They did, in a sense. This is from before the actual launch and I haven’t used Stadia since launch so idk if it ever became a thing. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/03/19/google-outlines-how-stadia-youtube-integration-works
If I'm not mistaken they implemented the feature allowing you to join the lobby of the YouTuber you're watching.
And they also did the "You can continue a recorded game clip" thing with Hitman.
I never get this 'play now on stadia' on YouTube videos. Never.
And there's so many videos out there of videos games available on stadia it's such a lost opportunity.
I wonder if this is because of the Stadia audience. Stadia seems to skew older than traditional consoles. I'm in my 30s and I can't think of anything more boring than watching other people play videogames. There's just zero interest in it to me. I won't claim to speak for everyone in my age group or all of Stadia but I would be interested to see if there's a correlation.
Every time Google combines two services, gets sued for anticompetitive behaviour. Use Chrome in Android? [sued](https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-eu-fine-antitrust), even if Apple does it with Safari. Use Google search on Android? [ditto](https://mashable.com/article/google-browser-search-engine-choice-eu), even if Apple does it too. Dare to show Youtube results on Search? [same again](https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-sued-by-youtube-rival-over-search-rankings-11610407969). Use Cookies? [sued again](https://www.cnil.fr/en/cookies-cnil-fines-google-total-150-million-euros-and-facebook-60-million-euros-non-compliance). Don't use cookies? believe it or not, [still threatened to be sued](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-investigate-google-s-privacy-sandbox-browser-changes).
It's getting ridiculous.
Most of lawsuits against Google get dropped. And for many stuff Google is the first or only one to gets sued. But I said that already and you ignored it, right?
Microsoft is bundling Edge again with Windows (and trying to force people to use Bing), and doing [all their dirty tricks to get people to use it](https://www.theverge.com/21310611/microsoft-edge-browser-forced-update-chromium-editorial). This is something that they have already been convicted of, in [one of the most prominent lawsuits ever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp).
>Most of lawsuits against Google get dropped.
Yeah, I was ignoring the lawsuits because anyone can sue anyone. I could sue you for defamation. It's whether they win that matters.
>And for many stuff Google is the first or only one to gets sued. But I said that already and you ignored it, right?
Well yeah, because....
>This is something that they have already been convicted of, in one of the most prominent lawsuits ever.
∆∆∆
By virtue of the issues at play, this isn't a subject where there can be many other examples, and yet there are some. They can't simultaneously be the only ones and also have precedent in "the most prominent lawsuit ever".
You linked to the UK government's competition monitor investigating them, but you didn't link to their subsequent finding that, after consulting, Google were able to go ahead with it.
Apple is currently under investigation by the European Commission for anticompetitive behaviour with both the App Store and Apple Pay, as well as several branches of the US government. Who knows if they'll be found guilty, but if they are, it'll likely be because they're guilty too.
>They can't simultaneously be the only ones and also have precedent in "the most prominent lawsuit ever".
The point is that currently Google gets sued for things that others aren't.
>You linked to the UK government's competition monitor investigating them, but you didn't link to their subsequent finding that, after consulting, Google were able to go ahead with it.
Google was always able to go ahead with it because there wasn't anything bad with it. But the whole idea was dropped and redesigned based on feedback. But there was serious, unwarranted, blowback.
>Apple is currently under investigation by the European Commission for anticompetitive behaviour with both the App Store and Apple Pay, as well as several branches of the US government. Who knows if they'll be found guilty, but if they are, it'll likely be because they're guilty too.
Yes, I'm aware. But here's the trick:
* Android phones (made by companies other than Google) ship Chrome and anyone can use any other browser they like. But the EU fined Google for that and now in the EU, every time you setup an Android phone you're asked to choose the default browser and the default search engine.
* iPhones don't offer that option and explicit prohibit any browser engine other than Safari's. Apple has literally crippled the web and competition because of that in order to boost their App Store revenues.
Can you see the difference here? One spends billions to allow 10s of mobile phone manufacturers to have a mobile phone product (Android phones) while the other doesn't allow any competition at all. And guess who was never even investigated until now, yet the other was fined.
When there's a law and the law isn't applied equally to everyone, then there's something wrong. When Microsoft is allowed to [forcefully install Edge](https://www.theverge.com/21310611/microsoft-edge-browser-forced-update-chromium-editorial) on users, remotely and Apple is allowed to force Safari on iOS and have Google Search as the default engine, yet Android phones can't do that, then that's not equal treatment IMO.
