Stadia opens a new studio led by Shannon Studstill, former Santa Monica head and executive producer of God of War (2018)

ShiningBash · Mar 5, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
The problem I see with the perception a lot of people have with Stadia is that they compare it to a traditional console launch. With a tradicional console launch, the library of games, price, how fast you can sell them, are extremely important. It is obvious that if a console fails on all of these points at launch, retailers will stop accepting it. If a console is not selling the game stops right there.

Stadia in comparison was launched as an MVP, designed to grow from a basic service with the minimum required to work. This is not like a console that you buy and if it sucks you sell it and it is very unlikely for you to buy it again. Stadia as a service will simply keep evolving whether you liked it or hated it at first. Today you might have terrible latency because the closest data center is too far away, that could change in the following months/years if they open one that is closer to you. Today their game library might suck and tomorrow they might have most of the games you would like to play. If they do get to improve the service enough in order for you to go back, you don't have to buy a console in order to use the service again. If your neighbor buys a game on Stadia and you try it and it works perfect for you, right there you just go to the Stadia app and buy the same game to start playing it in seconds. Compared to consoles, the friction of entry is almost non existent.

You made a lot of interesting points, but I wanted to focus on this portion about the comparison with a console launch. While Stadia is a different value proposition than a console launch, I don't think ppl are wrong to make a comparison this late in the generational cycle. Stadia isn't operating in a vacuum and so when you can't play many games on a service that's supposed to be the future after 6 months, ppl are wondering what's going on. Unlike console launches, they don't have to create new content, all they had to do was make sure all the third party content was available. Disney+ didn't launch with 30 movies, they threw everything on there.

I think the biggest question ppl have with Stadia is why did they launch it at all if they were going to have so few games and the 4k wasn't working? You don't get a second chance to make a first impression, and so I'm left confused as to why Google would shoot itself in the foot like this.

Charpunk · Mar 5, 2020

aggrocrog said:
I think the biggest question ppl have with Stadia is why did they launch it at all if they were going to have so few games and the 4k wasn't working? You don't get a second chance to make a first impression, and so I'm left confused as to why Google would shoot itself in the foot like this.

Probably wanted to get it out to start fully testing the service on a larger scale.

Alucardx23 · Mar 5, 2020

aggrocrog said:
You made a lot of interesting points, but I wanted to focus on this portion about the comparison with a console launch. While Stadia is a different value proposition than a console launch, I don't think ppl are wrong to make a comparison this late in the generational cycle. Stadia isn't operating in a vacuum and so when you can't play many games on a service that's supposed to be the future after 6 months, ppl are wondering what's going on. Unlike console launches, they don't have to create new content, all they had to do was make sure all the third party content was available. Disney+ didn't launch with 30 movies, they threw everything on there.

I think the biggest question ppl have with Stadia is why did they launch it at all if they were going to have so few games and the 4k wasn't working? You don't get a second chance to make a first impression, and so I'm left confused as to why Google would shoot itself in the foot like this.

You can compare anything to anything else, I have no problems with that. My point was that compared to traditional consoles, a service like Stadia or cloud gaming in general, depends less on having that successful launch in order to get the ball running. A console with the same launch Stadia had, would have retailers already returning the consoles back to the manufacturer. This is not the case with a cloud gaming service, where you have more time to continuously improve the platform and when it gets to a good enough point for someone, without any real friction that person can pickup their phone download the app and buy a game, or just open a chrome browser and buy the game there. This is a major difference.

Everyone can evaluate either buying a console or subscribing to a cloud gaming service based on what they want, what is possible economically for them and how good does the cloud gaming service works for them. As I mentioned, Stadia and other cloud gaming services will keep improving over time, Stadia might suck for you today, but what about tomorrow and the day after that? If you have an Xbox One today, it is likely or possible for you to have a better experience on Stadia, let's take Cyberpunk as an example. What would you say could happen in a situation like that, when someone has already tested Stadia to work good enough for them? Buying Cyberpunk on Stadia becomes a real choice at that moment. That person will immediately recognize that just with the price of the game, he is having access to a better experience than playing the game on his Xbox One. There is a reason why we are all starting to see people say they just need for the game library problem to be resolved, because the quality of the service is already good enough for them to want to play all of their games there.

The biggest failure for Stadia in my opinion was not having the lack of features, games or that the price of entry was $130. The biggest failure with Stadia was not to promote the service as an early access/incomplete service. They failed to recognize that most people would interpret the launch as a failure because they would be comparing it to what is expected out a traditional console launch, this is of course normal because that is the point of reference most people have. They could have avoided all of it by saying that they would start slow and add features and games over time. This is not to say that Stadia will succeed compared to other cloud gaming services, but people don't seem to understand that Google is in this for the long run. There is still a lot we don't know about how things will evolve over time. Cloud gaming is definitely the future in my opinion, but it's still too soon to say what service will be most successful over the next 3 to 5 years.

