Oh really. I think I remember her in the documentary. Any good info on her?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Stadia opens a new studio led by Shannon Studstill, former Santa Monica head and executive producer of God of War (2018)
- Thread starter Deleted member 8196
- Start date
Super weird how all those other games that existed prior to the Stadia launch are on Stadia, then. Huh.
If they couldn't make the tech work then they might have scrapped the venture?
Whatever game they have developed could still be released through the usual channels. None of the games on Stadia need the service to function.
I don't. All I know is that she has been working at Sony for 19 years and seemed to be an important part of the team. Seems like a good low risk choice to lead the studio. And Cory seems to love her so that's a plus.
A major point of the first party effort is to make games that can uniquely be run from Stadia.
What kind of studio is this. What the fuck.
I don't even know what to say.
Wow, that's an amazing public area!
They could very well be doing so but then they should have not launched the service as bare bones as it currently is. Having a game that is only possible through Stadia could have been a unique selling point that draws customers in.
Exactly, which is why we'll see those when Stadia launches, that's how they'll sell the platform.
That's a nice long-term goal, but I suspect Stadia subscribers at launch would have simply settled for a big exclusive game or two that sell the platform. Especially since, in the absence of any first-party exclusives, all they ended up with were largely non-exclusive games that also don't uniquely leverage "the cloud" anyway.
I'm also dubious that relevant information about the "tech" wouldn't kicking around and potentially available to a first-party studio (if it existed), at least a couple of years ago.
Having a big launch title is not relevant.
Stadia is not a console.
Netflix did not have any originals for like 6 years and didn't have many until like 10+ years.
Netflix had a monthly fee that covered everything, with very little buy-in required. For ten bucks a month you could watch a bunch of decent stuff, and this was phased in when they already had a successful-but-waning business in mailing DVDs out to people.
There was a much larger market of people who'd figure ten bucks a month was fair for access to a sizable number of generally-okay movies, especially at a time when accessing movies was more painful. Exclusive content wasn't really required.
Even now, a sizable number of Netflix subscribers don't care who specifically generates the content, they just want lots of content.
It's the inside of the hangar that Howard Hughes built the Spruce Goose in. It's a listed building, and Google has built another building inside of it. Google has BIG MONEY and is not afraid to splash it around.
What kind of studio is this. What the fuck.
I don't even know what to say.
With Stadia, you can continue to use your other consoles.
A lot of people have this mindset that like you have to become a Stadia gamer and not play anywhere else or something, which isn't how it is at all.
You can be a primary PS4 gamer but own a game or two on Stadia. Then over time, you can shift your purchases over.
Stadia is a discrete gaming platform, competing with other discrete gaming platforns. Your comparison to Netflix is a non-sequitur. Netflix doesn't have friends lists. Netflix doesn't have savegames. Netflix doesn't have purchases you can make, that are forever tied to Netflix. The things that tie people to ecosystems.
If you want people to buy-in on your new platform, or even move over from other platforms, you need to give them something worth moving for. Gylt and 40-car races in GRID are not going to do that.
And then on top of that, you're trying to convince consumers to jump in with both feet, into a completely new, unproven type of gaming via the cloud, while currently offering no reason for doing so beyond "hey, the core tech mostly works".
Pretty much, which is why the exaggerated hate here is so baffling.
Buy the console that keeps your warm at night and if there is ever a game that you want to try on Stadia them you can just get it without any upfront costs assuming your Internet supports it.
Sure. And I'll continue to play the console I already own until Stadia can offer an experience or content that makes it worthwhile. So, three to four years, I guess?
Except, of course, if all goes well, this winter I'll have the option of buying two new, more powerful consoles with brand-new games that have already been in the works for some time, in the same ecosystem that I've already sunk a fair bit of time, money, and experience into.
Of course, there's the repeated refrain of "It's in the cloud, so Google can just increase the power!", but I'm wary of that for a number of reasons, most notably that they've not even really bothered to make the performance that impressive versus the current, end-of-gen hardware.
I don't think it's so much hate as it is just not being able to look away from a very slow, very obvious, and very expensive train wreck happening before your very eyes.
Not many people buy new consoles at launch. It usually takes a couple years to cross the 10M mark.
By the time PS5 is at 20M Stadia could have several exclusives.
This is like someone looking at Netflix in 2008 and calling it a Trainwreck.
It's not even in the same league. At least Netflix had content in 2008 (and still had their DVD mailing service).
And the fundamental comparison with Netflix continues to be a non-sequitur. Netflix is competing in a very different territory to a gaming platform (and also didn't have meaningful competition until a couple of years ago). The only commonality they share, is being platforms run on streaming infrastructure.
And is also survivorship bias. For every Netflix a dozen competitors tried and failed in the same streaming space.
"By the time the PS5 is quite successful Stadia could have several exclusives."
Glowing praise.
Again, I'm not necessarily arguing with you. If Stadia offers something compelling I'll give it a shot. The issue here is that there doesn't seem to be anything compelling in the pipeline for several years. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest, and Google isn't doing anything to push people to their storefront.
Stadia is more like Netflix than it is the PS5.
Netflix had massive competition it's entire existence. Cable, iTunes, etc
Better late than never, I guess, though it will be challenging to keep Stadia relevant for the 3 years minimum it would take them to develop a "killer app". They should have started this at least a year ago and have at least two other studios making smaller exclusive games (think Resogun or TowerFall).
You don't need to keep it relevant.
Stadia could go nowhere then have exponential growth in year 5.
This doesn't work for consoles because by year 5 it's on to the next thing. But Stadia has no generations and no static install base. The Stadia install base is infinite.