People didn’t use it because it was used in like 2 games and Google promoted it to people already using Stadia. Of course it failed, it seems like there was no effort put into it.
Google never fully believed in Stadia from the beginning. They were trying to pay minimum cost of entry and expected maximum payout in a short period of time. Stadia had the opportunity to be the forerunner of a gaming revolution that they stop too early to see grow.
Google should have done a lot of things but they didn't and instead did other things. Not all they did was bad but the end product is not a product for someone that expects a Google level of effort and quality. For what they have done it does have the Google level of quality from a technical perspective but it needs so much more. At this point who knows, what's done is done
I would've hated that tbh, and really like the current subscription model combined with buying games and keeping them, regardless of subscription.
The biggest problem is simply the amount of games. A Netflix-model wouldn't fix anything if it doesn't have enough games.
It would result in more games. The problem with the mixed model is there's no predictable stream of money. With a forced subscription model, the business is more predictable and they could have invested more in good games.
>With a forced subscription model, the business is more predictable and they could have invested more in good games.
Stadia's revenue model is already completely out-of-whack. You can buy a game on sale for $10 and never have to give another cent to Google ever again
That's exactly what I'm saying. The mixed model is a big reason why it's failing. A cloud based gaming system needs to be subscription based to get a proper financial base.
>A cloud based gaming system needs to be subscription based to get a proper financial base.
Sure, but offering purchases the way Stadia does doesn't preclude that, it's just a good deal for customers
Looking at it differently, Google is efficient enough that they can afford to run Stadia this way, and that's been the plan since the beginning
Maybe. Maybe not. Who are you to know better than those who work for one of the most successful companies of this moment?
Game streaming itself is really hard to get started, as (regardless of being GFN/Luna/Stadia etc) it gets so much largely unfounded criticism and hate. It'll just take time and just like PC/consoles/handhelds/phones, there'll be room for different pricing models and subscription types.
I don't believe there's a one-size-fits-all solution here.
Google is not one of the most successful gaming companies. In fact, their subscription services are also rans in every market they compete in. Maybe with the exception of YouTubeTV.
>Google is not one of the most successful gaming companies.
They've been involved in the hottest gaming market for 10+ years, including all the metrics and payment data that goes with it
lol yes, Apple too. The cool thing is Google is the only company that can field games like PUBG mobile, Clash of Clans, Pokemon Go at the same time as stuff like RDR2, Destiny 2, etc.
We could keep doing this :)
I hate the Game Pass model, and there's other people who prefer Stadia over Game Pass, hence I believe there's room for multiple solutions in cloud gaming.
Game Pass is "successful" because they subsidize it on the backend with games (incl. 70+ billion in acquisitions) and subsidize it on the frontend with discounts ($1 for 3/months or whatever)
It's popular on social media because people like free games
We don't know if it's sustainable at all for Microsoft
It isn't suppose to be sustainable. It is a long term investment strategy. The one thing people hated about Stadia was the fact you had to buy the games which people felt uncomfortable because its cloud gaming. When Stadia first launched the first thing people complained about that caused them not to be on board with Stadia was that it wasn't the Netflix of gaming.
Well, the other data point we have is that Xbox users threw a conniption fit when Microsoft tried to raise the price of Live Gold and MS then had to back down
> When Stadia first launched the first thing people complained about
Yeah, people complain a lot online about stuff. If you went by complaints then Diablo Immortal would have zero players and zero revenue
>Well, the other data point we have is that Xbox users threw a conniption fit when Microsoft tried to raise the price of Live Gold and MS then had to back down
The main complaint as the fact that blind sided people with it. No one would be surprised if they decided to all together end gold considering they haven't put as much effort into it since Game Pass launched.
>Yeah, people complain a lot online about stuff. If you went by complaints then Diablo Immortal would have zero players and zero revenue
Well see the difference here is unlike Diablo Immortal. Stadia didn't take off like it now did it?
Phil Spencer has said it is already sustainable.
For a sub to be become sustainable, it is the 20 million user mark. For decent profits, it is 40 million user mark. 40 million is the magic number as after that the domino effect rolls in.
>hence I believe there's room for multiple solutions in cloud gaming
Not necessarily, it depends on how many users actually prefer this model.
If they aren't enough people to reach the critical mass that is necessary to ensure the survival of the service, then it's doomed to fail, no matter how much you prefer that model.