HardRojo · Mar 5, 2020

pcigre said:
Well, she did get out of a sinking ship ;) . My prediction that in next-gen, Sony will be losing %, and others will gain some. Microsoft probably the most. But that is just my subjective feeling.

I'm very confused. The studio just released their most successful game ever a couple of years ago, how the hell is that a sinking ship?

Dunlop · Mar 5, 2020

minimalism said:
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.

It is absolutely a huge portion of hate/fear/fanboyism.

This place is generally thought of as a well moderated, diverse gaming discussion forum but any and every Stadia topic is devoid of any real discussion and instead devolves into the same shit over and over.

How many drive by posts are in this thread alone?

How many calls for Google to shut this down for... Reasons?

If they have 1 customer or 1 billion, who cares here what Google's profit or loss is?

Cloud gaming is here to stay no matter how many scream into the wind about it.

klier · Mar 5, 2020

LOL, they should have done this 4 years before the release of the system.

Because as of right now, the system will be dead before this team manages to create a game.

ShiningBash · Mar 5, 2020

pcigre said:
Oh they can. They can mask billions of loses without a problem. Youtube was like a money burning machine for decade. And guess what, Microsoft burned billions into its gaming division.

I do understand people not seeing Stadia as being successful, there are plenty of problems with it, but those stating that streaming won't rule the gaming world in like 10 years... I find simply shortsighted or ignorant. Look around if it wasn't future why would Microsoft, Sony, Amazon, Google invest in it? Why would Microsoft see Google and Amazon as main competitors if it is so stupid and unimportant.

I think you're ignoring massive differences between YouTube "losing money" and Stadia's struggles. First, Google acquired YouTube in a stock purchase at a time when there was no dominant video upload/streaming site. YouTube wasn't a "money burning machine" it just wasn't making money at a time when no one had figured out how to make money off similar services. Stadia, in contrast, has spent 6 months establishing itself as an incredibly limited platform with vague promises of improvement. Unlike YouTube, Stadia did not enter a market vacuum, and so relative deficiencies stand out way more. Furthermore, Google in 2020 is a much more mature company that will have to explain the financial model of a service that consumers have not embraced. Don't confuse the fact Google makes a lot of money with the idea that they don't care about losing it indefinitely without a reasonable belief that things will turn around. It's the reason why Google spins of interesting companies all the time (e.g. Boston Dynamics and Dandelion Energy). Those were incredibly innovative companies with massive market potential...which Google suddenly divested bc they weren't making money fast enough.

Second, just bc streaming will be dominant in 10 years doesn't mean Google will be the company to unlock it. I'm not sure this comment is directed at me or others, but large investments don't guarantee success if everything else is poorly executed.

jsnepo · Mar 5, 2020

HardRojo said:
I'm very confused. The studio just released their most successful game ever a couple of years ago, how the hell is that a sinking ship?

Because he wants it to be a sinking ship.

Deleted member 46489 · Mar 5, 2020

Dunlop said:
It is absolutely a huge portion of hate/fear/fanboyism.

This place is generally thought of as a well moderated, diverse gaming discussion forum but any and every Stadia topic is devoid of any real discussion and instead devolves into the same shit over and over.

How many drive by posts are in this thread alone?

How many calls for Google to shut this down for... Reasons?

If they have 1 customer or 1 billion, who cares here what Google's profit or loss is?

Cloud gaming is here to stay no matter how many scream into the wind about it.

You're absolutely right. Cloud Gaming is here to stay. Stadia, though, isn't. Cloud gaming is majorly appealing to people in the developing world who love gaming but can't afford the expensive hardware required to play them. I live in India, and couldn't be more excited about XCloud coming to India. If Sony launches a cloud service as well and places all their exclusives on it, I'd be over the fucking moon. All I want is to play AAA games on my crappy laptop without having to shell out metric shit tons of money (which I don't have). And there are so many people like me. The market in India for such services is huge.

But Stadia doesn't do anything for me. The game selection is extremely limited (compared to something like XCloud, which will presumably have the entire gamepass library), and it will require me to purchase each game. On the top of that, with Google's record, I have no guarantee that the service will exist in a few years. With XCloud I don't care because I'm only paying for the subscription.

All in all, there are ZERO good reasons to choose Stadia over XCloud.

Dunlop · Mar 5, 2020

snowhite said:
All in all, there are ZERO good reasons to choose Stadia over XCloud.

That is a personal decision that can apply to any gaming platform.

My point was to look at this thread, the topic is Google creating a new studio with a high profile name to show they are serious and the discussion derails into the same "Google is bad" bullshit where 99% off the posters have not even used Stadia.

