You get to go back in time and relaunch Stadia. What do you do?

[samred]

This whole "founders" thing should've been a closed beta with an incredibly selective invite process, targeting existing owners of Chromecast Ultra hardware (aka people who are already Google hardware ecosystem converts) and charging them solely for the Stadia Controller. Buying that Controller would've included 3-6 months of Stadia Pro game unlocks, which testers could then keep if they continue paying for that PlayStation Plus style of subscription after the beta ran out (which the market has previously borne out).

Instead, we're in this "kind of closed but also wide open" early state, which changes the Stadia conversation.

"What's this Google thing?"
"You have to pay $130 to use it for now, and then you have to buy games outright, but not all of them if you pay a monthly fee. Apparently, one of these days, you won't have to pay a monthly fee to access games, but you'll still have to buy each of them outright."
"Are you fucking serious"

^^ this shit every time I talk to a non-gamer about Stadia

 

[DixieDean82]

Stop over-promising the performance and delay until you can get more third parties on board. How do you launch with such a weak lineup?

When X cloud launches you will have access to every game on your Xbox. Stadia is dead unless it can offer something similar.

 

[jerf]

1. Cancel it
2. Pocket the money

 

[Mesoian]

Push the launch for better supply, nothing they launched with was time sensitive enough to not do so
Completely rework the business model and have 5 free games ready at launch
Expand the launch window to browser users with more hardware options

The magic of Stadia is having people just be able to pull out whatever they have and have it work. They flubbed that super hard, to the point where they have to re-establish the point after the fact. And if the rumors are true, both Sony and Microsoft may have eaten Stadia's lunch by the time the first major revisions for Stadia hit.

 

[dude]

I'd probably wait 1-3 years and try to perfect the features. There would be a risk of trying to play catch up to other services, but a botched early launch can be far more disastrous than a good late one

 

[Kevinception]

When does the real Stadia service launch?

From what I understand, the only issue with the founders edition beta test was that 4k streaming was problematic. And their library is still growing slowly

The true value of Stadia, market wise, right now would be the free 1080p streaming. That's where most of it's userbase growth will be to begin.

When does the free service go live?

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Where's the option to just bury it because you happen to find the very concept to be offensive?

 

[ToxicPhantom]

I'd probably would have placed one hand on the shoulder of the person that thought of Stadia and say to him/her with an evil laugh, "good luck with that" and then walk away still laughing.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Make sure all games run at 60fps, with higher graphical settings than current consoles.

Google talked about having powerful hardware - 10.7 Tflop GPU, Custom 2.7GHz Hyper Threaded CPU and 16GB RAM, yet there are still some games running at 30fps or lower resolutions.

If the hardware is better than PS4 and Xbox, at least make sure the games run much better, to give people a reason to play on Stadia.

 

[Mesoian]

When does the real Stadia service launch?

From what I understand, the only issue with the founders edition beta test was that 4k streaming was problematic. And their library is still growing slowly

The true value of Stadia, market wise, right now would be the free 1080p streaming. That's where most of it's userbase growth will be to begin.

When does the free service go live?

Click to shrink...

There is no free service. There never was.

You get monthly games if you sign up for premium, but if you want to use stadia, you're still buying each game independently.

 

[TheBored23]

Market it as an affordable alternative people who don't want to shell out the money for a next-gen console or gaming PC, because it's clear the service isn't quite up to the task of delivering the better than AAA experiences as they suggested.

 

[Deleted member 36578]

I checked every box except for the last one. Google has money, Stadia could've been so much better.

 

[boontobias]

All da games are free. Susidize it with google money

$20-30 a month subscription until reach high enough userbase to get a profit(never, just like netflix). Same shit microsoft is doing basically

 

[Woffls]

Scrap it or do all of the options (except last obvs) listed in addition to heavily subsidising it until it has a 10m user base.

 

[nekkid]

Kill Founder's Edition.
Make it a free app.
Support XB/PS/Switch Pro controllers.
Subscription-only, no ownership.

 

[night814]

Make games downloadable to run natively or implement mods.

Have a trial so people can see if the service is even worth a damn for them.

Have more free stuff, get some free to play games on there so people can at least try the service without having to pay over $100

 

[Necron]

The "Netflix of Gaming®" should have been the no. 1 crystal clear message and value proposition... and they blew it.

 

[Duxxy3]

Hire someone to negotiate an enormous golden parachute for me and then do exactly what google has done.