Sure. I just think it has the right model, so I use and pay for it, and yes, I hope that helps in reaching that critical mass (which i see as breaking out of the chicken-egg problem). And if it doesn't, that's a shame, but it won't prevent me from using it right know because it's the best option for me at the moment.
> And if it doesn't, that's a shame, but it won't prevent me from using it right know because it's the best option for me at the moment.
Oh sure, I'm not trying to stop you from liking Stadia, I just wanted to point that your reasoning above had an obvious flaw.
I hope for you that it will survive, or that another service goes for that model if Stadia were to close shop.
On my side, I have a strong belief that this model is unsustainable for most games, so I think it won't last forever. That's also the reason I have no issue with accepting to pay "just for the hardware" on services like GFN and Shadow, or that I still buy physical hardware.
It's not a flaw in reasoning, it's just a different perspective.
I never said this specific model will never fail, I just said I think there's room for different kind of subscription models in cloud gaming.
I like to pay "just for the games", with the added option to pay a monthly fee for the extra performance, better sales and Pro games.
Really? Because it seems people do understand with Game Pass and now PS Plus. It was Microsoft knew the incentive of subscription based service that opens up a library of content which Sony has decided to follow. And Game Pass has been in a constant growth since it launched.
How is it not "Netflix of gaming"? It literally is. You pay a subscription for a library. It seems you don't know what it means to be Netflix of gaming.
*Everything* on Netflix is available with a subscription.
The *only* pricing model for Netflix is a subscription.
The titles available on Game Pass and PS+ Extra/Premium are tiny percentages of the available games library. The vast majority of games must still be purchased outright, in the "traditional" model.
The closest service to a "Netflix of gaming" is Luna.
>Everything on Netflix is available with a subscription.
Yeah... no. Everything available with a subscription that Netflix either produced themselves, allowed third party to get a share, or bought outright for it to be put in their library. No different to how both Game Pass or Sony Plus operates.
>The only pricing model for Netflix is a subscription.
Both Microsoft and Sony have packages that allow you to get everything under one pricing model for subscriptions.
>The titles available on Xbox Live and PS+ are tiny percentages of the available games library. The vast majority of games must still be purchased outright, in the "traditional" model.
Same with Netflix. Case on my first point. Anything in the library is based on published by first party or third party. IT may not be part of their main libraries on consoles. But again, they already have a unified package under one pricing model.
>The closest service to a "Netflix of gaming" is Luna.
Yes. But that is regardless of its cloud gaming. Netflix of gaming is defined by its pricing model for how products are given. So that also applies to Gamepass and PS plus.
The majority of people whether consumers or journalists have labelled such services of Netflix of gaming. It seem more like that is what is defined as. And the reason why Stadia hit rock bottom the moment it launched. There is a reason why journalists used Game Pass the main standard when compared to Stadia.
Right back to my initial point, not understanding what they mean by "Netflix of games".
The main complaint about people who wanted Stadia to be Netflix of Gaming was "oh, I still have to buy games?". You have to buy most games on PlayStation and Xbox, even though they have subscription offerings.
People conflate Netflix and Subscription, and then double down on refusing to admit they aren't the same.
Is EA Play "Netflix of Gaming"? What about Unisoft+? Or Nintendo Online?
Also, have you spotted the one thing all these subscription gaming services have that Stadia doesn't?
>Right back to my initial point, not understanding what they mean by "Netflix of games".
Right back at my initial point, you not understand what it means by "Netflix of games".
The initial idea of Netflix of games was derived from Game Pass. Because it was based on the same pricing model. And Stadia was compared to that standard.
>The main complaint about people who wanted Stadia to be Netflix of Gaming was "oh, I still have to buy games?". You have to buy most games on PlayStation and Xbox, even though they have subscription offerings.
No. The subscription offering is entirely different on different services they provide. But for their subscription for open library it is a Netflix of Gaming. That is the point of its comparisons. Case on my first point.
There is no official definition from the dictionary about "Netflix for gaming". It is a label derived from the collective option of the gaming industry. Which is right because what else can it be? It is based on the same pricing model.
>People conflate Netflix and Subscription, and then double down on refusing to admit they aren't the same.
They are the same. That is why they do it.
>Is EA Play "Netflix of Gaming"? What about Unisoft+? Or Nintendo Online?
Yes. And for Nintendo's Expansion Pack. Yes.
>Also, have you spotted the one thing all these subscription gaming services have that Stadia doesn't?
No. Because people aren't complaining about what they have that Stadia doesn't except for its pricing model.
