Stadia's death spiral, according to the Google employee in charge of mopping up after its murder
Stadia's death spiral, according to the Google employee in charge of mopping up after its murder
We all think we know why Stadia died. Here's Google's official take.
A statement from a Google employee, Dov Zimring, has been released as a part of the FTC vs Microsoft court case (via 9to5Google). Only minorly redacted, the statement gives us a run down of Google's position leading up to Stadia's closure and why, ultimately, Stadia was in a death spiral long before its actual demise.
"For Stadia to succeed, both consumers and publishers needed to find sufficient value in the Stadia platform. Stadia conducted user experience research on the reasons why gamers choose one platform over another. That research showed that the primary reasons why gamers choose a game platform are (1) content catalog (breadth and depth) and (2) network effects (where their friends play).
...
"However, Stadia never had access to the extensive library of games available on Xbox, PlayStation, and Steam. More importantly, these competing services offered a wider selection of AAA games than Stadia," Zimring says.
According to the statement, Google would also offer to pay some, or all, of the costs associated with porting a game to Stadia's Linux-based streaming platform to try and get more games on the platform. Still, in Google's eyes, this wasn't enough to compete with easier platforms to develop for, such as Nvidia's GeForce Now.
You're viewing a single thread.
The worst thing about Stadia was the squandered opportunities. Had Google actually put some effort into marketing it, it could have really succeeded. The tech behind it worked amazingly well. I played Destiny 2 on it from launch to the service's shutdown, and it was a fantastic experience. The latency was nowhere near as bad as people (who often never even tried the platform) would claim, and it was also the best place to play Cyberpunk 2077 at launch, as it was somehow the most stable version of the game. Streaming to YouTube worked very well, and some of the integrated features with YouTube (where viewers could interact with certain games) were also kinda groundbreaking.
But somehow, Google couldn't be bothered to advertise the product at all. They ran 1 Super Bowl commercial which didn't make a whole lot of sense to the average viewer, and then basically zero marketing after that. They refused to inform the public about what the product is or how it worked or what stood it apart from its competition, which led to bad-faith reviews and rumors being spread about the platform, ultimately leading to most people who knew about Stadia being wildly misinformed on it.
It's such a shame. I absolutely loved Stadia. It fit my needs perfectly. None of the other streaming platforms I've tried have even come close, even today.
I would have tried it if I could trust Google to maintain a commitment to something for longer than a couple years (at best).
It was doomed from the start for that very reason. Why would people spend $60 on games if they didn't think they would be able to play them in a year?
Because the TOS stated, from the platform's launch, that they'd refund all your purchases in the event of a service shutdown. Which they did.
Stadia ended up being a savings account for my PS5, which I bought with my Stadia refunds.
what about people's save files though?
I pulled them all from Google Takeout. Most of them are unusable unless I figure out how to convert them to a state that can be read by other platforms, but at least I still have them, for such a day.
Oh those are lost to time lol
Nope, you could still same them via Google Takeout.
After committing to several Google services only to have them shut down I wasn't willing to risk it again.
Did they refund the subscription fee? If I knew they'd refund it all, I might not have cancelled my pro preorder.
I was willing to potentially be let down again but once I heard you had to buy almost all your own games (again, if you already own them) to play them on the service I cancelled. I was aware that they'd give you Destiny (a game I have zero interest in, especially with a controller) for free. I didn't seem worth sinking money into the service.
The subscription fee was for a gamepass-like access to a catalog of free games, so they didn't refund that. The subscription fee also wasn't required for playing purchased games (although it was required for 4K quality).
especially with a controller
I mostly used keyboard and mouse with the service, since the games I like to play tend to work better with keyboard and mouse. I had a dinky underpowered laptop but was playing AAA PC-oriented games through the browser interface. It was great.
I'm on GeForce Now these days but I find that it doesn't work quite as seamlessly as Stadia did.
