Kolx

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,505
Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick says that Google Stadia overpromised on its technology, and didn't seem to expand the market like it had hoped. In a talk at the Bernstein Annual Strategic Decisions Conference, Zelnick explained why the company had supported the release of streaming, and he doesn't sound positive on the platform so far.

"Streaming technology is upon us," he said. "The launch of Stadia has been slow. I think there was some overpromising on what the technology could deliver and some consumer disappointment as a result."

Most of his comments, though, were focused on the business aspect. Zelnick was critical on that point as well, appearing to suggest that it doesn't have immediate plans for Stadia and stressing that it wasn't the "game-changer" it was made out to be.

"Anytime you broaden distribution you potentially broaden your audience, which is why we supported the release of Stadia with three titles initially and will continue to support high-quality streaming services as long as the business model makes sense. Over time I believe streaming will work... The belief that streaming was going to be transformative was based on a view that there were loads of people who really had an interest in interactive entertainment, really wanted to pay for it, but just didn't want to have a console. I'm not sure that turned out to be the case."

He also emphasized that subscription models and streaming are two different things that don't necessarily connect--you can have a subscription model without streaming, as in Game Pass, or streaming without a subscription, like Stadia. In the past, Zelnick has been bullish on streaming and skeptical of subscriptions.
 

Lant_War

Classic Anus Game
The Fallen
Jul 14, 2018
23,662
Who could've known people don't want to buy games exclusively to stream and be locked to having an internet connection when they could get them for cheaper on local hardware.
 

shark97

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
5,327
The belief that streaming was going to be transformative was based on a view that there were loads of people who really had an interest in interactive entertainment, really wanted to pay for it, but just didn't want to have a console. I'm not sure that turned out to be the case."

Well, that seems to be a bit harsh. Stadia would frame it more as, why pay extra for a console if you dont need one?

Who could've known people don't want to buy games exclusively to stream and be locked to having an internet connection when they could get them for cheaper on local hardware.

I mean really, you're basing your sales pitch on gamers who dont have internet connections in 2020? Internet access of some type is nearly ubiquitous.


For Stadia, I was a big defender of it (or the concept) on here, til it went free and I tried Destiny on it. The lag made Destiny PVP unplayable. At that point I've reversed. I have little further interest in Stadia.

It still seems like there could be something there, in that it can in theory turn every $200 crappy laptop and chromebook into a triple A capable machine. I think that's powerful. But yeah not for me.
 
Last edited:

Jon Carter

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,746
The belief that streaming was going to be transformative was based on a view that there were loads of people who really had an interest in interactive entertainment, really wanted to pay for it, but just didn't want to have a console. I'm not sure that turned out to be the case.

Absolutely no one could have seen this coming.
 

Gareth

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,869
Norn Iron
He also emphasized that subscription models and streaming are two different things that don't necessarily connect--you can have a subscription model without streaming, as in Game Pass, or streaming without a subscription, like Stadia. In the past, Zelnick has been bullish on streaming and skeptical of subscriptions.
Streaming without a Netflix-style subscription is off-putting for me. When streaming comes to Game Pass, that's when I'm more likely to use it.
 
May 17, 2018
3,454
The belief that streaming was going to be transformative was based on a view that there were loads of people who really had an interest in interactive entertainment, really wanted to pay for it, but just didn't want to have a console. I'm not sure that turned out to be the case."

Please let this always be the case.
 

Lump

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,394
Well yeah I'm sure there are a ton of people who want to play console quality games without a console, but how many people are willing to pay $60 a pop for game after game for online stream-locked copies but then draw the line at buying a console at around $250-300 or so to play them, and also happen to pay for excellent high speed internet? I'm sure such folks exist, but that doesn't sound like a sizable market whatsoever.
 

Rosebud

Two Pieces
Member
Apr 16, 2018
44,548
People that don't want to buy consoles aren't paying $60 for games...