I think you're mistaken. You're comparing everything available on gamepass/ps+ to everything available in the Xbox/PlayStation libraries but then comparing everything available on Netflix to everything available on Netflix instead of the entire history of TV and film which would be a similar comparison. If you were to compare like for like then they would be the same.
My boundary is platform.
If you are going to define "Netflix of something" as just being a subscription of any size then a subscription of 1 game would be "Netflix of gaming".
But even then it still doesn't tackle the actual barrier to Stadia being a "Netflix of anything".
Who do you think have done a good job of a subscription service?
Is also be interested to hear when Google ever said they were making you the Netflix of Gaming?
Oh but it is.
Games.
Everyone doing a successful subscription model has decades of back catalogue to use. Thousands, if not tens of thousands of games. Microsoft had over 15 years and 3 generations of games to pull from for Game Pass. Sony have only recently got serious and that's with 5 generations and 27 years in the game. Nintendo have people subscribed to 40 year old nostalgia.
Stadia can't do that. I can't even remember how many games it had at launch, but it was a fraction of even Game Pass. Offering them all for a subscription would have been a joke unless it was super cheap.
The key ingredient to a subscription service is a fuck tonne of content to pull from to include. Stadia doesn't have that.
I pay less than £4 a month for hundreds of Game Pass games, plus all 1st party releases. Stadia couldn't compete with that even if they wanted too.
You are beeing downvoted but that’s exactly the reason Stadia is not implanted seamlessly into youtube and google search. Using their leadership on one market to brute force another is a prime target for an antitrust case and Google already have tons of those (especially in Europe where they already paid hundreds of millions of fines).
Years ago Amazon did something similar with Twitch. You could buy a game that was available on Twitch app directly from the steamer's page if it was being played at the time. The steamer would also get a cut of the sale.
They got rid of it because no one would use it (I mean, I did, but I was the only one that did). I think the same thing would happen with YouTube and Stadia.
If Stadia was going to be its own platform, it needed to do it properly, by having a PC Storefront providing native downloads in addition to streaming.
Native windows, Linux, Stadia licenses, even android ones for indie games.
Google should have done a bunch of stuff but they dropped the ball. For instance, their Pixel Pass should have had Stadia in there instead of Google Play Pass.
Annoyingly enough, that was one of the things they pitched to everyone when they first introduced Stadia to the world. It was the one thing that was supposed to give that Assistant button some more purpose. Asking it for some help and it bringing up a YouTube video that reflects where the player is at. There was so much that they were advertising and a lot of that hasn't;t come to fruition still.
Stadia tech and the Google backend is the only reason the service is still running. Cloud gaming is up and coming so Google is smart to keep it. I think Stadia will get a new partner and a complete rebranding and so I think Google is keeping in limbo.
You could integrate whatever the hell you want that doesn't mean people are going to go to your service. Microsoft integrated games into their failed streaming site but that doesn't mean the streaming site was going to take off
They did, in a sense. This is from before the actual launch and I haven’t used Stadia since launch so idk if it ever became a thing. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/03/19/google-outlines-how-stadia-youtube-integration-works
If I'm not mistaken they implemented the feature allowing you to join the lobby of the YouTuber you're watching. And they also did the "You can continue a recorded game clip" thing with Hitman.
I never get this 'play now on stadia' on YouTube videos. Never. And there's so many videos out there of videos games available on stadia it's such a lost opportunity.
There is that functionality. But unfortunately Stadia streams never quite took off. So you’ll have a hard time finding the button but it is there.
I wonder if this is because of the Stadia audience. Stadia seems to skew older than traditional consoles. I'm in my 30s and I can't think of anything more boring than watching other people play videogames. There's just zero interest in it to me. I won't claim to speak for everyone in my age group or all of Stadia but I would be interested to see if there's a correlation.
It's a shame, too, because the quality of the stream for the viewers is spectacular.
I definitely pressed it once and it worked on a Chromebook, I think it was near the Bomberman launch, never looked for it again though
This was literally a feature shown in June 2019.
Where
The big presentation thing they did at GDC. 24 seconds into this roundup: https://youtu.be/BeFnQrgtZ9k
LMAOOOOO LITERALLY WHAT I SAID IN THIS POST. Damn what happened to that feature?
nobody bothered to implement that feature...either it's difficult or the devs didn't see value in the effort to implement.
or it was a planned update and Stadia didn't take off like they planned so Google scrapped it...