If Stadia continues on the trajectory it's going, it will be virtually impossible to get users interested in it five years from now, especially with established players like Xbox and probably Steam moving into the space.
And Stadia is more like Steam than Netflix. What the heck are you even talking about?
This is nonsense. If you're trying to sell something, and you have competition, you need to make your product relevant.
Did someone cut your hair?
The limiting factor for a console is its hardware install base. Consequently, you have to have a successful launch in order to get third-party support, which you need to sell even more consoles, rinse and repeat, until the generation ends. As Mattrick once said, "whoever gets to 10 million first wins".
Stadia has no such limit. Instead, it's limited by connectivity and Google data centers. 10 years from now it's a safe bet that connections will be much better and Google will have many more data centers in many more parts of the world. The theoretical "install base" could be 1B+. In other words, if you launch a game on Stadia in 2030, you could potentially sell it to a 1B gamers, vs say 100M or 200M max for a traditional console. So even if Stadia goes nowhere and limps along like a dying dog for several years, it could still eventually take off.
The comparison with Netflix is based on the fact that they are both digital services, which launch in mediocre states and improve over time.
The difference is that Netflix uses a subscription model, which gives it a certain moat. There's really no barriers to a company creating a Netflix competitor, but because Netflix has such an enormous base of subscribers, it can outspend almost any potential rival. If cloud gaming goes to a subscription model, which is what Microsoft is trying to do, then something like xCloud could eventually crush Stadia if it gets enough subs, because Microsoft could throw more money at devs. Of course, there could be room for a variety of different business models (e.g. you have Vudu and Netflix coexisting peacefully).
But anyone who thinks Stadia needs to be a huge success in year 1 or year 2 otherwise it's doomed just fundamentally does not understand the business model.
Last edited:
Yes, I'm familiar with an unsuccessful launch leading to a lack of third-party support. Case in point: Stadia.
Also, LOL at citing Noted Business Success Don Mattrick.
Ahh, yes, "just throw money in a hole for ten years while counting on your established competition to inexplicably remain stagnant", that classic successful business plan.
The limiting factor for a service is its total user base. Consequently, you have to have a successful launch in order to get third-party content support, which you need to attract more users, rinse and repeat
No users = no content = no users = dead service.
The prognosis for Stadia taking off after years of existing with nobody caring is incredibly slim because things do not work like that
Except Google are going to be joined in the game-streaming race soon by a company whose global cloud infrastructure is just as good (if not slightly better) than their own, and whose actual platform will be hamstrung by almost none of the issues Stadia currently faces. And that competitor's cloud platform will actually be an extension of an existing console platform, requiring no one to "switch" and leave what they know behind.
I doubt Google's strategy is (or was) to "limp along" for a few years - but if it was, they might as well close up shop now.
The first sentence is true, the second is completely false.
Would you characterize Facebook's launch in 2004 as "successful" or Spotify? Or YouTube? On and on. Almost no one even heard about these things until years after they launched.
Nowadays, it would be very hard/impossible to launch a YouTube competitor or a Spotify competitor or a Facebook competitor, because they've built enormous user bases and it would be very hard to get people to leave. Which is of course why Google was right to launch now and not 5 years from now when they have exclusive games and have all the kinks ironed out perfectly. It's better to start early and grow a small, but progressively larger user base over time then it is to wait until you have the perfect product but a more established competitor.
Jesus dude, your way of beating around Stadia's deserved criticisms is asinine. It's a gaming platform that can be compared to other consoles, if you want to settle with that.
If anyone wants to see his crazy predictions and statements, here they are.
I could understand enthusiasm, but your defenselessness of Stadia, is absurd by addressing anyone with valid criticisms of Stadia as a disingenuous troll, or not having enough foresight. There's a reason why the many have repeated the same arguments towards Stadia. Because they're valid.
Here are some arguments I posted days ago in response to your post in regards to how the anti-Stadia topics wouldn't age well.
When you imply Stadia needs to have a huge first year to be successful, you are making a comparison. Do you understand that?
You keep asking me to respond to this post for some reason. I'm not going to respond to it because you aren't saying anything interesting.
For example you talk about a knock on Stadia being its "lack of true ownership" -- almost no one cares about this. It is not relevant whatsoever. Yes, there are a few people that think a stack of plastic discs on a bookshelf looks great. They disproportionately tend to visit this forum. But there are not many of them. This is like when people were up in arms about the Xbox One in 2013 and said digital downloads wouldn't take off on consoles. And yet here we are, GameStop is on the verge of bankruptcy and most console games are now digital downloads.
Don't bet against technology, especially when it's a core part of the industry.
Stadia is a solution to a problem that does not exist
It is not like YouTube or Spotify
Let me break this down for you
Stadia is a "service" that offers people the ability to stream games it offers them to buy
Therefore in order to be successful, it needs games
Games attract users to the service
Users attract games to the service
Google can provide games themselves but not in the speed or quantity desirable to keep users happy
So Google needs to rely on third parties to fill in the gaps
Third parties want their games to actually sell, so they want a large userbase
Less users means that third parties are less likely to put games on the service
Less games means users are less likely to use the service
This becomes a vicious cycle that is near impossible to escape
Typically it ends with a dead service
Also, bummer to see Shannon leave. But she's in studio management, not so much a creative or content creator, and I doubt SSM will have any difficulty replacing her.
She probably is on the last leg of her career and wants a golden google parachute, because anchoring to Stadia is a mighty risk to say the least
She probably is on the last leg of her career and wants a golden google parachute, because anchoring to Stadia is a mighty risk to say the least