I want streaming to be attached to my normal library, like remote play on PS/Steam.
 

Deleted member 10737

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
49,774
The belief that streaming was going to be transformative was based on a view that there were loads of people who really had an interest in interactive entertainment, really wanted to pay for it, but just didn't want to have a console. I'm not sure that turned out to be the case.
yep. they kept trying to sell people on the idea that there's a group like that out there, but it never made any sense.

either you already have a console/PC and are interested in the paid games that stadia is offering, or you don't have a console/PC and most likely aren't interested in those games in the first place, at least not interested enough to buy them for full price. and if it's about running the games on higher specs than you can afford, i still think 9 times out of 10 people would prefer to buy and run the game at lower settings on hardware they already own than buy them to stream them on stadia.
 

Lobster Roll

signature-less, now and forever™
Member
Sep 24, 2019
34,911
Stadia is following the same lifecycle as Ouya where we're in the stage where multiple articles are coming out now reporting on its doom. It'll be a forgotten relic by year-end.
 

Launchpad

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,225
You either need to have streaming just be an extra option on top of downloads or have a really good subscription model to go with it to make streaming exclusively happen.
 

Filipus

Prophet of Regret
Avenger
Dec 7, 2017
5,177
The belief that streaming was going to be transformative was based on a view that there were loads of people who really had an interest in interactive entertainment, really wanted to pay for it, but just didn't want to have a console. I'm not sure that turned out to be the case."

It is the case. The problem is that Stadia is locking the games you buy to an unproven (and half scary because it's google) environment. If I could pay a subscription to stream my games and buy them in other platforms, like Steam or Xbox, I would be 100% in, like a lot of people.

We need more "Play anywhere" titles, cross-buy. Then I feel streaming will take off. Stadia business model just seems wrong to me.
 

Tallshortman

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,663
I have a 200/10 mb/s wired connection on my PC and Stadia has been the same since I tried the beta. Basically looks like ~900p on my 1440p monitor. Just awful image quality, always looks fuzzy. Lag seemed okay though.
 

Yep

Member
Dec 14, 2017
531
I don't doubt there are people who want to play games but don't want to buy a console, the problem is more imo than Google is really bad at making know it even exists to this audience...
 

TheJackdog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,644
I dont think his fault was believing in streaming.

I think his fault was believing in google.
 

Decarb

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,701
Said it before, the venn diagram between people willing to spend $60 on a single game and people who didn't want $300 box is nearly two perfect circles.
 

Hyun Sai

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,562
The "negative latency" bit was all I needed to hear to know how seriously I would take this thing.
 

2CL4Mars

Member
Nov 9, 2018
1,789
I have good internet and Stadia is a lag fest, paying Destiny 2 on it wasn't a good experience, I'm living in a Nordic country. So hopefully streaming isn't the future or at the very least 5-10 years away.
 

VariantX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,996
Columbia, SC
Its an idea that the infrastructure cant really support yet. It'll succeed one day, but just not right now unless they want to figure out how to get google fiber into every major city in the next few years.
 

TheJackdog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,644
Said it before, the venn diagram between people willing to spend $60 on a single game and people who didn't want $300 box is nearly two perfect circles.

exactly. the tech Is pretty great, its the service. the marketing is confusing and obtuse, the lineup is limited, the launch barely supported any devices, and the ongoing service has been lackluster.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,243
Imagine thinking there are millions of secret potential consumers out there who already pay for high speed internet each month but for some reason couldn't put down $299 for an Xbox...
 

Lothars

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,765
Stadia is following the same lifecycle as Ouya where we're in the stage where multiple articles are coming out now reporting on its doom. It'll be a forgotten relic by year-end.
The other similarity is some thought Stadia was going to take over everything like some did for ouya. It was heading this way from the beginning so this isn't surprising at all Stadia ending up like this
 

asd202

Enlightened
Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,828
Stadia business model never made sense to me. It should have been a subscription service like Gamepass but streamed to multiple devices so more similar to Xcloud. Paying full price just to stream a game is a bad value proposition.
 