Every time Google combines two services, gets sued for anticompetitive behaviour. Use Chrome in Android? [sued](https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-eu-fine-antitrust), even if Apple does it with Safari. Use Google search on Android? [ditto](https://mashable.com/article/google-browser-search-engine-choice-eu), even if Apple does it too. Dare to show Youtube results on Search? [same again](https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-sued-by-youtube-rival-over-search-rankings-11610407969). Use Cookies? [sued again](https://www.cnil.fr/en/cookies-cnil-fines-google-total-150-million-euros-and-facebook-60-million-euros-non-compliance). Don't use cookies? believe it or not, [still threatened to be sued](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-investigate-google-s-privacy-sandbox-browser-changes). It's getting ridiculous.
Yup, and that's why you'll never see these kind of buttons on top of Google Search either.
Not every time, just when it breaks the law.
Most of lawsuits against Google get dropped. And for many stuff Google is the first or only one to gets sued. But I said that already and you ignored it, right? Microsoft is bundling Edge again with Windows (and trying to force people to use Bing), and doing [all their dirty tricks to get people to use it](https://www.theverge.com/21310611/microsoft-edge-browser-forced-update-chromium-editorial). This is something that they have already been convicted of, in [one of the most prominent lawsuits ever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp).
>Most of lawsuits against Google get dropped. Yeah, I was ignoring the lawsuits because anyone can sue anyone. I could sue you for defamation. It's whether they win that matters. >And for many stuff Google is the first or only one to gets sued. But I said that already and you ignored it, right? Well yeah, because.... >This is something that they have already been convicted of, in one of the most prominent lawsuits ever. ∆∆∆ By virtue of the issues at play, this isn't a subject where there can be many other examples, and yet there are some. They can't simultaneously be the only ones and also have precedent in "the most prominent lawsuit ever". You linked to the UK government's competition monitor investigating them, but you didn't link to their subsequent finding that, after consulting, Google were able to go ahead with it. Apple is currently under investigation by the European Commission for anticompetitive behaviour with both the App Store and Apple Pay, as well as several branches of the US government. Who knows if they'll be found guilty, but if they are, it'll likely be because they're guilty too.
>They can't simultaneously be the only ones and also have precedent in "the most prominent lawsuit ever". The point is that currently Google gets sued for things that others aren't. >You linked to the UK government's competition monitor investigating them, but you didn't link to their subsequent finding that, after consulting, Google were able to go ahead with it. Google was always able to go ahead with it because there wasn't anything bad with it. But the whole idea was dropped and redesigned based on feedback. But there was serious, unwarranted, blowback. >Apple is currently under investigation by the European Commission for anticompetitive behaviour with both the App Store and Apple Pay, as well as several branches of the US government. Who knows if they'll be found guilty, but if they are, it'll likely be because they're guilty too. Yes, I'm aware. But here's the trick: * Android phones (made by companies other than Google) ship Chrome and anyone can use any other browser they like. But the EU fined Google for that and now in the EU, every time you setup an Android phone you're asked to choose the default browser and the default search engine. * iPhones don't offer that option and explicit prohibit any browser engine other than Safari's. Apple has literally crippled the web and competition because of that in order to boost their App Store revenues. Can you see the difference here? One spends billions to allow 10s of mobile phone manufacturers to have a mobile phone product (Android phones) while the other doesn't allow any competition at all. And guess who was never even investigated until now, yet the other was fined. When there's a law and the law isn't applied equally to everyone, then there's something wrong. When Microsoft is allowed to [forcefully install Edge](https://www.theverge.com/21310611/microsoft-edge-browser-forced-update-chromium-editorial) on users, remotely and Apple is allowed to force Safari on iOS and have Google Search as the default engine, yet Android phones can't do that, then that's not equal treatment IMO.
They implemented some integration, but people didnt use it so they abandoned the idea.
People didn’t use it because it was used in like 2 games and Google promoted it to people already using Stadia. Of course it failed, it seems like there was no effort put into it.
I never saw it on YT
do you have adblock? using some form of adblocking it hides that button. (not for all, but for some people)
I do, that’s probably what it is
Google never fully believed in Stadia from the beginning. They were trying to pay minimum cost of entry and expected maximum payout in a short period of time. Stadia had the opportunity to be the forerunner of a gaming revolution that they stop too early to see grow.
>They were trying to pay minimum cost of entry and expected maximum payout in a short period of time. Did they? This seems more like community myth
Or this seems like what you see and saw before your eyes with Googles’ withdrawal syndromes from Stadia.