Go into any Stadia thread here then jump to page 2 and it will be the same thing.

Kamaros · Mar 5, 2020

HardRojo said:
I'm very confused. The studio just released their most successful game ever a couple of years ago, how the hell is that a sinking ship?

baffling to say this about a studio head that endured a office move and a cancelled new IP and launched the most critically and commercially successful game of the studio's history.

Yep · Mar 5, 2020

snowhite said:
You're absolutely right. Cloud Gaming is here to stay. Stadia, though, isn't. Cloud gaming is majorly appealing to people in the developing world who love gaming but can't afford the expensive hardware required to play them. I live in India, and couldn't be more excited about XCloud coming to India. If Sony launches a cloud service as well and places all their exclusives on it, I'd be over the fucking moon. All I want is to play AAA games on my crappy laptop without having to shell out metric shit tons of money (which I don't have). And there are so many people like me. The market in India for such services is huge.

But Stadia doesn't do anything for me. The game selection is extremely limited (compared to something like XCloud, which will presumably have the entire gamepass library), and it will require me to purchase each game. On the top of that, with Google's record, I have no guarantee that the service will exist in a few years. With XCloud I don't care because I'm only paying for the subscription.

All in all, there are ZERO good reasons to choose Stadia over XCloud.

To be fair there is, even anecdotally I know few people which are playing only one AAA every 2 years, and spent their time on this game only, and take years to end it (my girlfriend is in that case)
For this kind of player, paying 200+$ for a console is a hassle, and paying monthly subscription to only play the game they want is even worse
Even peoples buying their yearly sport game only are concerned too i guess

Saying there is zero good reasons is false, there are good reasons, but yeah, there aren't reasons for enthousiasts to have Stadia only, that's pretty true too

IIFloodyII · Mar 5, 2020

About time they started building up their 1st party, still surprised the didn't start doing this years ago. Seems like a great pick too, given she led SSM through a real difficult time after the new I.P got canned, up to their biggest success. Also seemed it was especially difficult on her in the GoW documentary, so I hope it goes great.

pcigre · Mar 5, 2020

aggrocrog said:
I think you're ignoring massive differences between YouTube "losing money" and Stadia's struggles. First, Google acquired YouTube in a stock purchase at a time when there was no dominant video upload/streaming site. YouTube wasn't a "money burning machine" it just wasn't making money at a time when no one had figured out how to make money off similar services. Stadia, in contrast, has spent 6 months establishing itself as an incredibly limited platform with vague promises of improvement. Unlike YouTube, Stadia did not enter a market vacuum, and so relative deficiencies stand out way more. Furthermore, Google in 2020 is a much more mature company that will have to explain the financial model of a service that consumers have not embraced. Don't confuse the fact Google makes a lot of money with the idea that they don't care about losing it indefinitely without a reasonable belief that things will turn around. It's the reason why Google spins of interesting companies all the time (e.g. Boston Dynamics and Dandelion Energy). Those were incredibly innovative companies with massive market potential...which Google suddenly divested bc they weren't making money fast enough.

Second, just bc streaming will be dominant in 10 years doesn't mean Google will be the company to unlock it. I'm not sure this comment is directed at me or others, but large investments don't guarantee success if everything else is poorly executed.

My comment wasn't about comparing market and success of YT and Stadia, it was about that they can tank losses for a long period and that they have history of doing it. Microsoft also.

TojoT · Mar 5, 2020

Good catch for Google. Here's hoping they make something really interesting.

ghostcrew · Mar 5, 2020

Damn, I wish my office looked like this. That's a gorgeous work space.

Dunlop · Mar 5, 2020

ghostcrew said:
Damn, I wish my office looked like this. That's a gorgeous work space.

Our breakroom does not even have a window : (

ShiningBash · Mar 5, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
You can compare anything to anything else, I have no problems with that. My point was that compared to traditional consoles, a service like Stadia or cloud gaming in general depends less on having that successful launch in order to get the ball running. A console with the same launch Stadia had, would have retailers already returning the consoles back to the manufacturer. This is not the case with a cloud gaming service, where you have more time to continuously improve the platform and when it gets to a good enough point for someone, without any real friction that person can pickup their phone download the app and buy a game, or just open a chrome browser and buy the game there. This is a major difference.

Everyone can evaluate either buying a console or subscribing to a cloud gaming service based on what they want, what is possible economically for them and how good does the cloud gaming service works for them. As I mentioned, Stadia and other cloud gaming services will keep improving over time, Stadia might suck for you today, but what about tomorrow and the day after that? If you have an Xbox One today, it is likely or possible for you to have a better experience on Stadia, let's take Cyberpunk as an example. What would you say could happen in a situation like that, when someone has already tested Stadia to work good enough for them? Buying Cyberpunk on Stadia becomes a real choice at that moment. That person will immediately recognize that just with the price of the game, he is having access to a better experience than playing the game on his Xbox One. There is a reason why we are all starting to see people say they just need for the game library problem to be resolved, because the quality of the service is already good enough for them to want to play all of their games there.

