Stadia closing down

[factotum]

In possibly the least surprising news since being told the sun would rise tomorrow morning, Google is closing their streaming gaming service Stadia:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63082320

Why is this not surprising? Well, two main reasons:

1) The tech world is littered with the corpses of failed gaming streaming services. See: OnLive, Mixer etc.
2) It's also littered with the corpses of products Google tried out and then decided didn't work. See: Google Glass, Google+, etc.

[Rynjin]

Damn everyone pour out one for the homie

What was his name again?

[Cygnia]

They had a gaming service?

[Ortho]

Didn't Google stop producing first-party content for the Stadia a few years ago? How well has relying solely on 3rd-party content ever worked?

We all saw this coming. I'm honestly surprised it lasted as long as it did.

[Zevox]

I'm only surprised it took this long. And I shed no tears for it, or any other game streaming service.

Didn't Google stop producing first-party content for the Stadia a few years ago? I think we all saw this coming. I'm honestly surprised it lasted as long as it did.

Pretty sure they never produced any first-party content for it. They said they intended to at first, but as far as I'm aware no specific games were ever even announced, much less released.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

The only reason I knew Stadia existed was because ESO integrated with it.

[Imbalance]

I'm not quite disappointed in myself to admit that I'm pleased about Google's failure, given the incessant YouTube ads for that one game that might have actually looked cool if the marketing campaign hadn't been so up in my grill about it. Screw that game, screw Stadia and Google, and screw Liberty Mutual Insurance for the same reason, while I'm at it.

[Blackhawk748]

I'm not quite disappointed in myself to admit that I'm pleased about Google's failure, given the incessant YouTube ads for that one game that might have actually looked cool if the marketing campaign hadn't been so up in my grill about it. Screw that game, screw Stadia and Google, and screw Liberty Mutual Insurance for the same reason, while I'm at it.

I'll give LMI this, while Im sick of seeing their ads, their ads are at least more amusing than literally anything Google has ever made.

[Razgriez]

Insert JClarksonOhNoAnyway image here

Not the.... uh... wait, this was still around? I thought it was already gone? Ah, so that's the news story. Got it.

Anyway, I saw elsewhere someone put it that basically, this was everything people didn't like about streamed game services/live service. You had to buy the console/subscription, then you had to buy the game separately as well from what I understand. You could argue that that's true with Xbox Live/PSN, and admittedly its been years since I really payed attention to gaming consoles, does Nintendo require a subscription for online play? But they at least offer some good games free/discounted with the subscription, and because ultimately the game is stored console side, you weren't as much at the mercy of your internet service beyond the usual issues when playing online multiplayer.

And of course, the quickest way to destroy your streaming service reputation, is to essentially abandon it immediately after its launch. Nothing like reminding every potential customer that you'll shutdown your service due at first bad sales result you receive, and have those customers lose access to their purchases.

[Zevox]

Anyway, I saw elsewhere someone put it that basically, this was everything people didn't like about streamed game services/live service. You had to buy the console/subscription, then you had to buy the game separately as well from what I understand. You could argue that that's true with Xbox Live/PSN, and admittedly its been years since I really payed attention to gaming consoles, does Nintendo require a subscription for online play? But they at least offer some good games free/discounted with the subscription, and because ultimately the game is stored console side, you weren't as much at the mercy of your internet service beyond the usual issues when playing online multiplayer.

Nintendo does have paid online, yes. But console online play is a completely separate thing from streaming games - it's an optional gate to online multiplayer, nothing more. You don't need it to play games single-player, local multiplayer, or to play free-to-play online multiplayer games.

The problem with game streaming, to my mind, is simply inherent to the concept: in order to do it, you will need pretty darn good internet, and even if you have that, it will introduce some amount of extra latency/lag into the game that wouldn't be there if you were just playing it normally. This makes it a pretty bad idea for anything other than turn-based games, where such things matter little, and an especially bad one for any online multiplayer in non-turn-based games. And in exchange, it offers the lack of need to buy a console/good PC to play the games - the things that most anyone who cares about playing them probably already has, and almost certainly anyone with good enough internet to make streaming games function acceptably can afford just fine.

