What Happened To Google Stadia?
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- Remember Google Stadia? It was Google’s attempt at entering the cloud gaming market. Google has since shut down Stadia but not for the reasons that you might think. It’s not that Stadia was not liked by its users or that Stadia was too expensive to run or any fundamental issue with the service itself. Rather, Google’s biggest concern was simply that Stadia was not successful enough. You see, going into Stadia, Google was hoping that they could easily market to and capture the entire Google audience of billions of people. But to their disappointment, they were only able to appeal to millions of people. This had little to do with Stadia and mostly to do with the fact that the cloud gaming market is still a new industry that is only now starting to grow and evolve. It’s very possible that Google could’ve stuck it out with Stadia and seen it become a massive success within 10 or 15 years, but given the lackluster launch, they would have decided to prematurely pull the plug. This video explains the story of Stadia and the time that Google killed a product simply because it wasn’t successful enough.
Earn Interest From The Government & Top Corporations:
(iOS App for US Residents)
www.silomarkets.com/waiting-l...
Free Weekly Newsletter With Insiders:
logicallyanswered.substack.com/
Socials:
/ hariharan.jayakumar
Discord Community:
/ discord
Timestamps:
0:00 - Google Stadia
2:27 - Promising Beginnings
5:43 - Just Not Enough
9:23 - Being Early Is Hard
Thumbnail Credit:
Alex Wong - Getty
bit.ly/3TWJhQF
Resources:
pastebin.com/PNhrifPX
Disclaimer:
This video is not a solicitation or personal financial advice. All investing involves risk. Please do your own research.
www.silomarkets.com/disclosures
Google is proof that one successful product can bankroll literal dozens of failures.
Pretty much
Problem with Google is Google’s product managers/owners they get big $$ and a chance to leave for another juicy new position in a startup or FAANG only if they launch a new product. No one gets kudos for maintaining an existing product. So as a result every new PM tries to push a new product while killing an old one..
@@LogicallyAnswered Stadia never failed, it wasn't given a serious chance because Pichai never cared about gaming as a market.
czcams.com/video/nUih5C5rOrA/video.html
All he saw was an opportunity to justify the expansion and be an additional revenue driver for it's flagging cloud services division. I think you might have already made a video about Google Cloud previously. They had all the reasons to be a leader in the space but lost horribly to AWS and even Azure, which is what catapulted Microsoft back from relative stagnation. Stadia was a perfect chance, but Pichai probably lost interest quickly when he realized it wouldn't fulfill it's true intended purpose.
Reverse silver lining
Angel investing with a massive budget, basically.
Cloud gaming is a tough market. Most people who love gaming already have a console or two. If you are making a new device or service, you are basically targeting "new customers" like the casual market who doesn't have a console or PC, or you are targeting hard core gamers who haven't owned a console in a couple years due to going to college or having young kids. The former market will not spend money/time on an expensive platform or service, and the latter is a small market. Like consoles, you need exclusives to get a cut of the current market
Ah yeah, this is very true. You’re very much creating a new market and the existing market is of very little value to you
thats true
Managing to screw up a cheaper alternative to console gaming that you launch during a once in a lifetime crisis that forced everyone to remain at home is honestly such a spectacular failure thay its amazing to me that anyone thinks that meritocracy is even slightly a thing
They probably just wanted to dedicate all the graphic cards to AI
Nice... Exactly lol....
I actually didn't consider this. They needed to desperatly pull ahead of openAI
What really matters is how much Google was spending on Stadia. It was a new product in active development -- it couldn't have been cheap. Google is actually pretty good at killing products that don't perform -- the exceptions are pretty rare. I also imagine that after initial interest, the user base was flatlining. The whole thing was somewhat of a joke in the gaming community, and it probably hurt their feelings.
Because they launch and said something stupid like "Console killer", which backfire hard,
basically they're rallying majority of Loyalist Gamers from all platform to hate them,
most gamers want to prove them wrong.
you shouldn't create a new brand and announce that you'll kill everything that you love.
also, Stadia offering was less attractive than gamepass, not only you need to buy the hardware that was not cheap,
you also need to buy individual game.