Oct 31, 2017
8,466
The belief that streaming was going to be transformative was based on a view that there were loads of people who really had an interest in interactive entertainment, really wanted to pay for it, but just didn't want to have a console. I'm not sure that turned out to be the case."
Called out this stuff month ago (and I remember a fair amount of people being confrontational about it too).

"Here's a an expensive service that requires top quality infrastructures, targeted at core users (enthusiasts) that somehow are also willing to make dozens of compromises on the final quality because for some reason they don't want to pay for the hardware".
Weird audience.
 

Mathieran

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,946
My internet has been on the fritz the last few days. If I had stadia I wouldn't able to use it. I don't want to deal with that.
 

No_Style

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,795
Ottawa, Canada
"Anytime you broaden distribution you potentially broaden your audience, which is why we supported the release of Stadia with three titles initially and will continue to support high-quality streaming services as long as the business model makes sense. Over time I believe streaming will work... The belief that streaming was going to be transformative was based on a view that there were loads of people who really had an interest in interactive entertainment, really wanted to pay for it, but just didn't want to have a console. I'm not sure that turned out to be the case."

I think the true test of this theory is when there are PS5 or XSX games along with Stadia version. Stadia launched with games available on other platforms people may already have. Stadia needs to hit the ground running with next-gen exclusive titles as well. It needs to show that people can have the next-gen experience without the need for the pricey hardware.

Then again, MS is trying to answer that question on its own with Project xCloud. Plus offering people the option to play their first party games via the cloud or on actual hardware.
 

TheTyrantShow

Alt Account
Banned
Apr 23, 2020
255
Google is also the wrong company to do this. Their support is non-existent and this will join their graveyard soon enough.
 

Bear

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,031
I really don't see how they resurrect Stadia. It's been pretty much DOA from a messaging perspective since launch. Even giving away games won't drive an audience. I don't know how they can save it.
 

deathsaber

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,116
Stadia could have a place for me if it weren't so premium priced. All I see is a lot of old games I can buy for full price or damn near that, most which that have been available in stores/eshops for $20 or less many times.

That said, I get they probably need to charge this to actually pay for those servers and shit, you just can't give it away and then people use all that bandwidth endlessly.

But I think the $59.99 per game model just doesn't work. Needs to be a Xbox Gamepass, or PSNow type of subscription system that gives access to a whole library of games, not just a monthly fee for an old freebie or two, plus paying for full priced games.

But the fact that Gamepass and PSNow basically exist as they do, kind of eclipse any usefulness that Stadia might present to someone. For me, its damn near zero. The only big MAYBE it might get further business from me on is Baldur's Gate 3- I don't have a gaming PC, so it might be my best option to play it (barring waiting for a console port, which could happen, but not certain, and might take a year or two post PC release.
 

TechnicPuppet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,897
See honestly, their biggest issue to me still seems to be using Linux. They could have had 1000s more games. Not the only issue right enough.

Me for example I don't have a great gaming PC. I took the pro trial thing and didn't even use it. There were games I'd play on TV but they don't support Android TV. Crazy. Then the games that I'd play with mouse and keyboard just aren't in the lineup.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,635
Said it before, the venn diagram between people willing to spend $60 on a single game and people who didn't want $300 box is nearly two perfect circles.

I think this is true, originally I was thinking for the very large group of people that have consoles but only buy 1 or 2 games a year. GTA, RDR, COD, FIFA, Madden type of players who definitely exist but when they already have a console why would they bother and if Stadia isn't going to market like crazy around the launch of the PS5 and XSX none of them will know it exists.
 

exodus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,970
They way overpromised. The fact that a system that is reportedly 2x the power of an X1X can't even match the X1X in settings and performance is enough to deter me. Add in a bad pricing model, poor cross-platform availability, no cross-platform multiplayer on crucial titles (Destiny 2), and subpar IQ compared to the competition (NVidia), and it's a no go for me at this point.