On top of that, by its nature it means you no longer own the games you're paying for, either in physical or digital form, and they will become completely unavailable if the service ever closes its doors. That alone would keep me away, personally. The best such a thing could hope for is to get me to temporarily subscribe to play a particular game they had exclusively that was just too enticing to pass up, and Stadia never came anywhere close to that.

[Psyren]

Stadia's problem wasn't that game streaming as a concept is bad. There are plenty of solid examples that use game streaming technology, from Game Pass and PS Plus to GeForce Now.

Rather, Stadia's problem was that Google didn't invest in getting good licenses for the games on their platform, so most big titles required you to pay full price for each game ON TOP of the sub fee - and that's when they were even available at all. In other words, Stadia's library and price point were both abysmal.

This problem was then compounded by their utter failure to market and promote the platform or its (few) selling points.

[warty goblin]

Rather, Stadia's problem was that Google didn't invest in getting good licenses for the games on their platform, so most big titles required you to pay full price for each game ON TOP of the sub fee - and that's when they were even available at all. In other words, Stadia's library and price point were both abysmal.

Everybody wants to be the Netflix of video games. The problem is that Netflix could become the Netflix of movies because when it started streaming licenses were dirt cheap and nobody was playing in the space because people weren't really sure it was a super profitable idea.

Games have been easily accessible digitally for years now, and everybody knows that IF somebody pulls it off they've probably got a huge market on hand. So you can't just go snatch up the license to, like, 10 years of XBox games for corporate pocket change. So the only people who really have the ability to pull this off are probably console manufacturers, simply because if you aren't Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a big enough library to make subscription streaming worth it. The big publishers like Ubisoft, EA or (pre-buyout) Activision-Blizzard might have had a shot, but they've been so relentlessly exploiting the same annualized franchises for the last decade or so that they don't have much of a relevant back catalogue either; the thing about big franchises with a new release every year or two is that most people care about this year's and maybe one previous. Buying those for $60 is a lot better deal than paying $15/month to stream the thing.

[Rynjin]

Stadia's problem wasn't that game streaming as a concept is bad. There are plenty of solid examples that use game streaming technology, from Game Pass and PS Plus to GeForce Now.

...Yeah, I'm pretty sure those services are NOT successful because of the game streaming side. You still have the option to actually download the games so they'll run well from at least two of those. Not sure about GeForce Now, mostly because this is the first time I've heard of it.

In the future, when everyone has beyond gig speeds with fiber or something, game streaming will be an interesting idea. As-is there's not a big enough market for it to work out as the sole option. It's legit cheaper to regularly buy new hard drives to store your games on than pay for internet fast enough to consistently stream most games.

[Artanis]

I also seem to recall an interview around the time Stadia was being announced that basically went like this:

Interviewer: "So the player doesn't actually own the game, and doesn't even have it on their computer. What happens when Stadia goes down? Does the customer just lose everything that they've paid for, forever?"
Google: "Don't worry about it."
Public:

[Rynjin]

I also seem to recall an interview around the time Stadia was being announced that basically went like this:

Interviewer: "So the player doesn't actually own the game, and doesn't even have it on their computer. What happens when Stadia goes down? Does the customer just lose everything that they've paid for, forever?"
Google: "Don't worry about it."
Public:

TBF this is a problem for all digital storefronts, including Steam. If Valve went under tomorrow you'd lose access to your entire library. Consumers have long since accepted this tradeoff for convenience.

The issue is that Google tried to A.) dance around this fact and B.) made no assurances that they'd keep supporting the product if it struggled for a while.

Combined with the fact that it had a mandatory hardware buy-in, unlike Steam, and it was always doomed to fail.