Gamepass and PS plus on the other hand, not only their audience already use their product,
they offering unlimited game streaming with only $10-20/months at that time.
which is kinda like Netflix style game,
but with zero download, zero hassle of switching disk, Instant plug and play
and even now, Gamepass and PS plus are not slouch either, i could play game with minimal issues, and it was playable,
even when you're playing medium paced casual Multiplayer game like Battlefield, or Monster Hunter, it's still playable
i don't feel the need to switch to any other service, especially like Stadia at all
I see that you had no idea what Onlive is 😂
@@jensenraylight8011 I really don't think google (and cloud gaming in general) is targeted at gamers anyways though. I think their target are the casual gamers who don't really game much, and don't really want a big console sitting in their house. The people who want to just have a smart TV with some games on it for when they have company or for the occasional game
Great video. One correction though. You did not need a subscription to play on stadia. You could simply buy a game and play for free with no wait time or time limit. Stadia confused everyone because of how it launched (exclusive to paying "founders" for the beta period) and how it continued after that (required a credit card to start an account and included a free pro trial). The fact that most people didn't understand that stadia was actually free shows how bad the marketing for stadia was.
Google launched a new UI for Stadia the day it was shutdown. Honestly, it was trash at the start but it because quite reliable and it way smoother than its cloud competitors. Google did an awful job at marketing it.
CZcams was not created by Google.
I was asked to go to Google to work on UX/UI for the control panels for the CDN that powered Stadia. During my interview I mentioned I use the Nvidia Shield daily to game and as my primary set top box. They shut down before the third round interview. I had hope since Nintendull took all the Shield tech for their device and left us Shield users begging for a third gen
I would consider your familiarity with the competition a plus for you. It is always a challenge finding people who are both qualified and who know the product, its uses and what is important.
The root issue is: Google isn't capable of doing anything outside of advertising. They had so many good chances to make great products.
The whole AI revolution is thanks to Google, but they didn't capitalize on TPUs and TensorFlow. Kubernetes is originally from Google as well, but they didn't capitalize on it.
I think Google is just vision less. They need a CEO who can give them that. They're only goal is now to maximize their profit as much as possible. Recent example is CZcams's ab block thing. When they don't see 100% growth and 90% market share in any product they seem to see it as a failure.
I agree. The company just isn't setup for anything else. They rely on computer automation for everything that they don't know how to take care of their customers. The cash cow is just so strong that that's all they can do.
Another problem was that Google had not been in the gaming market before Stadia.
Microsoft, Nvidia, PlayStation, and even Amazon to some extent had exposure to the gaming industry before they started creating their cloud gaming solutions.
Google had the Google Play Store (which had thousand of games such as Resident Evil 4, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Zenonia 3, Chrono Trigger, and Final Fantasy Tactics) on Android devices way before they got into Stadia, the main issue is that Google made Stadia as an independent service away from the Google Play Store so games on there can't be offered through the cloud on Stadia thus why Stadia failed. If Google allow all the Stadia games to be purchase and download via the Google Play Store as well, then there won't be any issue with the Stadia service.
Google is not stupid, they are waiting for Fiber broadband to become a common household thing then swoop in again. They must have crunched the profit projection numbers of sticking it out VS try again 4~5 years later when most households have fibre connection.😅
Agree
It's not the first time they did this. TPU and TensorFlow always have been promising products, but practically speaking Google killed it.
There are quite a few issues with your financial analysis in the "Just Not Enough" section, and the corrected numbers may dramatically weaken your argument (or maybe it wouldn't change the resulting insight, who knows, I'm not going to work it out).
The report you referenced on the cloud gaming market (which had a base year of 2021 and included the annual forecasts to 2030) was clearly talking about total market "value", which is a sum of market capitalization of the companies they included, not a sum of revenues. For example, Microsoft's and Apple's market caps are both just under $3 trillion, even though their annual revenues are only $200-400 billion. It's not correct to directly compare revenues and capitalization because it's trivially easy for companies, especially new companies, to artificially boost their revenue without actually profiting or increasing investor confidence (market cap), and vice versa. Not to mention that you were using a mere estimate of their revenue and assumed that it would scale the same as some random market cap forecast a decade into the future that doesn't even list a confidence rating or interval. On top of that, you speculated that they may grow their market share 5x over the next decade (I'm not using the percentages you said, because as I mentioned, you cannot directly compare revenue and market cap), and assumed that their revenue would also 5x in the same period. That is insanely optimistic growth, even for Google, and I don't think any figure derived from so many layers of estimates and speculations should be taken seriously at all.
