Do you not use Spotify or Netflix whatevs?
This will always be one of the best and worst examples of false equivalence that exists.
Currently we're looking at the highest point of Netflix and Spotify. More smaller creators and more independent creators are able to make more money off of it, sure. But at the same time the option to buy the features are still there, and it's a spectator driven media. Not only is that not how gaming is, but just like with EVERY other industry under capitalism, the internet, and every other scenario that has ever existed, eventually the platform will change hands and/or be about making money.
We're already seeing this change with Disney and others pulling their toys out of the box so that no one can play with them unless they come to their house instead. We're already seeing it with the competition in movies and tv shows, and we've already seen substantial splintering of audiences in similar regards with cable before (new sub services will just be Cable 3.0) and it will continue to never benefit the consumer, because it's about the businesses funneling as much money as they can into their wallets, not providing the best service.
To use an example, I've been fighting with Disney+ because my gf decided to get the year deal. The interface is crap, it doesn't resume where you play, it will sometimes just start fast forwarding through the video because it lags behind, or it will simply freeze, keep playing audio, and then rewind 30 seconds to attempt to get it back in sync. This is supposed to be Netflix's competition. But they're not actually competing. They're just taking their ips to make you go through their pathway to the content. Much like Stadia sort of attempted here.
If Competition worked how it was supposed to, we'd get multiple businesses trying to provide the best service to their consumers, but instead what we have is people banking on IPs or names to get you to buy into their service with the "promise" of fixing it later. So using Netflix and the like are not good comparisons, and honestly Spotify and internet and Youtube hasn't helped the music industry as much as people try to think.
Between copyright claims, downright theft of albums via youtube lists and such, and other things the music industry isn't "better off" due to Spotify, it's just the only compromise that the world has of now to please both parties. But I'm still reminded of the episode of South Park watching Musicians be sad that pirating their music means they can't afford their third jet. But if we go into "how much money is too much money" we get all the capitalism vs socialism talks and other tangential topics not suited for this side of the forum.
Completely different; I am paying a subscription to access the entire catalogue Spotify and Netflix offer in my region. I am fully aware I don't own anything I can access, which is a big bummer when the content is removed. I think PS Now subscription model is similar, but can't confirm since I have never used it.
The problem with this is that the users completely rely on the company to keep the servers up. We have already seen how shitty Sony is in keeping servers up when a game doesn't perform like they wanted, for example, Gravity Rush 2.
Also, as someone who likes to mod my games and hate DRM with a passion, streaming videogames doesn't entice me in the least.
DRM is a separate but related topic as well. Proving that publishers have no desire to give players control and/or ownership over their products, insisting that everyone stay constantly connected and constantly buying. DRM to my knowledge doesn't have a direct comparison in other industries beyond online services like Spotify. So Gaming has already proven more cutthroat about this type of control.
there's a fundamental difference in not having access to game files vs streaming music and movies.
This as well. Interacting with media and simply viewing it are two different things. And as spoken about before, Disney+ and other companies aren't there to provide "better" services, just "different" services using their IPs. The thing is Stadia is directed at an audience that has been (sort of) elitist about graphics and fidelity by the big pubs for years now, so the attempt to try to cater to that audience who is already hyper critical with less is kinda silly.
I have to question who this is even for.
-Collectors want to collect.
-Lower income consumers who can't afford consoles normally live in communities that already have either gouged or limited internet, or will be charged out the ass for data caps.
-People who are on the go or play at work or in commute kind of have the switch and other options like GeForce that have been constantly trying to improve those mobile options.
-The latency and lag will put off graphics connoisseurs and other people who prefer performance, a large chunk of the gaming population.
-There's a pay wall to get in before a separate paywall to get into the game, combined with another virtual wall in the form of a new ecosystem/community to cultivate. Sure you might see short term that people will try to break in to make their mark, but like with Disney+ and Netflix, eventually they'll have to make money, and the prices won't stay that way for long.
I get the concept of streaming because I love my switch, if it worked that way seamlessly from TV to portable device i'd be down with it, but I hate playing MOBILE games on my phone that are designed for phone, let alone hooking up a controller weirdly to my tv and buying into two more devices (chromecast and controller) on top of service fees (internet, data caps, mobile hotspots). I just don't see how this could feasibly be a future that benefits any consumer moreso than the internet providers and publishers that are already scraping you across the coals.
They're going to sell you a future for sure though.