[Zevox]

Stadia's problem wasn't that game streaming as a concept is bad. There are plenty of solid examples that use game streaming technology, from Game Pass and PS Plus to GeForce Now.

...Yeah, I'm pretty sure those services are NOT successful because of the game streaming side. You still have the option to actually download the games so they'll run well from at least two of those. Not sure about GeForce Now, mostly because this is the first time I've heard of it.

In the future, when everyone has beyond gig speeds with fiber or something, game streaming will be an interesting idea. As-is there's not a big enough market for it to work out as the sole option. It's legit cheaper to regularly buy new hard drives to store your games on than pay for internet fast enough to consistently stream most games.

Yeah, what Rynjin said. I can't speak to Game Pass, but I know that even the revamped PS+'s higher tiers is not a game streaming service like Stadia, it's a subscription service. You still get to download the games directly to your console, which makes a significant different in performance here. I've been assuming that's what Game Pass was as well. I'm still not a fan of that due to the issues I mentioned about not truly owning even a digital copy of the game (I have the basic version PS+ because I want to play my fighting games online, but I won't ever be subscribing to the higher tiers), but I can see why that would garner more people's attention than a strictly streaming service like Stadia.

[Rynjin]

Yeah, what Rynjin said. I can't speak to Game Pass, but I know that even the revamped PS+'s higher tiers is not a game streaming service like Stadia, it's a subscription service. You still get to download the games directly to your console, which makes a significant different in performance here. I've been assuming that's what Game Pass was as well. I'm still not a fan of that due to the issues I mentioned about not truly owning even a digital copy of the game (I have the basic version PS+ because I want to play my fighting games online, but I won't ever be subscribing to the higher tiers), but I can see why that would garner more people's attention than a strictly streaming service like Stadia.

Game Pass actually does have a "cloud gaming" service that works a lot like Stadia, but I've never met anyone who actually uses it.

[Zevox]

Game Pass actually does have a "cloud gaming" service that works a lot like Stadia, but I've never met anyone who actually uses it.

I believe PS+ has one as well - formerly a separate thing called "PS Now," it was supposedly folded into PS+ when they revamped it with the additional tiers earlier this year - but same here, I've never had any reason to use it, nor met anyone who does. I honestly can't imagine what the point is for someone who has a console anyway.

[Algeh]

I believe PS+ has one as well - formerly a separate thing called "PS Now," it was supposedly folded into PS+ when they revamped it with the additional tiers earlier this year - but same here, I've never had any reason to use it, nor met anyone who does. I honestly can't imagine what the point is for someone who has a console anyway.

I could see game streaming being useful for someone who had, say, a bunch of multiplayer Civ games going and wanted to be able to get their turns in as soon as possible throughout their day, so was willing to stream the game on their breaks at work using a tablet to check for any outstanding turns that were early-game and simple enough to complete that way? (Is Civ even available for consoles? I'm not a console person.) I suppose anything else that was similarly forgiving of lag but wanted regular, quick gameplay sessions would also make sense, but that's not really the primary format for AAA games last I checked. (Note: I think I last checked in on what would one day become AAA gaming in the 1990s, so I am not actually a good reference here.)

[WritersBlock]

I am pretty sure Steam has an "end of life" plan if they ever go under. I mean if the game you have from them is not currently installed that could potentially be a problem for you maybe. But there is a chance that if they actually did go out of business, most of your library would be ok at least.

The REAL problem with steam is all of those games that get Denuvo slapped on them and never get removed. (Sega and Atlus are REALLY bad about this) So many clueless people on the steam forums defend that practice as well. Well some are convinced that if Irideto goes under or they discontinue Denuvo that it will be removed from the games or disables. Like what happened with GFWL, or Securom, or gamespy. Oh wait.....

