You should blame me then. Once I saw that Google wasn’t going to honor steam library on stadia, and then charge full price for games on stadia, I noped out and never signed up.
I say this is a cloud gamer who uses G-Force now, and shadow. I was their target demographic. And they’re pricing model just noped me out of it
Once I saw that Google wasn’t going to honor steam library on stadia
That is such a weird complaint.
Google doesn’t own Steam. Google has nothing to do with Steam. Why would Google give you free games just because you purchased those same games on a competing platform?
Are you also complaining that Sony isn’t honoring your Steam library on the PlayStation? Are you complaining that Microsoft isn’t honoring the Steam library on the XBox?
Heck, are you complaining that Steam isn’t honoring the Nintendo Switch library on the Steam Deck?
That’s a good question. In my view Google was selling remote compute, remote graphics rendering, and charging a subscription fee for that. Just like GeForce now. Remember GeForce now and shadow, we’re both remote game streaming platforms that existed before stadia.
So Google comes along and says hey for a little bit more money than GeForce now, we’re going to let you render and stream games from our data centers. Just like GeForce now just like shadow.
Unlike those other platforms, you can’t bring your own library, you have to also buy the games from us, at full retail price. Even if the game is cheaper on steam.
So it was both a subscription service, and a wall garden with higher than normal prices.
It’s like subscribing to Netflix, and also having to buy the movies to watch. Pick your lane Google
Anyway I understand your position, I’m just trying to articulate as a cloud gamer at the time stadia came out, I was enthusiastic, but disappointed with their pricing model which didn’t seem competitive.
I think their options were to a, charge a monthly subscription, and allow people to bring their own libraries, like the steam library.
Or b. Charge for games, and then stream for free.
Doing both puts them in a significant market disadvantage, and I didn’t want to own games that were tied to a Google platform, because Google has a long storied history of shutting down platforms after a few years. I didn’t want to own games on a platform that would disappear. 100% Google’s reputation prevented me from trying out their platform because I didn’t trust them to be around for more than a few years
You didn’t need the premium subscription to stream your games. You could stream at 720p for free if you purchased the game. Blame Google’s marketing for making it seem like you did though
At the time stadia came out as a game streaming platform Geforce now, and Shadow already were established, both of those services charged a subscription but let you bring your own library.
Google’s Offering required you to subscribe AND buy full priced retail games that you couldn’t use elsewhere, so it wasn’t competitive with geforce now and shadow.
It’s not a weird take… because Geforce now and shadow are both still in business now, and stadia is not, they were not able to convince cloud gamers to take their offer.
Stadia did not require you to subscribe. You could just buy the game and play. Unlike GeForce. You don’t even know what the fuck you are talking about.
Stadia subscription only brought in 4k and monthly games. The base was free. And you down vote my comment like you fucking made a point. Learn to Google before commenting dumb ass
Edit: not only that the base was free there were free to play games like destiny 2 where the only thing you needed was a Google account.
I didn’t realize they allowed people to stream purchased games for free, my mistake, thank you for the correction. According to IGN article, the free games were if you had a subscription.
It’s a mystery why cloud gamers didn’t flock to google then. My core point about stadia not being competitive with geforce now and shadow stills stands, even though I got the details wrong about being about to stream purchased games for free.
I loved the service but he neglected to tell you cyberpunk looked like hot garbage compared to its PC equivalent.
I pretty much only used it for Destiny, and I too spent hundreds of dollars supporting the platform only to get it all back.
The convenience was wonderful, but worthless if they didn’t have what you wanted to play, and Google became less and less interested in working with developers as time went on.
I’m just articulating why I, as a cloud gamer at the time they release their product, stayed with different providers. They didn’t exist in the vacuum, GeForce now, and shadow, both existed, allowed you to use a pre-existing libraries, didn’t charge per game.
GeForce now was cheaper, Shadow was more expensive but provided better resolution.
So Google comes into the mix, and their option, while I wanted to try it, wasn’t palatable for me as a cloud gamer at the time.
Scenario 1: buy the game on steam, play it on local hardware, or GeForce now for $5 a month
Scenario 2: buy the game on steam, play it on shadow, or local hardware, for $20 a month
Scenario 3: by the game from Google for more than it costs on steam, only be able to play it on stadia, and pay I think it was $15 a month.
You can see why I chose scenarios 1 and 2 instead.
You should blame me then. Once I saw that Google wasn’t going to honor steam library on stadia, and then charge full price for games on stadia, I noped out and never signed up.