Then you say if they did all that and had a revenue of $10B and became "worth" (market cap) "tens of billions", then they would be a Fortune 500 company. You're oddly correct in that step, because the Fortune 500 currently ends with a company with a little over $7B in revenue today. But that's just for… current year. Not 2030. Obviously all of the other companies will also grow over the next decade and there is no way $10B in annual revenue will be on the Fortune 500 in 2030. And then the weirdest part… the visual aid/slide. That's obviously not the Fortune 500. The Fortune 500 is for US companies only, so the fact that the row you highlighted says "Switzerland" is a pretty dead giveaway. I thought you accidentally used the Global 500 at first, but the values shown are actually market caps, not revenues! Fortune 500 ranks companies by revenue, not market cap, so I have no idea what list you cropped to make that slide. Certainly not the one you suggested in the script.
I noticed one little error, and the more I dug, the more issues I found. I'm all for hating Google's cut-throat product strategy, but this video did not make a case against it at all. I'm worried about your other analyses if something this severe was able to slip through, and I encourage all readers of this to be skeptical of the arguments and data presented.
This video is wrong.
1) they weren't "first to market". They were the newest among 20+ other platforms for gaming, and their offering was 5% of the existing alternatives.
2) the gaming market is already very established and mature: coming into the environment, you have to move people away from their existing habits AND investments to get the spenders to even care.
a) how do you compete with people's existing backlogs of games? My Steam and Epic Games accounts have a total of nearly 500 games.
b) how do you transition people's friends lists?
c) how do you get exciting, upcoming games to launch their extremely expensive to produce and promising game on your platform, instead of the market leaders (Consoles + Mobile + Steam)
d) how do you minimize risk for the developers who do launch with you? people who launch new IPs with you are at risk of wasting their efforts. People who exclusively launch sequels to loved franchises are at risk of tanking their mature franchises. People who exclusively launch sequels to awful franchises will cement gamer negative perception of your new platform.
3) the most addictive games are commonly multiplayer games, which require minimized input delay. How do you fight the buyer perspective that Stadia will not delay inputs?
What Google didn't realize is that Phil Harrison has constantly approved decisions that nearly ruined each company
It is fundamentally difficult to evaluate upper management. Did the company succeed because management was good, or did it succeed in spite of poor management? Did it fail because the markets were bad or because of bad management? Executives end up with bonuses tied to company performance to try to align their incentives but that creates new damaging incentives. They push for short-term gains at the expensive of company long-term health as well as employee health. We end up with some very smart and good executives and some that are completely toxic. They both get treated the same.
Citation pls. People on the internet have no idea what Phil did at those companies. 'VP' sounds fancy but he was not where the buck stopped at any of the previous companies he worked at (or here). There is a parroting misinformation cloud about things he worked on that as far as I can tell are completely fabricated.
One of the issues people had with Stadia was that it wasn't actually a streaming service like Netflix, or more appropriately Microsoft's Gamepass. You didn't just pay one monthly fee and stream from a catalog of games. I believe you actually had to purchase the games you wanted, just like any other digital game from the other consoles. And so you would pay full retail price to have a game which you didn't even have on your own machine to play whenever you wanted, and had to rely entirely on a good internet connection. I think if Google had made it more like all the other streaming services they could have had a lot more traction in the market. A single monthly fee to be able to play any game from a large library makes a lot more sense to people, especially for a new market like game streaming was at the time.
this: this right here is why I sub to gamepass but never justified trying stadia even though they did give a free game to subscribers every month.
I didn’t know that. I’ve been looking for a simple a Netflix-style gaming platform where I can pay $5-$10:per month to play fun games like I used to on Sega Megadrive or SNES. If Stadia needed a monthly fee + buying games on top, I’m surprised they even got one customer to sign up to be honest!
It was a mix of the both, games included in monthly fee with a rotating scheme just like gamepass.
You could pay for a game and it was always available to be streamed even for free without a monthly fee but capped to 1080p without it
Add in that a lot of the games they offered were older ones, which the most hardcore of gamers (the folks Stadia needed to convert) would have probably already owned on a competing platform. This also tied into the server quality issue as many people were able to find direct evidence comparing the same game on multiple systems to show how bad Stadia actually was compared to a Playstation or an XBOX.