[Psyren]

...Yeah, I'm pretty sure those services are NOT successful because of the game streaming side. You still have the option to actually download the games so they'll run well from at least two of those. Not sure about GeForce Now, mostly because this is the first time I've heard of it.

Sure you have the *option* to download locally on these services, but the first two do have streaming as well. And I can personally vouch for the PS+ streaming service (formerly PSNow). Granted I haven't used it for fighting games or anything frame-perfect like that, so I can see how that might not be appealing to folks like Zevox, but I did play SOMA / Prey / Human Fall Flat and didn't notice any input lag in any of these three, they ran just fine. That was at my bf's apartment who doesn't even have fiber like I do.

As for why you would stream instead of downloading, it takes up much less space on the console, e.g. you don't have to download the entire game to play one level, and unlike Stadia it didn't cost anything over and beyond the subscription fee to play these titles.

[137beth]

Anyway, I saw elsewhere someone put it that basically, this was everything people didn't like about streamed game services/live service. You had to buy the console/subscription,

No, you didn't. This has never been true about Stadia: it was free to sign up and didn't require a subscription or a hardware purchase.

then you had to buy the game separately as well from what I understand.

False again: you got to choose to either buy games individually or pay a subscription and get games as part of your subscription. Not both. Someone makes this incorrect claim in every dang thread about Stadia.

I'm not quite disappointed in myself to admit that I'm pleased about Google's failure, given the incessant YouTube ads for that one game that might have actually looked cool if the marketing campaign hadn't been so up in my grill about it. Screw that game, screw Stadia and Google, and screw Liberty Mutual Insurance for the same reason, while I'm at it.

The marketing for Stadia was atrocious, as evidenced in this thread by the fact that people thought the pricing model was a lot worse than it actually was.

[BloodSquirrel]

Didn't Google stop producing first-party content for the Stadia a few years ago? How well has relying solely on 3rd-party content ever worked?

Usually pretty well. Most VCR/DVD/Blu-Ray player manufacturers didn't need to make their own movies. Steam doesn't make their own games anymore, and it's not like any of the other major storefronts are run by companies that make anywhere near enough games for it to matter.

If the underlying business model was sound, it wouldn't have been a problem, but the fact of the matter is that as long as bandwidth is more expensive than computing power, streaming is a fundamentally uneconomic model for playing video games.

[Zevox]

I could see game streaming being useful for someone who had, say, a bunch of multiplayer Civ games going and wanted to be able to get their turns in as soon as possible throughout their day, so was willing to stream the game on their breaks at work using a tablet to check for any outstanding turns that were early-game and simple enough to complete that way? (Is Civ even available for consoles? I'm not a console person.) I suppose anything else that was similarly forgiving of lag but wanted regular, quick gameplay sessions would also make sense, but that's not really the primary format for AAA games last I checked. (Note: I think I last checked in on what would one day become AAA gaming in the 1990s, so I am not actually a good reference here.)

I think some Civ games are on consoles, but not all, and I sincerely doubt that they'd be anything more than a tiny minority of the player base at most. I would think the vast majority of Civ would be played on Steam, which as far as I'm aware isn't involved in any of these streaming services, so... yeah.

And sure, like I said, for turn-based games the potential problems streaming can add wouldn't matter so much (though they could still be quite irritating if your internet connection is slow/unstable). But as you implied, those are kind of a small minority of games these days. Strategy games and some JRPGs about all that come to mind. Or card games, I suppose.

Sure you have the *option* to download locally on these services, but the first two do have streaming as well. And I can personally vouch for the PS+ streaming service (formerly PSNow). Granted I haven't used it for fighting games or anything frame-perfect like that, so I can see how that might not be appealing to folks like Zevox, but I did play SOMA / Prey / Human Fall Flat and didn't notice any input lag in any of these three, they ran just fine. That was at my bf's apartment who doesn't even have fiber like I do.

As for why you would stream instead of downloading, it takes up much less space on the console, e.g. you don't have to download the entire game to play one level, and unlike Stadia it didn't cost anything over and beyond the subscription fee to play these titles.

