Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stadia died because no one trusts Google

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 626 posts

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#471

Post by Nokinside »

DannyBee wrote: post #463
_zgx0 wrote: post #66

I feel like some of these perspectives are very tech industry focused rather than gamer focused. As a gamer, I think Stadia failed because the system they created doesn't make sense. You had to buy games at real $40-$60 prices but you could only play them through this limited service. I don't think anyone wants that. Compare that to paying the same price for a regular PC game which you can play via streaming using a…

"I feel like some of these perspectives are very tech industry focused rather than gamer focused." They are - Google is still the most trusted brand in any studies you can find (and if you find one where it's not, it's probably #2) It is going down rather than climbing right now, but that's also not that uncommon - Apple/etc is also seeing the same thing. Now, among tech, and maybe even gamers, i would bet this is le…

You are taking about general trust into brand. That's not what the trust means in this context.

We are talking about trust for Google to launch a new product or service. It's not worth to users nor businesses to direct any money or effort into anything new Google makes because it's not for long.

Google simply can't be trusted to do that. Partial list of products estalishing this trend: Meebo, Buzz, Orkut, Google+, Notebook, SideWiki, Google Schemer, Google Spaces, Google Checkout, Google Directory, Google Sync, Google Hangouts, iGoogle, Google Knol, Google Lively, Google Moderator, .... Complete list is over 200 items long.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#472

Post by fxtentacle »

josefresco wrote: post #469
_zgx0 wrote: post #66

I feel like some of these perspectives are very tech industry focused rather than gamer focused. As a gamer, I think Stadia failed because the system they created doesn't make sense. You had to buy games at real $40-$60 prices but you could only play them through this limited service. I don't think anyone wants that. Compare that to paying the same price for a regular PC game which you can play via streaming using a…

> You had to buy games at real $40-$60 prices but you could only play them through this limited service. sigh As a gamer and actual Stadia user this is not a complete or fair depiction. Like almost every other cloud/gaming service including Xbox etc. Stadia had a "Pro" subscription model which have you access to dozens (hundreds?) of games. Furthermore "you could only play them through this limited service" is exactl…

Geforce now allows you to link an Epic account and play all the games you previously purchased.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#473

Post by password54321 »

delecti wrote: post #464
password54321 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any gamer actually looking for a console would have found one through a discord bot in a decent amount of time. No one was about to abandon console gaming because they had to wait a month. Something to also keep in mind is people have friends on these consoles and accounts with achievements they care about.

Alternatively, that same gamer could have just bought the game they want on Stadia and not have any of that hassle to deal with. Also, I've owned every Playstation since PS2, and I've never played an online multiplayer game on one (with the exception of Journey, which does so silently), nor do I give the slightest damn about achievements.

No one cares if you care. That's completely besides the point.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#474

Post by tristor »

I buy almost every tech gadget related to gaming. I didn’t buy Stadia. The reasons are pretty much as below, in order.

1. Google is not a reliable vendor. Anything they launch is highly likely to be cancelled and you are left holding the bag.

2. Game streaming is fundamentally inferior to local play, and the structure of the Stadia market didn’t account for this.

3. XBox Game Pass exists, which is superior to Stadia in every way, and comes from a reliable vendor.

I’m more surprised that anyone bought Stadia than I am that it got canceled.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#475

Post by throwastream4 »

_zgx0 wrote: post #66

I feel like some of these perspectives are very tech industry focused rather than gamer focused. As a gamer, I think Stadia failed because the system they created doesn't make sense. You had to buy games at real $40-$60 prices but you could only play them through this limited service. I don't think anyone wants that. Compare that to paying the same price for a regular PC game which you can play via streaming using a…

Streaming works for movies and TV, it will work for games.

It was a shitty platform to develop for, end of story. I’m the games industry, there are 100 more failures that look like that.

Specifically Vulkan is bad, and Linux is worse.

The solution is obvious and done by the extant and thriving streaming services.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#476

Post by StanislavPetrov »

throwastream4 wrote: post #475
_zgx0 wrote: post #66

I feel like some of these perspectives are very tech industry focused rather than gamer focused. As a gamer, I think Stadia failed because the system they created doesn't make sense. You had to buy games at real $40-$60 prices but you could only play them through this limited service. I don't think anyone wants that. Compare that to paying the same price for a regular PC game which you can play via streaming using a…

Streaming works for movies and TV, it will work for games. It was a shitty platform to develop for, end of story. I’m the games industry, there are 100 more failures that look like that. Specifically Vulkan is bad, and Linux is worse. The solution is obvious and done by the extant and thriving streaming services.