I don't believe in game streaming.

edit: Oh shit, did I just describe Phil Harrison?

 

[Billfisto]

Utterly bizarre that six people apparently thought that Google did everything perfectly.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Start with the free 1080 version. Then if/once you get people hooked or enjoying it, introduce the paid 4K one

 

[Kevinception]

There is no free service. There never was.

You get monthly games if you sign up for premium, but if you want to use stadia, you're still buying each game independently.

Click to shrink...

It is a free service. Instead of renting a console like back in the early 2000's, you are getting a console for free. A console that can play on your tv or laptop or tablet or phone.

The 4k service is "renting" a 4k capable pc/console.

Still not sure why people think the Stadia service is meant to be giving you games for free. That was never the intent.

The market value is for mainstream casuals type gamers who don't want to invest in dedicated hardware to play modern AAA type videogames and have the option to play them on any device they want.

If you are looking for videogame Netflix, buy an Xbox and subscribe to Gamepass.

 

[Mesoian]

It is a free service. Instead of renting a console like back in the early 2000's, you are getting a console for free. A console that can play on your tv or laptop or tablet or phone.

The 4k service is "renting" a 4k capable pc/console.

Still not sure why people think the Stadia service is meant to be giving you games for free. That was never the intent.

The market value is for mainstream casuals type gamers who don't want to invest in dedicated hardware to play modern AAA type videogames and have the option to play them on any device they want.

If you are looking for videogame Netflix, buy an Xbox and subscribe to Gamepass.

Click to shrink...

Then we should stop calling it a "Free service" when nothing about using the service is free. It's misleading and causes undue disappointment in people who aren't educated on the subject.

In this very thread, we have anecdotal stories about people being given the rundown on Stadia and being disappointed because they had been lead to think it's a netflix for games. That's another thing Google got wrong in their marketing and something Microsoft and Sony are going to be able to take advantage of going forward.

Nothing about stadia is free.

 

[RaySpencer]

There is no free service. There never was.

You get monthly games if you sign up for premium, but if you want to use stadia, you're still buying each game independently.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, but they offer two ways to play the games you purchase, one way is Pro it costs money, and the other is basic, it's free. The service is free, the games are not.

 

[Kevinception]

Then we should stop calling it a "Free service" when nothing about using the service is free. It's misleading and causes undue disappointment in people who aren't educated on the subject.

In this very thread, we have anecdotal stories about people being given the rundown on Stadia and being disappointed because they had been lead to think it's a netflix for games. That's another thing Google got wrong in their marketing and something Microsoft and Sony are going to be able to take advantage of going forward.

Nothing about stadia is free.

Click to shrink...

I mean...having a platform to play AAA multiplats without the need of buying a gaming pc or a console...that's literally what the free service is.

If you don't want to call it a "free service" cause you wanted it to be Videogame Netflix rather than a free platform rental, that's up to you.

For Stadia marketing, it will just be a service providing you a platform to play videogames. They won't have to call it a "free service" it will just be what it is, a platform provider. The "Stadia +" service that they will actually charge for will be easy to grasp. You get a graphical upgrade to your games as well as occasional free games.

But the main Stadia service will be free, yes.

No one seemed to have a problem with this concept in the ps3 era. PSN was a free online service (yes, even though you still paid for games through it, it was still a free service). PSN + was an extra fee based service that gave you occasional free games (yes you still had to buy most of the games though)

Not sure why people are confused by this concept now.

 

[Vitet]

I would sell it for a high price.

 

[MykhellMikado]

The most interesting thing about the Stadia launch is how closely it aligns to the same exact mistakes of the PSNow launch:

Lack of subscription service - Check

Service limited to Company branded devices - Check

Limited game availability at launch - Check

Tech show with lots of promise - Check

Lack of consideration for end user networks - Check

Rampant Consumer misinformation - check

 

[Pyro]

Christ I picked all of those fixes, and with Google money why the hell wouldn't they?

 

[Bowl0l]

I will buy EA and offer the catalogue as a subscription service.

 

[Segafreak]

We've all speculated endlessly about how and why Google screwed up with Stadia. But guess what, you get to fix their mess!

Here are the popular ideas -

1. Build Stadia on Windows instead of Linux so Devs don't have to spend time and effort porting their games.

2. Make Stadia a subscription service

3. Buy a large publisher like EA or Ubisoft and make all their past and future games available on Stadia.

4. Launch Stadia only after development on all promised features is complete.

5. Offer free games on Stadia like Epic does.

Have an idea not on the list? Do share!