  • Give me 50mbps+ streams
  • Give me better performance than consoles
  • Let me play on iOS, FireTV, and my PC
  • Don't charge me full price for a streaming-only license to a game

Fix all of those issues, and then I'll bite. So far, NVidia is closer to the mark. But neither is quite there yet.
 

platocplx

2020 Member Elect
Member
Oct 30, 2017
36,115
i am SHOCKED! that google couldnt deliver. this is the same old story in damn near everything they try to get into.
 

Lunatic

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,865
I was excited about their idea of opening a youtube video of a game and instantly try the game myself in the browser by clicking a button.

Likely that will never actually happen.
 

Bunkles

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,663
So basically RDR2 tanked on Stadia as expected. The online portion of the game has been a barren wasteland since launch.
 

EagleClaw

Member
Dec 31, 2018
11,090
Well, google didn't really go for the "console-player market".
There are not a lot of people that even know about Stadia.

Most people i know thought it is something like Steam or UPlay.
 

J-Skee

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,257
At least on paper, Stadia & the next-gen systems have similar specs, but nothing is properly optimized for Stadia other than faster loading. The games you would expect to be 4K60 just aren't.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,535
Has it even launched on phones yet? Not sure how they managed to push this service out to the masses by locking it to chromecasts or whatever at launch. The whole point was not needing hardware
 

Deleted member 30681

user requested account closure
Banned
Nov 4, 2017
3,184
streaming at best for the next couple years is nothing but an option for me, and I think now was not the right time for Google to come out and tout a streaming platform, as something to replace a console or a gaming PC. game streaming has progressed quite a bit over the past decade, but we're definitely not there yet. It's why I think how MS is marketing and pushing Xcloud is extremely smart.

Google definitely over-promised as well with regards to what the platform can do. The expectations they set were very much that we'd get games that look better than their PS4 Pro/Xbox One X counterparts and at best, many of these games look very comparable to those.
 

BennyWhatever

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,869
US
I am actually the target consumer for Stadia. I have a good connection and I don't mind slight latency, and I don't want to buy all the latest consoles.

However, I just don't care about any of the games on Stadia in the slightest, so I haven't bitten yet. I have tried PS Now and it was amazing and terrible. When it worked I loved it, but the PC app is just horrendous and needing a PS4 controller for all the games I wanted to play made me not renew.
 

cw_sasuke

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,682
People really don't understand how popular console and traditional PC gaming are right now. These guys won't change what they are used to unless everything is perfect and better with the streaming offerings.

Best case scenario right now would be a optional service in addition to owning a console ala xCloud or PSNow down the line. Exclusive streaming ala Stadia is just too much for most people and the reliability of current network structures.

While I'm still interested to see how Stadia will evolve down the line...it's gonna be difficult to get people to care once PS5/XSX are out.
 

smurfx

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,709
geforce now was basically everything stadia was trying to be but the publishers made sure to kneecap it. fuck all of them.
 

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
What's wild about what you quoted, with the stay at home orders one would think streaming would benefit.

That's the thing. Many of the affected People realized it was better to pay $250 for a PS4 or $150 for an Xbox One SAD than to buy multiple $60 games on a $10 per month subscription.
 

ghibli99

Member
Oct 27, 2017
18,141
Yeah, I can't think of a service where I'm basically paying the equivalent of a direct download or physical goods price just to stream it. The only thing saving it from complete death are the games included with the $10 Pro plan, and even then it isn't compelling enough vs. what's on offer elsewhere (I did the 2 months for free, played Gylt, a little bit of SteamWorld Quest, and that's it). I was really hoping that it would basically just be like Netflix: subscription-based streaming that gives you instant access to a large, rotating library. When it was revealed that they were going to charge separately for each game, my interest died.