Correction: You didn’t need a subscription. You could just buy the game for a one time fee and play. The subscription was for if you wanted 4K gaming.
The thing is people rather pay a subscription fee than having to deal with purchasing an individual game. It's a service after all and people don't want to purchase things via service.
Google Stage III Cloud Engineer here, pretty much all of Stadia's resources were diverted to Bard then Gemini. The higher ups assured everyone that we were all safe and employed until one day we just got news of stadia being cut fully. It's insane like the tesla cuts. Luckily I got transferred to the Bard team. Management was desperately trying to beat OpenAI at their own game but we saw how Sundar handled this one... guy is a ego maniac behind the scenes.
The only problem what i have with Streaming services is there do not look into the Timed renting of Games/Videos. I pay 5$ for a 60$ game for a Week to test the game or play it one time. Give me the good old Game/Movie renting in a Streaming service and i am back to be a Netflix and Co user.
Taking your thought about expectations a step further: I wonder if they bit off more than they could chew with game licensing due to those expectations. Eg maybe they negotiated something like 2 years of cheap licensing before the price went up, but the pricing wasn't compatible with the results they actually got.
Ah, good point
This is an interesting take but there are very good reasons for stadia to pull out. Stadia had the worst marketing and stadia also did not win over real gamers. A causal gamer is only worth what little time they put into games. A hardcore player which is probably the opposite extreme is more or less free labor on the insights they provide about your game. When confidence is low in your product, even if its good, it will go. More so, stadias payment model was one where you had to buy the game ON stadia. This is essentially the pc version of the game but you buy it on stadia. This was google between a rock and a hard place. Geforce now would let you play games you already own, and they got in legal trouble over what boils down to marketing, so this was stadias way of avoiding that, but in doing so, they alienated so so much of the market who did not want cloud as their primary method. This was the nail in the coffin, along with their downright INSULTING ad campaign (like honestly those commercials were cringe). In the end, xboss game pass was like netflix for games, which is more what people wanted and geforce now still ... exists in a broken shell. A company that did it right is Shadow. Shadow basically gives you a remote pc that you can access from anywhere. No legal problems with that, they are not a "cloud gaming" company, so they dont break the "no cloud gaming" TOS documents. They are a remote desktop company, but it just so happens that their client can run games with decent performance. Geforce now was the best option for gamers, and they loved it, but companies decided to be absolute bitches and ruin it, so shadow is the now the best. Stadia was a "virtual console" which people to this day are wary of and warn against.
Miss me with your "real gamer" BS tbh. Stadia had challenges but there is no reason to be an elitist gatekeeper about who is and isn't a gamer, it doesn't help anyone.
@@3sxp Miss me with you sjw crap. Ill gatekeep all i want because I am right.
My explanation is more helpful than anything you have come up with so far so cry about "gatekeeping" somewhere else. If you wanna see REAL gatekeeping, why dont u look at stadia gatekeeping games away from other places or DMCA allowing companies to gatekeep where you play games. Cry harder, and when ur done, maybe u can contribute something useful instead of just go online and be offended.
Even Netflix is jumping into gaming how is Google leaving already
Weird right?
They are trying to make a comeback through Google play pc and CZcams playables.
But I don't see how long will this last, as play pc is just an android games emulator and CZcams playables is just browser games.
Stadia had many problems.
1. It was too early, not enough fiber world wide, lot's of scammy isp practices.. ironicallyy if they kept developing fiber, made it world wide the problem might have been much lower.
2. It's marketing was meh, and it only appealed to casuals, the core gamers are quite vocal and not trying to appeal to them joke and make fun off stadia which resulted in them countering their marketing.
3. It didn't have any exclusives that'd drag people in to try, that's best way to get a core gamer, keep game they want a hostage.
4. It didn't even try to play into strengths of the solution, that is low latency between machines that play. That could allow for some interesting games that might be impossible otherwise, action mmorpg ?