>Streaming works for movies and TV, it will work for games.

Latency isn't an issue for movies or TV. Streaming will never work for games in the same way playing a game locally does.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#477

Post by gilbetron »

h0l0cube wrote: post #194
stingraycharles wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least for Google, I don’t think you can call what they did with search low hanging fruit. Their solution was anything but, and it was truly innovative (at the time) and their success was well deserved. I do agree that they’re victims of their early success, but rather that it proves that it’s rather difficult to make multiple successful products. When you own a whole ecosystem, like Microsoft and Apple do, it make…

> When you own a whole ecosystem Google virtually own Android, and yet they haven't innovated or taken the initiative in a way that Apple has. A distinction can be drawn with Apple here, as they've opened new markets by making devices that didn't exist yet (e.g., touch-driven mobile computing). They innovated from the beginning, not so much remaking Altavista with Bigtable.

You have it backwards. Except for the very first iphone, largely Apple steals from UX, technologies, and form from the Android ecosystem. Apple is great at polishing ideas, but not so great at launching new ones entirely. They do have a few, but not many. Most of their "advances" can be traced back to non-Apple ecosystems. Apple has a closed ecosystem that they control completely, which I why I (and many Android users) hate. They stand on the shoulders of open systems like Android and watch for innovation that has merit, pluck it out, polish, and deliver it as their own, then gain the bulk of the reward. I see them as largely parasitic. Hell, they even claim reliability claims for OS X while standing on the back of unix.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#478

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

Nokinside wrote: post #471
DannyBee wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I feel like some of these perspectives are very tech industry focused rather than gamer focused." They are - Google is still the most trusted brand in any studies you can find (and if you find one where it's not, it's probably #2) It is going down rather than climbing right now, but that's also not that uncommon - Apple/etc is also seeing the same thing. Now, among tech, and maybe even gamers, i would bet this is le…

You are taking about general trust into brand. That's not what the trust means in this context. We are talking about trust for Google to launch a new product or service. It's not worth to users nor businesses to direct any money or effort into anything new Google makes because it's not for long. Google simply can't be trusted to do that. Partial list of products estalishing this trend: Meebo, Buzz, Orkut, Google+, No…

Exactly this. Would I trust a new google offering by putting a bunch of my money, time, dependences into it? Hell no. The history is too strong that this offering will likely only be around for a short time and then be unceremoniously shut down and leave you hanging. Ironically, the fact they they keep doing this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#479

Post by indymike »

h0l0cube wrote: post #131
_zgx0 wrote: post #66

I feel like some of these perspectives are very tech industry focused rather than gamer focused. As a gamer, I think Stadia failed because the system they created doesn't make sense. You had to buy games at real $40-$60 prices but you could only play them through this limited service. I don't think anyone wants that. Compare that to paying the same price for a regular PC game which you can play via streaming using a…

> As a gamer, I think Stadia failed because the system they created doesn't make sense. Google, Facebook, etc. are victims of early success. They made their billions on low hanging fruit, by throwing a lot of resources at problems with very high demand for a solution that weren't yet tackled well (e.g. query the internet, keep in touch with friends). So it's no wonder that in this day in age they are incapable of und…

> Google, Facebook, etc. are victims of early success.

This is accurate. What makes a company good a defending market leadership makes them terrible at innovation - and you see this with both Google and Meta as they churn though building 100 million dollar products only to discontinue them because they aren't worth billions yet.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#480

Post by blitzar »

statictype wrote: post #405
chongli wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their solution was anything but, and it was truly innovative (at the time) and their success was well deserved. It was totally low hanging fruit. Try building a search engine today. The barriers to entry are much harder. Finding useful sites and filtering out spam are much more difficult now than when Google started. The signal to noise ratio on the internet has plummeted. And that is just the difficulty of building…

It was totally low hanging fruit. Try building a search engine today. The barriers to entry are much harder. Finding useful sites and filtering out spam are much more difficult now than when Google started. The signal to noise ratio on the internet has plummeted. This is what everyone thought in 1999. Search engines were a solved problem in a crowded market where there could be little room for new contender And whate…

> This is what everyone thought in 1999. Search engines were a solved problem in a crowded market

We must have lived in different 1999's

Post reply on HN