It was not advertised as a game-pass like catalog when I was cancelling my preorder. I literally cancelled because it wasn't that. It was Destiny and 4k 60Hz with TBD games coming in later months.
I only had a gaming computer and a Shield TV so Stadia would have been pointless for me unless it was in the living room with a controller and some interesting games.
I was intrigued but I didn't want to invest in it because of Google's history of killing great products.
They have some great tools for their cloud platform but at this point, I wouldn't go all in on any new product of theirs.
I always loved the "hardware running 24/7" e-waste part of it
I owned a ps4 that I must have played 60 hours on for spiderman and horizon and now it's never going to be used anymore
Would've loved a streaming platform that doesn't cost a whole console in a year in subscription fees + makes you pay for the games
Would’ve loved a streaming platform that doesn’t cost a whole console in a year in subscription fees + makes you pay for the games
Stadia's subscription service wouldn't have cost more than a console for several years. It was only $10/month, and also not required to play the games or use multiplayer.
It would've taken over 4 years for Stadia Pro's subscription costs to reach the price of a PS5, not even including a PS+ subscription. And during that time, you'd have been able to claim ~150 free games. Realistically, Stadia had the potential to be more economic than buying a console.
I wouldnt call a PS4 e-waste, if the PS2 is anything to go by it will end up cycling about for a long time in some shape or form. Seriously PS2 parts are a solid mix of old new stock, newly manufactured parts, or spares taken from scrapped dead consoles.
PS2 was before the days of internet-based games.
Now a lot of games expect an Internet connection and a store to download things from. When those are gone, the PS4 will be scrap.
Eh, I will still be able to play the base game of say far cry 4 or assassins creed black flag. I have the disks, and even then you could always buy the versions that have all the dlc. Nobody talks about the fable 1 dlc but they existed.
Unless its a multiplayer focused game there will always be games to play on it, even if ya dont get the DLC.
Even for ps2 I don't know what percentage of it ends up seeing some regular use
It's a narrow long tail
Regular use is irrelevant so long as it doesnt end up in a land fill, what matters is that they get some continued use and survive in solid enough numbers.
But you don't need PS+ for Spider-Man and Horizon? And you could buy and sell the console + games after playing the two games you wanted to play on the platform.
It's not as convenient as just streaming the games, but it is possible.
I don't know what ps+ is so I'd say no
Maybe for multiplayer
But somehow, Google couldn't be bothered to advertise the product at all. They ran 1 Super Bowl commercial which didn't make a whole lot of sense to the average viewer, and then basically zero marketing after that.
Google is really bad at marketing despite being an advertising company. Most of the products they've launched then shut down I just never heard of, despite finding the ideas behind them really enticing after the fact.
Google is really bad at marketing despite being an advertising company.
They're an ad server, not an ad producer. They don't make ads of their own, they distribute other's ads.
Small distinction, but helps to explain why Google is terrible at marketing their products.
The tech behind it worked amazingly well.
In my experience it was pretty shit. While visiting family in Minnesota, I got a better experience using Steam remote play to my desktop in Seattle than I did using Stadia, both in terms of latency and visual quality. I’m sure it would have been better living in California or New York, where you’re closer to a datacenter. But Doom Eternal was just unplayable for me.
Google couldn't be bothered to advertise the product at all. Except, apparently, to me specifically. I must have seen the same handful of Stadia advertisements literally 100+ times while watching YouTube. I got very sick of it after a certain point.
I got one, was super disappointed with the functionality and didn't like it at all. Returned it in less than a week. I got it after it'd already been steeply discounted and was so glad I hated it and got a refund when they killed it....
Despite Google being heavily invested in the advertising space, they have always been terrible at advertising their own products. It almost seems like the top brass don't actually care about their non-search products at all.
Yeah a product like that needs a Big Personality to be a sort of spokesperson for it. To go around and do the press circuit, and be the face of the product. Get memed, etc.
My guess is it was just a bunch of well meaning nerds behind this one, and no one wanted to actually go out there and bat for it.