5. Even for latency issues, they could've tried to keep adding games that don't suffer much from a delay.
6. It kept doing idiotic elitism hardware exclusivity in begining that alienated more users.
7. It wasn't really affordable, it was pay subscription to use the service and pay for games, if anything it was more expensive in long run, compare with gamepass which works using netflix model.
8. It was made by google - nobody expected it to live and most people didn't even bother trying because of that, heck even if someone wanted to try they'd feel like they're throwing away their money. Google has serious commitment issue.
Could it do well ? maybe in long run. Could it do well under google management ? nope.
I agree with all your points, except 7 is not accurate. You could have only the Pro subscription and play the games from the library. Or you could only buy games. Or you could do both. For me it was the cheapest way, but I'm a casual gamer, my hardcore gamer time is in the past.
I know I’m going to get flamed for this but I used and loved Stadia. It was, and still is the only cloud gaming service with no required subscription. You could buy the game, and play. A one-time purchase. It worked incredibly well. Google just needed more patience and marketed it better. The fact that most people thought you had to have a subscription shows that.
Dude this Phil has a part in every failed company ever
Yup, that's why I knew Stadia would fail from the outset. You don't hire Phil Harrison and expect your product to be a success.
@@Skullet That Phil was at Sony when they launched PlayStation. Hardly a failure.
@@pixelroutine4609 Pretty big red flag when you need to go back decades to find successes.
It seems bad project managment and bad PR killed stadia. From the begining they promised things like save states, or youtube timestamp integration among other features that never came. The service was not as bad as most people would think. It was not enough for e-sport games but turn based an slower titles were completely playable.
While I don't disagree, if you exclude the sports games and the fast-paced Call of Duty shooter types, what kind of market is left to target? Essentially, you are limiting the games to ones that work best on mobile - but why would I deal with Stadia when I already have a phone which allows gaming on the go? And at home, wouldn't I be better off buying a console or using my already-owned computer, which can play not only the games Stadia can, but also those sports and first person shooters?
@commentinglife6175 Fast-paced games are possible with platform specific optimizations. Medium paced games actually worked half decent in Stadia. I played some Destroy all Humans on a chromebook on wifi and it was pretty nice, actually.
I can't believe they got rid of their Domain registrar business.
Didn’t know that. That’s crazy
That’s another dumb decision by google. I personally used for years and loved it.
they freaking didn't commit and they were expecting users to come to them given their history of killing ideas when they are not immediately successful. when they shutdown their gaming studio that was a clear sign that this would get shut down in no time. that was a bad message to send to gamers.
Stadia was doomed before they started. Overpromised. no must-have titles. No support on chromecast. refusal to tell the market there was a plan in case of product termination to combat the insecurity around lack of ownership.
If google held onto this product long enough, they could’ve finally have a home run and they haven’t hit one since 2009 I think.
I think Stadia is a perfect example of how single minded Google can be. It comes from a pattern of creating new ideas and seeing them through for a promotion and then abandoning the project all together. They always tell employees to come up with new ideas but it shows you how little effort they put into things after it's created.
Not all of it is their fault though because they had nothing to add to it. Other companies in the business had a monopoly on cloud gaming and gamers already own their favorite games it was just a matter of streaming it. The amount of times someone would stream a game was so small there's no way this was sustainable and then they wanted to charge a subscription for that? Nah. They are really hurting their brand by not thinking things through before launching.
The biggest problem with stadia was the price. It came out around the same time that game pass started, and people were used to streaming on Netflix etc. already. So when google announced that you needed to pay for a subscription, and then pay for every game on top of that. It was awful. Or looking from the other perspective, you would pay for the game, then to keep access to it, you need to pay an additional monthly fee
Well, its not about if stadia was not much of financial value to google, it's about spreading the reach. Amazon mainly earns from AWS but still runs e commerce where it does not make much in profits.Setting foot is always the first step before starting a long marathon, which google was too impatient to do. Let's hope they don't regret by not diversifying their profiles.
And that's the reason why I would never buy a Google service. The only products that have a chance with Google are the ad-supported free services.In stadias case, the economic problems were probably a reason why it was discontinued so early. The many layoffs that were announced and are still going on, as well as the advertising offensive on youtube seem to indicate that they want to streamline the company and maximize revenue.
Unless you work at the ad team if you work at Google you will lose your job pretty quick. :D
Hahaha
You just told the story, then you tell me you're going to tell the story. Sorry, I already know now, thank you.
