Forums - Sales Discussion - The cloud streaming service Google Stadia launched in November 2019. How do you view its current chances for commercial success?

The cloud streaming service Google Stadia launched in November 2019. How do you view its current chances for commercial success?

Good 5 0.59%
 
It has potential 44 5.19%
 
Could go either way 48 5.66%
 
It's looking bleak now 299 35.26%
 
It's a non-starter 278 32.78%
 
Indifferent to the whole thing 174 20.52%
 
Total:848
Barkley said:

They screwed up. Game performance was worse than it should be this service should have rivalled next-gen in performance with zero upfront costs. Instead the performance in some areas failed to match Xbox One X.

Any hype was also killed by them destroying their one advantage (no hardware costs) by having the stupid founders edition (£129) be the only way to use the service for the first 6-8 months.

It's not impossible for the service to make a comeback, but they really messed up the launch big time. Should have waited a year.

This seems about right to me.  They rushed it.  I've noticed that MS has stopped talking about XCloud being right around the corner.  They saw what happened with Stadia, and realized that streaming ain't gonna work until its better than that.  So, we could say that's a possible silver lining.

As for game ownership.....  I don't see Stadia as any different than any other digital game purchase.  Lots of games require you to be online to play.  So, as soon as they stop supporting that, the game becomes unplayable.  No different than Stadia, really.  Personally, I prefer physical media so that I can resell my games.  But, as I get older, the convenience of digital is becoming more appealing. Stadia strikes me as even more convenient (no waiting for download), and about the same in terms of really owning the game.  



Around the Network

It's looking bleak. I didn't think Stadia had much promise, anyway. But there's little hope to turn it around.

Game ownership is interesting. There's basically a bunch of DRM. Physical games you don't fully own usually anyway in the last generation or so. And just because you buy a game on one platform doesn't mean you own it in perpetuity on all future platforms. It's a license you own to play the game on its particular platform.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

PS4: 130 mil (was 100 million) Xbox One: 55 mil (was 50 mil) Switch: 110 million (was 73, then 96 million)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

People want the Netflix approach for this. First company that does that with enough good games to play is going to make a lot of money.

Probably Microsoft, if they can combine xCloud with GamePass titles ... they're in business.

Netflix would not be popular if you had to pay $20 for every movie or season of TV show you watched, this type of service will not work with the traditional pricing model. 



I voted "it's looking bleak". Poll needed more virulent options.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

I don’t see any success for this at all, like most of us, I keep forgetting it even exists until I see an article or discussion, then a split second after reading one it’s already forgotten.



Around the Network

Their success depends on several factors.  The most important one is "are they willing to stick with it?"  The tech they developed is actually pretty impressive, but that isn't what leads to success in gaming.  Are they going to invest the time and money needed to learn what it takes to succeed in gaming?  Microsoft actually had some experience developing PC games before XBox was a thing, but it still look them a generation before they really could be a serious player in the console space.  It takes time to learn the gaming business.  Games are actually a lot more important than the tech.  Google may not have even realized that yet.  They need to do some serious investing into making first party killer apps.

A second major factor is that I don't think their main competitors are the big 3 console makers.  I think their main competitor is Steam.  Steam is most successful wherever consoles don't have much of a presence.  What do potential gamers do in countries like India or Russia?  They game on Steam.  I'm sure that there are a lot of people around the world that feel PC gaming is too expensive for them, but they can find a way to game on their phone.  That is where the potential success of Stadia is: in people who want to be gamers but don't have the money or access to games like people do in North America, Japan or much of Europe.

The third factor to keep in mind is that we don't really know how much of a success/failure Stadia is and we will probably never know.  Where is the data?  We don't get data from Google or from Valve or Microsoft or Sony or any of the major third party developers.  How can we track it's success?  We can't.  Unless it becomes a major cultural phenomenon in your country, you'll never know how successful it is.  If it does become successful, then it's success might sneak up on us.

Bonus: I really don't like the direction that digital distribution is going, but this has very little to do with Stadia.  The big 3 are steadily moving toward digital distribution with Nintendo being the last potential hold out.  As long as Nintendo keeps making physical games, then I think all of the big 3 will.  A large chunk of the market really wants physical games.  On the other hand digital distribution is kind of a Prisoner's Dilemma situation.  It's easy for the big 3 to keep heading in that direction, but if these platforms end up 100% digital then they will all be wose off (and we will be worse off too).



