Thread: Report: Google deprioritizes Stadia as it shifts to securing streaming deals

Grisham

Ensuring Transparency
A new report today says that Google is deprioritizing Google Stadia while it's in the process of shopping the cloud gaming service's technology to business partners.

According to Business Insider, sources told the publication the focus for leadership is now securing streaming deals for Stadia under the label Google Stream.

Last year Google pitched its technology to Destiny developer, Bungie. Sources told Bloomberg that the proposed deal would have given the studio ownership over content and front-end user experience, with Google powering the backend technology.

Insiders told Business Insider that a similar streaming deal was pitched to Capcom involving its Resident Evil series.

With the change to Stadia's business strategy, leadership and staff of the division have seen their roles shifted. Phil Harrison, the head of Stadia operations, now reports to Google's head of subscriptions.

The shift in business operations has led to other changes in leadership as Jack Buser, former Stadia director for games went on to Google's cloud unit in September. Teddy Keefe, Stadia's partnerships manager for Europe, Middle East, and Africa left Google last month.

Google has also struggled to hold on to users, according to Business Insider. Harrison and leadership set a goal of 1 million monthly active users by the end of 2020. However they missed the goal by 25% a source told the site.

During February of last year Google closed down its internal game development efforts and shifted towards third-party games with Stadia.

 
More D.O.Adia. No one likes Streaming games besides that dude that used to shill for them on GAF.
It's a service that's tolerable to a extent but less than ideal If it's your only source for gaming.
Yep, and it's the future the big companies are desperate to see happen.

They get all the money from the storefront, they produce nothing tangible, and when you stop paying your monthly bill, you have nothing to show for it. Perfect for them, horrible for us. And there are so many cheerleaders for it...
 
The public deprioritized it a week after launch. Google can fuck right off.

I think the base idea wasn't bad, 10 bucks a month instead of buying physical hardware for way more and being able to play on every device with a screen. Then of course buying games. But everyone expected a Netflix for games and that wasn't what Stadia was about. Google misread the market and launched a wrong business model.

Also, streaming quality, latency and all that. But I think many casual fans would be ok with that if they had like 20 bucks a month and a good library of games for "free".
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeresJohnny
I think the base idea wasn't bad, 10 bucks a month instead of buying physical hardware for way more and being able to play on every device with a screen. Then of course buying games. But everyone expected a Netflix for games and that wasn't what Stadia was about. Google misread the market and launched a wrong business model.

Also, streaming quality, latency and all that. But I think many casual fans would be ok with that if they had like 20 bucks a month and a good library of games for "free".
I dunno, the problem as I see it is that most people realize for $20 a month, you're gonna get what you pay for. For a movie streaming service, $20/mo makes sense, but to most people who are interested in games enough to actually sign up for this, I really wouldn't be expecting much and that would make me question why I was bothering to begin with. Plus, tying the ability to play to one's internet connection is just always gonna limit the appeal; in North America, there are still vast swaths of the country with shit internet and some that have no high speed at all. And even those who do, some have caps, some have varying swings in quality.

I think the idea is interesting but not worth exploring. Usually when something else comes along, it's to make life better, less restrictive for the end user and Stadia did neither of those things IMO. I think that's where MS' Gamepass makes more sense, because you download the games and aren't being buggered by latency and issues like that when actually playing them.

EDIT: wow just saw it was $10/mo that's even worse.
 
  • Brain
Reactions: regawdless
I dunno, the problem as I see it is that most people realize for $20 a month, you're gonna get what you pay for. For a movie streaming service, $20/mo makes sense, but to most people who are interested in games enough to actually sign up for this, I really wouldn't be expecting much and that would make me question why I was bothering to begin with. Plus, tying the ability to play to one's internet connection is just always gonna limit the appeal; in North America, there are still vast swaths of the country with shit internet and some that have no high speed at all. And even those who do, some have caps, some have varying swings in quality.

I think the idea is interesting but not worth exploring. Usually when something else comes along, it's to make life better, less restrictive for the end user and Stadia did neither of those things IMO. I think that's where MS' Gamepass makes more sense, because you download the games and aren't being buggered by latency and issues like that when actually playing them.

EDIT: wow just saw it was $10/mo that's even worse.

Stadia was dead from the beginning. Especially once MS starts with Gamepass + 5bucks for the ability to stream the games and you don't even need to own any hardware, what could Stadia possibly bring to the table.
 
  • 100%
Reactions: HeresJohnny
Stadia was dead from the beginning. Especially once MS starts with Gamepass + 5bucks for the ability to stream the games and you don't even need to own any hardware, what could Stadia possibly bring to the table.
Totally agreed. MS also smartly started selling a payment instead of a purchase. I know some people who couldn't afford to drop a half a grand on a Series X, but they can scratch up $35 a month. With that, you own the hardware, and you get an unlimited supply of games delivered in a much more doable format.
 
  • Like
Reactions: regawdless
Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him.

Still cant believe Google with its deep pockets didnt buy/build 3-4 studios ahead of launching a platform. Or at least money hat a major AAA game for a 1year exclusive. Instead that got some C-tier stuff that made them look cheap and uncommitted to the platform.
 
  • This tbh
Reactions: regawdless
I was honestly surprised Stadia lasted this long.


Yeah, the speed with which Google go from 'great idea Brad let's do this!!!' to 'Hey Brad why don't we go trekking in the Forest this weekend? Just you, me and Klaus. ' is crazy.


I'm fairly sure that in 15 years, if the decibel response to a Keynote reveal is less than stellar, Klaus will be waiting off stage. :unsure:
 
  • Funny
Reactions: regawdless
I'm amazed they managed to get it so wrong. If there's any company that knows what the masses want, surely it's Google.
Stadia shows that having a lot of money and advanced tech resources doesn't automatically mean you will win in this industry.
 
Paying a monthly fee to then have access to a store where you can purchase full-priced games that you can only play as long as you keep paying the monthly fee on a streaming service that probably works like shit in your area anyway.

What an amazing business.
 
  • 100%
Reactions: gameragodzilla
Paying a monthly fee to then have access to a store where you can purchase full-priced games that you can only play as long as you keep paying the monthly fee on a streaming service that probably works like shit in your area anyway.

What an amazing business.
Not only that, but you completely lack access to the files, so if Google decides to shut down the service completely like they're in the process of doing now, well all the money you spent buying that game went completely up in smoke.

Meanwhile, I can still play Doom 3 or Crysis anytime I want because they're installed my local machine, and with no DRM either.
 
  • 100%
Reactions: Grinchy