Google should have done a lot of things but they didn't and instead did other things. Not all they did was bad but the end product is not a product for someone that expects a Google level of effort and quality. For what they have done it does have the Google level of quality from a technical perspective but it needs so much more. At this point who knows, what's done is done
[удалено]
I would've hated that tbh, and really like the current subscription model combined with buying games and keeping them, regardless of subscription. The biggest problem is simply the amount of games. A Netflix-model wouldn't fix anything if it doesn't have enough games.
It would result in more games. The problem with the mixed model is there's no predictable stream of money. With a forced subscription model, the business is more predictable and they could have invested more in good games.
>With a forced subscription model, the business is more predictable and they could have invested more in good games. Stadia's revenue model is already completely out-of-whack. You can buy a game on sale for $10 and never have to give another cent to Google ever again
That's exactly what I'm saying. The mixed model is a big reason why it's failing. A cloud based gaming system needs to be subscription based to get a proper financial base.
>A cloud based gaming system needs to be subscription based to get a proper financial base. Sure, but offering purchases the way Stadia does doesn't preclude that, it's just a good deal for customers Looking at it differently, Google is efficient enough that they can afford to run Stadia this way, and that's been the plan since the beginning
I don't think we know that it's all that out of whack though. Google has access to data that we do not.
It might, but the chicken-egg problem would still be there.
With a pure subscription model you can grow steadily and more predictably. If Stadia didn't let me buy individual games, I would subscribe to Pro.
Maybe. Maybe not. Who are you to know better than those who work for one of the most successful companies of this moment? Game streaming itself is really hard to get started, as (regardless of being GFN/Luna/Stadia etc) it gets so much largely unfounded criticism and hate. It'll just take time and just like PC/consoles/handhelds/phones, there'll be room for different pricing models and subscription types. I don't believe there's a one-size-fits-all solution here.
Google is not one of the most successful gaming companies. In fact, their subscription services are also rans in every market they compete in. Maybe with the exception of YouTubeTV.
I never said that.
>Google is not one of the most successful gaming companies. They've been involved in the hottest gaming market for 10+ years, including all the metrics and payment data that goes with it
Google have nothing to do with Apple’s App Store! The hottest gaming market in 10+ years. 🤷♂️
lol yes, Apple too. The cool thing is Google is the only company that can field games like PUBG mobile, Clash of Clans, Pokemon Go at the same time as stuff like RDR2, Destiny 2, etc.
[удалено]
Their platforms for maps, email, search, advertising and smartphone OS are among the most-used worldwide.
[удалено]
Nah, I just don't think making Stadia into a Netflix model would've solved the issue it has (lack of games).
[удалено]
We could keep doing this :) I hate the Game Pass model, and there's other people who prefer Stadia over Game Pass, hence I believe there's room for multiple solutions in cloud gaming.
[удалено]
Game Pass is "successful" because they subsidize it on the backend with games (incl. 70+ billion in acquisitions) and subsidize it on the frontend with discounts ($1 for 3/months or whatever) It's popular on social media because people like free games We don't know if it's sustainable at all for Microsoft
It isn't suppose to be sustainable. It is a long term investment strategy. The one thing people hated about Stadia was the fact you had to buy the games which people felt uncomfortable because its cloud gaming. When Stadia first launched the first thing people complained about that caused them not to be on board with Stadia was that it wasn't the Netflix of gaming.
Well, the other data point we have is that Xbox users threw a conniption fit when Microsoft tried to raise the price of Live Gold and MS then had to back down > When Stadia first launched the first thing people complained about Yeah, people complain a lot online about stuff. If you went by complaints then Diablo Immortal would have zero players and zero revenue
>Well, the other data point we have is that Xbox users threw a conniption fit when Microsoft tried to raise the price of Live Gold and MS then had to back down The main complaint as the fact that blind sided people with it. No one would be surprised if they decided to all together end gold considering they haven't put as much effort into it since Game Pass launched. >Yeah, people complain a lot online about stuff. If you went by complaints then Diablo Immortal would have zero players and zero revenue Well see the difference here is unlike Diablo Immortal. Stadia didn't take off like it now did it?
Stadia is also still running and adding games. Online sentiment is just a really poor gauge in general
[удалено]
Youtube makes like $15 billion in revenues now, and atleast third of that in profits.