The biggest failure for Stadia in my opinion was not having the lack of features, games or that the price of entry was $130. The biggest failure with Stadia was not to promote the service as an early access/incomplete service. They failed to recognize that most people would interpret the launch as a failure because they would be comparing it to what is expected out a traditional console launch, this is of course normal because that is the point of reference most people have. They could have avoided all of it by saying that they would start slow and add features and games over time. This is not to say that Stadia will succeed compared to other cloud gaming services, but people don't seem to understand that Google is in this for the long run. There is still a lot we don't know about how things will evolve over time. Cloud gaming is definitely the future in my opinion, but it's still too soon to say what service will be most successful over the next 3 to 5 years.

I think the software comparison is an interesting analogy, bc I agree that Stadia is less like the Xbox One launch and more like Destiny 2, Warframe, or No Man's Sky. In each case, the initial product disappointed but the barrier to entry was so low that they were able to rebound long-term. I think that's the trajectory Stadia needs.

If they can get a bunch of games (not even exclusive content) working on a wider variety of devices, then I think it could turn around quickly. Right now though, they're behaving more like Anthem than anything else, and it's hard to overcome the hurdle of burning early adopters.

Yep · Mar 5, 2020

aggrocrog said:
I think the software comparison is an interesting analogy, bc I agree that Stadia is less like the Xbox One launch and more like Destiny 2, Warframe, or No Man's Sky. In each case, the initial product disappointed but the barrier to entry was so low that they were able to rebound long-term. I think that's the trajectory Stadia needs.

If they can get a bunch of games (not even exclusive content) working on a wider variety of devices, then I think it could turn around quickly. Right now though, they're behaving more like Anthem than anything else, and it's hard to overcome the hurdle of burning early adopters.

I guess that's why they are more enclined to pay to have Ubi games, RDR2, Cyberpunk or Avengers more than games from less successfull devs (I guess they offered huge money to EA and Activision too, and failed it seems)

criteriondog · Mar 5, 2020

Sampson said:
JRPG avatar.... Checks out.

Really dude

Sampson · Mar 6, 2020

criteriondog said:
Really dude

Yeah, it's not surprising to me that someone who makes a drive-by, anti-Stadia garbage post has a JRPG avatar.

criteriondog · Mar 6, 2020

Sampson said:
Yeah, it's not surprising to me that someone who makes a drive-by, anti-Stadia garbage post has a JRPG avatar.

Like, dude. What does the JRPG avatar have to do with anyone's content of their post? JRPGs are fun.

-PXG- · Mar 6, 2020

Far too little, far too late.

RoaminRonin · Mar 6, 2020

Sampson said:
JRPG avatar.... Checks out.

Stadia wishes it has JRPG's to sustain it's mediocre service that's still in beta.

CosmicGP · Mar 6, 2020

ghostcrew said:
Damn, I wish my office looked like this. That's a gorgeous work space.

Well, I hope it's all smooth sail-ing for them.

Deleted member 35631 · Mar 7, 2020

Google has the cash to build a great team of studios with wonderful people. It would be smart of them if they let Stadia die, and focus in releasing an actual console that can actually compete in the industry. Stadia is way ahead of its time, and Google is not helping it with all the mishaps they are having.

They want to be the "pioneers" of Netflix of video games, but it won't work. Videogames take much time and effort to put out than just streaming a movie. Movies can buffer while playing, so even if you have a shitty connection you can still watch a 1080p or even 4K movie. Not so with a game. The connection needs to be rock solid all the time, and with the industry going all out with 4K this new gen, it needs a better internet connection. No matter what Google say about only needing 10Mbps, it's a lie.

IMO, Sony is being the smartest. They know that streaming video games is the future, but not the present. They are getting prepared for the future, but in the meantime, they still focus all their forces into making a great console. Microsoft also want to follow Google's path, but it's not the right time YET! It's like two generations ahead.

Stadia opens a new studio led by Shannon Studstill, former Santa Monica head and executive producer of God of War (2018)

ShiningBash

Charpunk

Alucardx23

HardRojo

One Winged Slayer

Dunlop

klier

ShiningBash

jsnepo

Deleted member 46489

User requested account closure

Dunlop

Kamaros

Yep

IIFloodyII

pcigre

TojoT

ghostcrew

The Shrouded Ghost

Dunlop

ShiningBash

Yep

criteriondog

I like the chili style

Sampson

criteriondog

I like the chili style

-PXG-

RoaminRonin

CosmicGP

Deleted member 35631

User requested account closure