Click to shrink...

So many poll options but not one is a simple "have more exclusive games", incredible.

 

[Pixels]

It hasn't really launched yet.

 

[rpm]

A) Offer a subscription model and have that be the main focus, although individual game purchases can stay.
B) No paid tier (outside of the subscription model). No 4K locked behind paywall shit. Throw in the game discounts in with the subscription.
C) Have it be available day 1 on basically every device possible. How the fuck launch a platform where the whole point is "playing anywhere" and have it locked behind both a $130 paywall and have it only be available on your own phones, your own streaming device, and your browser? Other Android phones and iOS support should have been there day 1.
D) Have a better launch line up than one unexciting (and almost certainly timed) exclusive and a bunch of games that people have already played. They should have been buying studios years ago, not post-launch. Have a 100% exclusive, AAA game on day 1 with more to follow.

 

[CthulhuSars]

Given how bad internet and data caps are in America the service is a bad idea to start. Ignoring that I would have it running and working plus make it a subscription service and do a few soft launches. I honestly don't know why any company really wants to enter the games market as a console maker as it seems to be insanity.

 

[Alucardx23]

We've all speculated endlessly about how and why Google screwed up with Stadia. But guess what, you get to fix their mess!

Here are the popular ideas -

1. Build Stadia on Windows instead of Linux so Devs don't have to spend time and effort porting their games.

2. Make Stadia a subscription service

3. Buy a large publisher like EA or Ubisoft and make all their past and future games available on Stadia.

4. Launch Stadia only after development on all promised features is complete.

5. Offer free games on Stadia like Epic does.

Have an idea not on the list? Do share!

Click to shrink...

The opinion people have for Stadia would be a lot better if they would have launched as an early access. The technology definitely works and that would have been the focus on reviewers instead of paying so much attention to how many features were not there. Going forward they must offer a Gamepass like service, substantially increase the library of games and launch games that abuse the power of the cloud in order to differentiate themselves from local gaming.

 

[Windu]

I certainly wouldn't launch a beta as a paid product like they did. Just do what Microsoft is doing, have a closed beta and release it to the market after you have enough of a feature set. They really just need Cross-Play and Cross-Save support across the board.

In the long run, they will be fine. They will have a free access option and it will be tied to YouTube and the Google ecosystem. More than enough people will see that and look into it.

It would be nice if they had a offline storefront on PC though. Would go a long way in getting people to buy games in their ecosystem. Buying streaming only games, which you most likely can't play with your friends and can't transfer your save, is a very big ask for consumers.

 

[BackwardCap]

I'd delay the service until it has a strong line-up of exclusive games.

 

[toy_brain]

1. Make it clear that the Founders Edition is absolutely a paid beta, and your compensation is the 'free' games. Maybe chuck some free Google Play credit in there to those that stick with it to the end of the 3-month period.

2. Make it absolutely clear that 4k 60fps is the quality of the video stream you can deliver, and that games could be running at whatever.

3. Wait until one of your first party studios has developed a game with a couple features unique to Stadia and datacentre-powered gaming.

Honestly, I think No.3 is the most important, as right now console and PC games are hitting a bit of a wall when it comes to finding new ground to explore. The next gen machines are unlikely to solve that problem as they look to be more of the same. Google really should have been working on some crazy Google Earth powered online exploration game (or something, I'm just spitballing here) to demonstrate what you can do with limitless storage and machines that can talk to each other using the speed of a datacentre backbone.
Instead we got Gylt.
I really like Gylt by the way. Really fun little horror game with tight environmental design, it just doesn't scream "The power of the cloud!"

 

[Deleted member 16365]

Missing from the poll is "don't call it a launch, but a beta or soft launch"

By saying Stadia launched it opens it up to all kinds of scrutiny it can't stand up to. I say this as someone who believes in Stadia, but wishes it was better.

 

[LogN-]

Introduce them to the Google+ team.
There was never saving Stadia.

 

[Mr. Genuine]

It hasn't launched.

But I do think Google could have been way more clear about what the idea behind Stadia is.

Too many people still think they were/are trying to be a "Netflix" style service and that it's absurd to be paying for individual games in such a service.

In their initial presentation, it was pretty obvious to me, and anyone who was actually paying attention, that that it was never their intention to create such a service or have anyone believe that Stadia was ever meant to be that kind of service.