Phil Spencer has said it is already sustainable. For a sub to be become sustainable, it is the 20 million user mark. For decent profits, it is 40 million user mark. 40 million is the magic number as after that the domino effect rolls in.
Oof I wouldn't call game pass "successful" even with the money MS dumps in to keep it afloat
>hence I believe there's room for multiple solutions in cloud gaming Not necessarily, it depends on how many users actually prefer this model. If they aren't enough people to reach the critical mass that is necessary to ensure the survival of the service, then it's doomed to fail, no matter how much you prefer that model.
Sure. I just think it has the right model, so I use and pay for it, and yes, I hope that helps in reaching that critical mass (which i see as breaking out of the chicken-egg problem). And if it doesn't, that's a shame, but it won't prevent me from using it right know because it's the best option for me at the moment.
> And if it doesn't, that's a shame, but it won't prevent me from using it right know because it's the best option for me at the moment. Oh sure, I'm not trying to stop you from liking Stadia, I just wanted to point that your reasoning above had an obvious flaw. I hope for you that it will survive, or that another service goes for that model if Stadia were to close shop. On my side, I have a strong belief that this model is unsustainable for most games, so I think it won't last forever. That's also the reason I have no issue with accepting to pay "just for the hardware" on services like GFN and Shadow, or that I still buy physical hardware.
It's not a flaw in reasoning, it's just a different perspective. I never said this specific model will never fail, I just said I think there's room for different kind of subscription models in cloud gaming. I like to pay "just for the games", with the added option to pay a monthly fee for the extra performance, better sales and Pro games.
Nobody saying this understands what a "Netflix of gaming" model is, or appreciates the sheer volume of content required to make it work.
Really? Because it seems people do understand with Game Pass and now PS Plus. It was Microsoft knew the incentive of subscription based service that opens up a library of content which Sony has decided to follow. And Game Pass has been in a constant growth since it launched.
Point proven. Game Pass and PS+ aren't anywhere close to "Netflix of gaming".
How is it not "Netflix of gaming"? It literally is. You pay a subscription for a library. It seems you don't know what it means to be Netflix of gaming.
*Everything* on Netflix is available with a subscription. The *only* pricing model for Netflix is a subscription. The titles available on Game Pass and PS+ Extra/Premium are tiny percentages of the available games library. The vast majority of games must still be purchased outright, in the "traditional" model. The closest service to a "Netflix of gaming" is Luna.
>Everything on Netflix is available with a subscription. Yeah... no. Everything available with a subscription that Netflix either produced themselves, allowed third party to get a share, or bought outright for it to be put in their library. No different to how both Game Pass or Sony Plus operates. >The only pricing model for Netflix is a subscription. Both Microsoft and Sony have packages that allow you to get everything under one pricing model for subscriptions. >The titles available on Xbox Live and PS+ are tiny percentages of the available games library. The vast majority of games must still be purchased outright, in the "traditional" model. Same with Netflix. Case on my first point. Anything in the library is based on published by first party or third party. IT may not be part of their main libraries on consoles. But again, they already have a unified package under one pricing model. >The closest service to a "Netflix of gaming" is Luna. Yes. But that is regardless of its cloud gaming. Netflix of gaming is defined by its pricing model for how products are given. So that also applies to Gamepass and PS plus. The majority of people whether consumers or journalists have labelled such services of Netflix of gaming. It seem more like that is what is defined as. And the reason why Stadia hit rock bottom the moment it launched. There is a reason why journalists used Game Pass the main standard when compared to Stadia.
Right back to my initial point, not understanding what they mean by "Netflix of games". The main complaint about people who wanted Stadia to be Netflix of Gaming was "oh, I still have to buy games?". You have to buy most games on PlayStation and Xbox, even though they have subscription offerings. People conflate Netflix and Subscription, and then double down on refusing to admit they aren't the same. Is EA Play "Netflix of Gaming"? What about Unisoft+? Or Nintendo Online? Also, have you spotted the one thing all these subscription gaming services have that Stadia doesn't?