After the anger towards Sony and WB taking away digital content, it would be a matter of time before Google did the same things. They may have had another decent year, but the time was limited.
Google doesn't have a first-party game studio, the one they had was relatively small compared to what Xbox/Microsoft and Sony had at the time. They have to convince hard enough other developers to port their game into Stadia. For those 2 years, Stadia has a very small/limited game library.
There were not enough 'casual' games. While the tech generally worked, it was locked down to subscribers. It should have opened up some sort of 'free play' to get more folks playing.
title: A Successful Product
video narration: A Promising Product
yeah okay buddy
Google Stadia had already failed when they hired Phil Harrison, but it was fairly obvious from the outset that it would end up in the Google graveyard so gamers were reluctant to invest money on a doomed platform. Gamers aren't excited about cloud gaming, even Microsoft has realised this and effectively reduced investment into xCloud to zero last year.
I had stadia and i never payed for the subscription. I bought games and was building a library. I had Chromecast set up all over the house and was able to play on any tv in my house and on my phone. I remember playing madden while waiting in line for almost an hour at the dmv. When it shut down i was a little upset but at least i got all my money back and got to keep the chromecast and controllers
I could imagine that shutting down stadia freed up a lot of resources for AI tasks around the time ChatGPT released.
NOBODY was optimistic about cloud gaming, that is a complete LIE. People STILL don't want it: they want game ownership & when Stadia went bust that only proved how important game ownership is...furthermore the demo for Stadia was clearly pre recorded & the buttons the demo guy was hitting on the controllers were not doing anything in the game on show. It was a complete sh*t show form the concept.
in response to the video title: you'll have to be WAY more specific
Stadia was good while it lasted, but let's be honest it was a dud! None of my buddies knew about it or were remotely interested in cloud gaming
Thanks for making videos like no others, that I enjoy listening to while preparing my own videos
Thanks bro! Good luck with your videos :)
The question is how does he make them every single day?
stadia's business model was flawed and the product wasn't that good. I saw a video where the response on screen after hitting a key was like 2 sec or so
They didn't idiotically kill a promising product, it was an idiotic product with no promise
I would never get stadia where i live the Internet is to unreliable inconsistent and slow. In America speeds and reliability would have to go up drastically to support could gaming properly
Fair enough
It depends on the game. You could play a turn-based multiplayer game like Civilization regardless of lag, and for most single-player games you could play with any reasonable amount of lag since you don't need every fragment of a second to gain competitive advantage.
Google didn't create Android or CZcams, it bought those and with its almost infinite resources made those products better. By the way Microsoft has improved in areas where Stadia failed, Xbox Game Pass is a superior service.
they'll reenter when the markets mature, purchase taketwo and eventually dominate
Me: "Why?" CZcams: "ACCOUNT BANNED FOR 24 HOURS FOR HATESPEECH!!!"
Google didn't create CZcams. 0:16.
stadia and promising... with this lag... I can literally play candy crush on the tv that could stream stadia if i needed to, any live-action game was no way, FPS stream tiny amounts of data and they still have lag problems
funfact: PS/2 connection used to be preferred over USB 2.0 for a long time for keyboards and mice for gamers because of the tiny lag advantage of interrupted PS/2 va serial USB, nowadays they just killed PS/2 ports :(
I wanted to use Stadia but it was never available in South Africa
I pay for nVidia geforce now. The big downside is limited games support. Stadia took this to the next level though. You had to buy your games for Stadia. You couldn't play games you already bought and you couldn't play your Stadia games outside of Stadia. This was a non-starter for me. It is an attempt to lock you in. Lock-in is also a good way to get people to avoid your product too.
I don't like this idea of subscription for gaming. If you think it doesn't make sense for most markets and definitely not for gaming. Like I'm paying for access to 80 million songs on Apple Music or Spotify, and unless I'm someone who's an avid listener and tries new music all the time, it's a waste of money. Same logic goes for subscription gaming. Out of 500 of their offerings you end up liking 10-20 games at max and you end up paying monthly fees for access to those games and then suddenly boom, those games are removed to add new ones and you don't like the new games / haven't completed those 20 games so to play them you have to purchase them. All the money of subscription gone. That's why this new trend of subscriptions for everything is just stupid and anti-consumer.
