something else.  If I could get to play the games I want in reasonable quality without spending that money, I'm in favor. Having worked at an average local electronics store for quite some time, I am positive that I'm not the only one.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 29 October 2019

Xbox is offering a no upfront cost payment plan with the XB1 and Scarrlett. If Sony follows suit, Stadia users will largely be using the free version. There might be a blue ocean of people out there with a good internet connection, that don't care about resolution, and don't want to pay a monthly bill or buy a console. But those people were never going to get a console or PC anyway. So it's not competition with PS5/Scarrlett at that point. Kind of like how the Wii wasn't really competition for 360/PS3 back in the day. So if Stadia has any amount of success at all it would be pure growth for the industry. That's a good thing.

I could see Stadia getting 30 - 50 million people using the free version by the end of next gen. That's a pretty low number considering it's a free service. One person buying five game on the free version of Stadia =/= one person buying a console and fifteen games.



All the time I thought Stadia was a subscription model where you can play a ton of games for $10 a month, which would actually be pretty cool. But it's actually $10 a month for the subscription, $130 for the starter kit and the games themselves sell for the same price as on ps4 and Xbox... I only see this working out for Google if the games look and run better than what's possible on consoles. But if not and there's only the slightest hint of input lag, this is gonna fail hard.