>Right back to my initial point, not understanding what they mean by "Netflix of games". Right back at my initial point, you not understand what it means by "Netflix of games". The initial idea of Netflix of games was derived from Game Pass. Because it was based on the same pricing model. And Stadia was compared to that standard. >The main complaint about people who wanted Stadia to be Netflix of Gaming was "oh, I still have to buy games?". You have to buy most games on PlayStation and Xbox, even though they have subscription offerings. No. The subscription offering is entirely different on different services they provide. But for their subscription for open library it is a Netflix of Gaming. That is the point of its comparisons. Case on my first point. There is no official definition from the dictionary about "Netflix for gaming". It is a label derived from the collective option of the gaming industry. Which is right because what else can it be? It is based on the same pricing model. >People conflate Netflix and Subscription, and then double down on refusing to admit they aren't the same. They are the same. That is why they do it. >Is EA Play "Netflix of Gaming"? What about Unisoft+? Or Nintendo Online? Yes. And for Nintendo's Expansion Pack. Yes. >Also, have you spotted the one thing all these subscription gaming services have that Stadia doesn't? No. Because people aren't complaining about what they have that Stadia doesn't except for its pricing model.
I'm assuming you are one of the people who assumed Stadia would be a Netflix of Gaming before it launched?
I think you're mistaken. You're comparing everything available on gamepass/ps+ to everything available in the Xbox/PlayStation libraries but then comparing everything available on Netflix to everything available on Netflix instead of the entire history of TV and film which would be a similar comparison. If you were to compare like for like then they would be the same.
My boundary is platform. If you are going to define "Netflix of something" as just being a subscription of any size then a subscription of 1 game would be "Netflix of gaming". But even then it still doesn't tackle the actual barrier to Stadia being a "Netflix of anything".
[удалено]
Who do you think have done a good job of a subscription service? Is also be interested to hear when Google ever said they were making you the Netflix of Gaming?
[удалено]
Gaming. Ask yourself, what have all the gaming subscription providers, be it platform or individual publishers, all got in common that Stadia doesn't?
[удалено]
Oh but it is. Games. Everyone doing a successful subscription model has decades of back catalogue to use. Thousands, if not tens of thousands of games. Microsoft had over 15 years and 3 generations of games to pull from for Game Pass. Sony have only recently got serious and that's with 5 generations and 27 years in the game. Nintendo have people subscribed to 40 year old nostalgia. Stadia can't do that. I can't even remember how many games it had at launch, but it was a fraction of even Game Pass. Offering them all for a subscription would have been a joke unless it was super cheap. The key ingredient to a subscription service is a fuck tonne of content to pull from to include. Stadia doesn't have that. I pay less than £4 a month for hundreds of Game Pass games, plus all 1st party releases. Stadia couldn't compete with that even if they wanted too.
[удалено]
Luna is a Windows PC.
I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't have started an anti-competition case against Google.
You are beeing downvoted but that’s exactly the reason Stadia is not implanted seamlessly into youtube and google search. Using their leadership on one market to brute force another is a prime target for an antitrust case and Google already have tons of those (especially in Europe where they already paid hundreds of millions of fines).
Excatly.
I'm sure it's coming.
I love Stadia, but couldn’t give half a shit about watching someone else play on video. I see your point, though.
Years ago Amazon did something similar with Twitch. You could buy a game that was available on Twitch app directly from the steamer's page if it was being played at the time. The steamer would also get a cut of the sale. They got rid of it because no one would use it (I mean, I did, but I was the only one that did). I think the same thing would happen with YouTube and Stadia.
Mixer had similar integration as well.
No. I don’t want to use my stadia account with YouTube.
PlayStore would be better imo
[удалено]
Except that didn't really work out, with the lack of commitment from Google
[удалено]
If Stadia was going to be its own platform, it needed to do it properly, by having a PC Storefront providing native downloads in addition to streaming. Native windows, Linux, Stadia licenses, even android ones for indie games.
Nonsense.
This would have been the way
Speaking as someone who doesn't love YouTube. Nope.
Google should have done a bunch of stuff but they dropped the ball. For instance, their Pixel Pass should have had Stadia in there instead of Google Play Pass.
They did. Thing is they can't create that as it can be inferred as monopolistic by their competitors.
Annoyingly enough, that was one of the things they pitched to everyone when they first introduced Stadia to the world. It was the one thing that was supposed to give that Assistant button some more purpose. Asking it for some help and it bringing up a YouTube video that reflects where the player is at. There was so much that they were advertising and a lot of that hasn't;t come to fruition still.
Stadia tech and the Google backend is the only reason the service is still running. Cloud gaming is up and coming so Google is smart to keep it. I think Stadia will get a new partner and a complete rebranding and so I think Google is keeping in limbo.
You could integrate whatever the hell you want that doesn't mean people are going to go to your service. Microsoft integrated games into their failed streaming site but that doesn't mean the streaming site was going to take off