A lot of the takes in the comments are completely valid, it is not cheap to develop a new product, but given the stadium trajectory, I think it could’ve gone somewhere. I know for certain that a lot of people in the gaming community didn’t really bother with it because it was from Google and they have a history of canceling products, especially in recent years before they ever really get off the ground. And unfortunately, we were right, I tried stadia on someone else’s connection, who had a really good Internet connection, and I got to say it was actually a good experience. It’s something I was looking into, but then it died.
Revenue doesn't equal profit
Google gave me a free stadia kit, I tried it once..... I didn't like it and never looked at it again.... The controler is nice though
And if you own a ps5 you have a game streaming service at home.
I recognized stadia as a failure the moment it was advertised. I guess that makes me nostradamus.
Sad that this happened to Stadia at the time I wasn't this interested but now I am
😔
There are other solutions out there, aren't there? What makes Stadia preferable for you over those?
@@pvshka in retrospect I really liked their design and approach. I liked the marketing and everything that was connected to it. I’m also usually a big fan of all the Google products
I missed you hari. Was on a meth bender solving complex math problems. Glad to see u again 😮😮
Glad to have you here man!
Bad take. Stadia was a joke of a product and it was doomed from its release. Google very clearly showed a lack of confidence in their product from the beginning when they were unable to convince the gaming community that the service would persist indefinitely and that consumers wouldn’t have to worry about their *purchased* games getting taken away from them. And yet, look where we are now. Digital “ownership” is laughable.
Agreed. But the research in this video does bring up some good points.
Came here to say that. Never had a positive impression of the product. And you had to BUY games for it, wasn't a sub for all games, clearly trash product.
The major hurdles Stadia reached was that it promised: no need for a console, yet needed that special controller; gaming across all devices, yet only worked on certain Google phones; Required fast Internet "pinging", yet most people's Internet wasn't fast enough to keep it from lagging; Boasted 4K, yet barely managed in 720p; Promised free access to the games via the subscription, yet most of them required a separate purchase price. Google may have quickly pulled the plug, but it was a trainwreck anyways.
it's silly to shut down a profitable service because it's too EARLY to market, when you could simply wait until the market catches up.
It's a baby-brained zero-dimensional-chess business move, regardless of whether you personally appreciate the product as a consumer.
@@mchenrynickStadia wasnt a bad product, Stadia was a *scam*
They probably needed the server space due to the pandemic. I know Mircrosoft had to make such cuts for Azure.
Having Google + as an example is quiet wrong, most G+ users were force to it because you can not use other services if you are not a G+ user....
I was waiting google stadia to come to my country. It didnt
Stadia has one big flaw. You had to buy games at full price that work only on Stadia. Plus the subscription. It was an auto "no thank you" moment for me.
Actually no. You could either buy games on Stadia that work only on Stadia - but you didn't need a subscription to play them on Stadia. The Pro subscription gave you higher resolution and access to a library of rotating games (about 30 at a time). But the games that you claimed while you had Pro subscribed, you could play forever as long as you had a subscription (could be with disruptions). Hands down, it was the cheapest and most comfortable way to play games as a casual gamer.
When do you sleep?? Non-stop top quality content, thank you very much!
🙏
I totally agree, Stadia was awesome! It was so sad and unexpected when it closed. It made no sense. Now they are all about bringing Play Store games to PC, but for some reason , I'm not excited at all about this. Stadia on the other hand, blew my mind.
Unexpected ? come on, whatever you thought about stadia, google abandoning a product is to be expected.
You're crazy. Stadia was a joke 😂
Google has been disappointing since Sundar took over.With the right visionary behind the wheel, they could have dominated. Also it doesn't help hiring someone (Phil) to lead the project after he dropped the ball with PS3 and Xbox One.
Phil didn't work on the PS3 hardware. He was president of studios overseeing first party game development. Your beef on PS3 is with Ken Kutaragi and Kazuo Hirai if you want to blame executives, which is reductive to start with. In 2012 he was at Microsoft *in Europe* working on growing the business there, and he left before the XBox One was launched.
I really loved stadia . It was amazing.