I think the biggest thing holding cloud gaming back is that the main target audience doesn't know it exists or doesn't realize that they want it.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

The_Liquid_Laser said:

Their success depends on several factors.  The most important one is "are they willing to stick with it?"  The tech they developed is actually pretty impressive, but that isn't what leads to success in gaming.  Are they going to invest the time and money needed to learn what it takes to succeed in gaming?  Microsoft actually had some experience developing PC games before XBox was a thing, but it still look them a generation before they really could be a serious player in the console space.  It takes time to learn the gaming business.  Games are actually a lot more important than the tech.  Google may not have even realized that yet.  They need to do some serious investing into making first party killer apps.

A second major factor is that I don't think their main competitors are the big 3 console makers.  I think their main competitor is Steam.  Steam is most successful wherever consoles don't have much of a presence.  What do potential gamers do in countries like India or Russia?  They game on Steam.  I'm sure that there are a lot of people around the world that feel PC gaming is too expensive for them, but they can find a way to game on their phone.  That is where the potential success of Stadia is: in people who want to be gamers but don't have the money or access to games like people do in North America, Japan or much of Europe.

The third factor to keep in mind is that we don't really know how much of a success/failure Stadia is and we will probably never know.  Where is the data?  We don't get data from Google or from Valve or Microsoft or Sony or any of the major third party developers.  How can we track it's success?  We can't.  Unless it becomes a major cultural phenomenon in your country, you'll never know how successful it is.  If it does become successful, then it's success might sneak up on us.

Bonus: I really don't like the direction that digital distribution is going, but this has very little to do with Stadia.  The big 3 are steadily moving toward digital distribution with Nintendo being the last potential hold out.  As long as Nintendo keeps making physical games, then I think all of the big 3 will.  A large chunk of the market really wants physical games.  On the other hand digital distribution is kind of a Prisoner's Dilemma situation.  It's easy for the big 3 to keep heading in that direction, but if these platforms end up 100% digital then they will all be wose off (and we will be worse off too).

Don`t think the want to be gamer that can`t buy a console or PC would have good internet and willing to put 60USD on a game.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Their success depends on several factors.  The most important one is "are they willing to stick with it?"  The tech they developed is actually pretty impressive, but that isn't what leads to success in gaming.  Are they going to invest the time and money needed to learn what it takes to succeed in gaming?  Microsoft actually had some experience developing PC games before XBox was a thing, but it still look them a generation before they really could be a serious player in the console space.  It takes time to learn the gaming business.  Games are actually a lot more important than the tech.  Google may not have even realized that yet.  They need to do some serious investing into making first party killer apps.

A second major factor is that I don't think their main competitors are the big 3 console makers.  I think their main competitor is Steam.  Steam is most successful wherever consoles don't have much of a presence.  What do potential gamers do in countries like India or Russia?  They game on Steam.  I'm sure that there are a lot of people around the world that feel PC gaming is too expensive for them, but they can find a way to game on their phone.  That is where the potential success of Stadia is: in people who want to be gamers but don't have the money or access to games like people do in North America, Japan or much of Europe.

The third factor to keep in mind is that we don't really know how much of a success/failure Stadia is and we will probably never know.  Where is the data?  We don't get data from Google or from Valve or Microsoft or Sony or any of the major third party developers.  How can we track it's success?  We can't.  Unless it becomes a major cultural phenomenon in your country, you'll never know how successful it is.  If it does become successful, then it's success might sneak up on us.

Bonus: I really don't like the direction that digital distribution is going, but this has very little to do with Stadia.  The big 3 are steadily moving toward digital distribution with Nintendo being the last potential hold out.  As long as Nintendo keeps making physical games, then I think all of the big 3 will.  A large chunk of the market really wants physical games.  On the other hand digital distribution is kind of a Prisoner's Dilemma situation.  It's easy for the big 3 to keep heading in that direction, but if these platforms end up 100% digital then they will all be wose off (and we will be worse off too).

Don`t think the want to be gamer that can`t buy a console or PC would have good internet and willing to put 60USD on a game.

You are assuming that they aren't willing to adapt to make the service work.  A company has to be willing to adapt whenever they develop a new business model.  That is true for any new business model out there.  But if they don't adapt or if they give up early, then yeah they are sunk.

If they stick it out a while and are willing to adapt, then there is a huge market out there.



The_Liquid_Laser said:
DonFerrari said:

Don`t think the want to be gamer that can`t buy a console or PC would have good internet and willing to put 60USD on a game.

You are assuming that they aren't willing to adapt to make the service work.  A company has to be willing to adapt whenever they develop a new business model.  That is true for any new business model out there.  But if they don't adapt or if they give up early, then yeah they are sunk.

If they stick it out a while and are willing to adapt, then there is a huge market out there.

And they will be offering the AAA game of third parties on their service for a lot less than those companies will have on the consoles?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994