I don't know any of those three games, so can't speak to how well suited they seem to this. But that last seems like odd reasoning to me. Space on your console hard drive is kind of a non-issue - even if you run out, you just delete a game that takes up a good amount of space that you don't expect to play again soon, and you're good. As long as you still own your copy of the game (or the console's online service is still functioning, if it's a digital game), you can freely reinstall it later, and you don't even lose saves. So streaming there would be a solution to something that isn't really a problem, but which itself can introduce other problems depending on the speed and stability of your internet connection.

I mean, if it has worked for you, great, you do you, but the thinking strikes me as very strange, personally.

[Psyren]

I don't know any of those three games, so can't speak to how well suited they seem to this. But that last seems like odd reasoning to me. Space on your console hard drive is kind of a non-issue - even if you run out, you just delete a game that takes up a good amount of space that you don't expect to play again soon, and you're good. As long as you still own your copy of the game (or the console's online service is still functioning, if it's a digital game), you can freely reinstall it later, and you don't even lose saves. So streaming there would be a solution to something that isn't really a problem, but which itself can introduce other problems depending on the speed and stability of your internet connection.

I mean, if it has worked for you, great, you do you, but the thinking strikes me as very strange, personally.

If you're living alone and don't share your console with anyone who might be miffed about having to repeatedly reinstall their games when their turn to play rolls around, sure, storage isn't a big issue. But then, you're probably not running out of space often in such a situation anyway.

[Rynjin]

If you're living alone and don't share your console with anyone who might be miffed about having to repeatedly reinstall their games when their turn to play rolls around, sure, storage isn't a big issue. But then, you're probably not running out of space often in such a situation anyway.

It'd be cheaper to just buy a second hard drive or something though, in the long run. You can get a 1 TB external drive for $50 lol. It pays for itself over 6 months of Stadia.

[WritersBlock]

That poor guy who put almost 6000 hours into Read Dead Redemption 2 online with Stadia and Rockstar wont give him a character transfer. (Saw a thread on it on Reddit)

Of ALL the platforms to play THAT much of a game on.....

[Psyren]

It'd be cheaper to just buy a second hard drive or something though, in the long run. You can get a 1 TB external drive for $50 lol. It pays for itself over 6 months of Stadia.

Since there's apparently confusion, I'm not defending Stadia, I'm defending the concept of game streaming in general. I'm already paying for PS+ for other things, the PSNow streaming feature (which lets me try games without needing to buy them for example) is a bonus on top of that. I wouldn't cancel my PS+ subscription for a hard drive.

[137beth]

It'd be cheaper to just buy a second hard drive or something though, in the long run. You can get a 1 TB external drive for $50 lol. It pays for itself over 6 months of Stadia.

Except it doesn't, because Stadia was free and never required a subscription. The only cost in playing a game on Stadia is a one-time purchase for the game itself. That was one aspect that made Stadia different from Xbox Cloud, and Geforce Now, and Amazon Luna, and PS Plus: all of those require subscriptions.

[Rynjin]

Except it doesn't, because Stadia was free and never required a subscription. The only cost in playing a game on Stadia is a one-time purchase for the game itself. That was one aspect that made Stadia different from Xbox Cloud, and Geforce Now, and Amazon Luna, and PS Plus: all of those require subscriptions.

So wait, you had to buy the game AND THEN you could only stream it?

No wonder that's so buried under all the anti-hype, that's legitimately one of the dumbest business models I've ever heard of. You are literally paying them to provide an inferior experience lmao.

Sure, those others require subscriptions. But you know what they also offer? Actual game streaming. Like "this is Netflix but for games" streaming. Pick a game and play it off the cloud. Or download a game for free with your subscription.

That's why Game Pass and PS+ are so popular, you get access to a library of games for ~$10 a month, no additional charge.