I completely forgot that stadia existed
Successful? It sucked. Gamers complain when there's a 7 frame delay (at 60 frames per second) between input and result. But, some stadia videos showed a whole second or more of delays. Google really should have focused first on fucking up the bullshit laws around the USA that let ISPs rape the wallets of the consumer for internet that can't even stream a 480p CZcams video. As long as laws prevent ISPs from competing with each other or open city-built competition, average internet speeds and pings will never be ready for Stadia's bullshit. And that was on TOP of fucking up their pricing model.
Cloud gaming is reserved for people whose Internet can handle the load, and most of the world doesn't have that.
If they had half a brain, they should have launched in under-served markets like SEA. Imagine 6 different countries crammed into a SINGLE NVIDIA GEFORCE NOW ALLIANCE PARTNER in Singapore (Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Thailand). The wait times are INSANE and I don't even bother playing on weekends because the queue can be as long as 4 hours, but I still pay for it.
I couldn't care much less about anything gaming-related, but I found this video fascinating.
Criticism- not critique. Criticism is negative. Critique is neutral. Know the difference!
Great video otherwise btw.
Ah, didn’t know that. Thanks for the clarification!
Considering android is the only OS in town still for stand-alone VR. I think they okay how that one turned out
Oh well except windows one but no one uses it except HP way back when
Dude if you know anything about gaming you'll know this was DOA, the launch was a disaster, gamers with the best internet were experiencing problems since the very beginning, Stadia was missing features all other consoles have. Few people had Stadia so the wait time in a pvp matches were infuriating, Google is completely tone deaf on what gamers *who actually buy games* want and the misfire marketing, radio silence and back publicity helped the product die, not to to mention they had no game exclusives, instead releasing games from years back. You also forgot to mention the release of PS5 and Xbox and Steam... there was no coming back after that. Also No one was going to buy games exclusive to a platform that Google could kill off at any time. And 'lo and behold, what we predicted came true, Google didn't kill a successful product. Also, trying to convince devs to port games to Linux was never going to work...
Has Logically Answered now gone fully AI?
Never hahaha
Gamers were not and will never be "excited" about cloud gaming lol
I guess we’ll see
@@LogicallyAnswered I think we already have seen, Google killed Stadia and Microsoft has reduced investment into xCloud to basically zero last year. Cloud gaming is a novelty, it's like 3D TV's or VR, they seem like cool ideas but consumers are largely uninterested.
@@LogicallyAnswered Oh I'm sure it's coming. I just haven't seen any gamers being all "excited" about it.
They could dominate massaging platform world with Gtalk but I dont think they didnt know what we want
stadia worked impressively well. the problem was that idiot guy that was in charge, the same one that hurt xbox a while ago lol
Nexus series werent a failure.
there were great. google killed them because they were running out of names
And till today, video-maker think that you had to pay 10$ per month. You had to pay nothing! Just the games. There was no forced subscription.
Exactly what happened to Reader : it was not Google big
they do too many things they clearly don't have much control over every piece of thing they're competing with.. they place above average in a lot of stuff, below average on others? lol. one of the most underrated google things I personally liked, was Tilt Brush, VR drawing, I think it got discontinued, had its flaws but it was cool. never tried stadia but, I saw yongyea and others rant about it a bunch, and i mean... I wouldn't say it's "Cheap way to game" considering you need an expensive monthly connection for the best performance. Gamers are better off making a one time payment for the Steam Deck and have the crappiest connection possible, for a majority of games available.. that seems cheaper than the stadia + more convenient despite having Linux for casuals, they can't be that stupid lol if you can use the cloud, you can definitely use steam OS.
Stadia was too early to the market and developers didn't adopt fast enough. So it failed early.
Nice video!
Thanks man!
Its like the linux paradox if people dont use it it doesnt get support even if its good):
Great video as always
Thank you as always Balpreet!
I'm surprised that people don't know what Onlive is lol
Merci Tous...
"Google-..."...
Milli (⚜)... 🌌
I miss it.
Failia . The business model was a joke
Not your best video mate, Stadia eas doomed to fail from the start. For example, they never had 750k users
The platform had 160,000 paying Pro users.
In February 2022, Stadia was estimated to have over 2 million active users.
In comparison, Xbox Live services had 100 million users in 2020, and Playstation Network services had 114 million users in 2022.
How can you call nexus a failure?