They should have been way more clear and upfront what their actual service is: a free console that anyone can use remotely.

That's all Stadia is. A free console. That you can stream from.

Of COURSE you have to buy the games. You want a free console AND free games? Anyone who complains about Stadia games costing money seems like kind of an idiot to me. They are literally saying they think the hardware and software should be free.

It's not a crazy idea at all. The only thing that's really preventing it from working is the network infrastructure in North America, Australia, etc.

But Google never really said "all this is is a free console, dude." They confused people into thinking their Live Gold/PS+ equivalent is Stadia in itself, or that they needed to buy the "Founders Edition" to use the service. I still think Stadia has a chance of exploding in popularity once it actually launches, but the word of mouth is pretty toxic so it really remains to be seen.

 

[Fredrik]

Delay
...until there are more games available and UPlay+ is up and there are some exclusives ready etc
Launch by focusing on Stadia Base and free online gaming

 

[inner-G]

They made all the right decisions, streaming games just isn't as good and people don't want to rely on streaming as their main way to play games

 

[skeezx]

i thought the launch was "fine", assuming it was a soft launch of sorts

imo just lots of confusion on what it is, it isn't a gamepass/netflix 4 gamez kind of deal.

 

[Dreamwriter]

The list is missing the big thing that needs fixing: make the hardware as powerful as promised, or the SDK able to use it to that extent, whatever the limiting factor is. That's really the only problem with Stadia, the fact that they promised next-gen console graphics but we generally don't even get "Pro/X"-level power from Stadia games, and definitely not the power we should be getting from their announced specs (and they've never explained what the problem is). If it was a next-gen console experience without the console, Stadia would be a truly great service. But if someone just wanted PS4 or Xbox One S power, might as well just buy one of those for cheap and have access to many more games (unless someone really wants to play console games on their phone...I personally don't know of anyone who would use that feature).

They also needed better communication - in large part that's just due to people having preconceived notions of what a "streaming" service should be, people who paid attention knew what Stadia really was, but it's still something they needed to make perfectly clear to counteract assumptions.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Just make a Steam competitor with a better UI.

Make a little PC/server device that can run games as well as streaming content. Basically an Xbox or PS tied to the Google/Google Home ecosystem.

Meanwhile, develop a wireless VR headset that only supports streaming from said device, which would in theory lower its cost since it wouldn't be doing the processing itself nor need much RAM, and take the opportunity to beat the competition on that front.

A more radical approach would have been to simply make Android phones stream content, as in you just use your phone as a game console. No server streaming stuff. Connect your phone to not drain the battery, and just cast from your phone to a display. Just make it easy for anyone to play a mobile game on any display and let mobiles catch up to consoles instead.

 

[thediamondage]

People understand Netflix, while most of us here understand what Stadia was launching with its a REALLY tough sell especially with how botched the launch was. People would be fine with "pay $10/mo, get this library of games". Saying "pay $10/mo for the pro service, free (LATER! NOT NOW!) for the 1080p basic service, you also have to pay individually for games but pro subs get a discount! and some free games!" is confusing as hell.

Also not launching with a great library of exclusive games was really, really dumb. Except if it was meant to launch as a beta, which is clearly is, but they don't want to admit it.

 

[Dreamwriter]

People would be fine with "pay $10/mo, get this library of games".

Click to shrink...

Of course they would, but that wouldn't ever pay for high quality games. $10 a month for unlimited games *plus streaming* would only ever get you crap-tier games. Ubisoft charges $15/month for a download-only service that's all their own games. Microsoft does a $10 download-only service because most of the AAA games on the service are ones that they themselves published, something that Google doesn't have yet (they haven't announced how much xCloud + Game Pass will cost). And Microsoft charges $15/month if you want to play those games with other people.

Imagine "Pay $20/mo, get this library of games" - that's more realistic for a Netflix-style game-streaming service from Google that includes AAA games.

 

[Joni]

Cancel it. There is too many problematic elements in the business case.

 

[modiz]

i'd make stadia into a console.

 

[Tortahegesztő]

Have the promised features. Log in should be as easy as clicking a button to use stadia with google account.
Maybe prioritise areas that have decent internet infrastructure for positive word of mouth.

 

[pcigre]

Love the service, playing a lot, having fun... yet I dislike the way it is being communicated.

So... change communication 100%, label as paid beta or early access, radically change the way of communication.