231–240 of 662 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google is trying something really innovative This kind of thing has been around for nearly 10 years.
Where? Who else is doing this type of cloud gaming?
>The OnLive Game Service was launched in the United States on June 17, 2010. The service was launched in the United Kingdom on September 22, 2011.
What is going on with Google? I used to think Google had the best product team in the world. In some ways I thought they defined what modern product management is/was. Now I have no clue what they are thinking with their product launches as of late. All of their products (and marketing) invoke this conservative, risk-adverse blandness that tries to appeal to everyone and in turn appeals to no one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They certainly dont inspire trust in anything but their flagship brands like Gmail that have been with us for decades. Even Gmail is a giant blob of garbage.
There is a hamburger icon (top-left), 9-dot icon (top-right), gear icon (top-right) and 3-dot icon (top-left). What do they all do? (I actually know).
When I worked for Nintendo we broadly called the segment I’m in “lapsed gamer” and it’s actually a pretty big niche...
What I read between the lines is that people are pissed that Stadia doesn’t address the “core gamer” demographic well (this kind of reaction is recurrent - see the Wii!), but might this not be a great go-to-market strategy?
A good model will be to start working on a new startup with a competing product as soon as google launches something. In couple of years when they shut down, provide migration paths. Swim in $$$.
I wonder about the damage Google does to any potential start ups in a field. How much buzz can you get when everyone’s first thought is “how could this be any good? Google already tried that and failed...”
It would restrict things like modding and user modifications of games, which I value rather highly. The fear that I suddenly loose access to software is also present since I certainly am one of these backwards hoarders. I saw people loosing some of their digital media when GFWL shut down.
Still, in context of this page I believe that there is life in the old dog yet, even if the dog isn't old at all.
A good model will be to start working on a new startup with a competing product as soon as google launches something. In couple of years when they shut down, provide migration paths. Swim in $$$.
I understand the cynicism of this community to Stadia but implore you all to think a little broader. Stadia is different, with this product Google is trying something really innovative. For one, the fact that Stadia actually costs money should be a signal of Google's long term ambition here. Yes, Fiber also cost money but was bogged down by the hell that is infrastructure development. Stadia will require a substantia…
You do realize that streaming games is an old idea and has been tried many times and Google's competitors do or will have similar services. Google isn't doing anything new here. They don't have any first-move advantage. The only advantage they have is infrastructure and scale. Whether that is enough, we shall see.
The innovation is not necessarily in the product but in the engineering required to make the product feasible. There is a long history of tech that simply is too early for the current environment. Google is betting the cloud gaming has reached a point of viability and it's very exciting to see them tackle the challenge.
Obviously there are concerns with the products. Specifically paying for games, the games itself, etc. But generally I'm excited for this effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, Google has failed at all kinds of products that other companies have achieved massive success with. This includes some really ubiquitous tools like a social network (Google+) or messaging apps (too many to list). I think at this point most people assume a failed project from Google has more to do with the company than the concept itself.
But these are all things where Google was late to the game and didn't succeed in taking someone's crown. So it's an interesting question: How does Google failing at some product that isn't already a well established concept impact the consumer's sentiment towards the idea behind it.