I say this is a cloud gamer who uses G-Force now, and shadow. I was their target demographic. And they’re pricing model just noped me out of it
That is such a weird complaint.
Google doesn’t own Steam. Google has nothing to do with Steam. Why would Google give you free games just because you purchased those same games on a competing platform?
Are you also complaining that Sony isn’t honoring your Steam library on the PlayStation? Are you complaining that Microsoft isn’t honoring the Steam library on the XBox?
Heck, are you complaining that Steam isn’t honoring the Nintendo Switch library on the Steam Deck?
I mean: what gives?
That’s a good question. In my view Google was selling remote compute, remote graphics rendering, and charging a subscription fee for that. Just like GeForce now. Remember GeForce now and shadow, we’re both remote game streaming platforms that existed before stadia.
So Google comes along and says hey for a little bit more money than GeForce now, we’re going to let you render and stream games from our data centers. Just like GeForce now just like shadow.
Unlike those other platforms, you can’t bring your own library, you have to also buy the games from us, at full retail price. Even if the game is cheaper on steam.
So it was both a subscription service, and a wall garden with higher than normal prices.
It’s like subscribing to Netflix, and also having to buy the movies to watch. Pick your lane Google
Anyway I understand your position, I’m just trying to articulate as a cloud gamer at the time stadia came out, I was enthusiastic, but disappointed with their pricing model which didn’t seem competitive.
I think their options were to a, charge a monthly subscription, and allow people to bring their own libraries, like the steam library.
Or b. Charge for games, and then stream for free.
Doing both puts them in a significant market disadvantage, and I didn’t want to own games that were tied to a Google platform, because Google has a long storied history of shutting down platforms after a few years. I didn’t want to own games on a platform that would disappear. 100% Google’s reputation prevented me from trying out their platform because I didn’t trust them to be around for more than a few years
You didn’t need the premium subscription to stream your games. You could stream at 720p for free if you purchased the game. Blame Google’s marketing for making it seem like you did though
I had no idea, thanks for pointing that out.
You know who else doesn’t honor steam library? PlayStation or Xbox. What a weird take
At the time stadia came out as a game streaming platform Geforce now, and Shadow already were established, both of those services charged a subscription but let you bring your own library.
Google’s Offering required you to subscribe AND buy full priced retail games that you couldn’t use elsewhere, so it wasn’t competitive with geforce now and shadow.
It’s not a weird take… because Geforce now and shadow are both still in business now, and stadia is not, they were not able to convince cloud gamers to take their offer.
Stadia did not require you to subscribe. You could just buy the game and play. Unlike GeForce. You don’t even know what the fuck you are talking about.
Stadia subscription only brought in 4k and monthly games. The base was free. And you down vote my comment like you fucking made a point. Learn to Google before commenting dumb ass
Edit: not only that the base was free there were free to play games like destiny 2 where the only thing you needed was a Google account.
Lots of hostility and name calling, are you ok?
Also, I didn’t down vote your comment.
https://www.ign.com/wikis/stadia-google-game-console/Google_Stadia_Price_Breakdown%2C_Release_Date%2C_and_Launch_Games
I didn’t realize they allowed people to stream purchased games for free, my mistake, thank you for the correction. According to IGN article, the free games were if you had a subscription.
It’s a mystery why cloud gamers didn’t flock to google then. My core point about stadia not being competitive with geforce now and shadow stills stands, even though I got the details wrong about being about to stream purchased games for free.
Another stadia user here.
I loved the service but he neglected to tell you cyberpunk looked like hot garbage compared to its PC equivalent.
I pretty much only used it for Destiny, and I too spent hundreds of dollars supporting the platform only to get it all back.
The convenience was wonderful, but worthless if they didn’t have what you wanted to play, and Google became less and less interested in working with developers as time went on.
Weird ass complaint man
I’m just articulating why I, as a cloud gamer at the time they release their product, stayed with different providers. They didn’t exist in the vacuum, GeForce now, and shadow, both existed, allowed you to use a pre-existing libraries, didn’t charge per game.
GeForce now was cheaper, Shadow was more expensive but provided better resolution.
So Google comes into the mix, and their option, while I wanted to try it, wasn’t palatable for me as a cloud gamer at the time.
Scenario 1: buy the game on steam, play it on local hardware, or GeForce now for $5 a month
Scenario 2: buy the game on steam, play it on shadow, or local hardware, for $20 a month
Scenario 3: by the game from Google for more than it costs on steam, only be able to play it on stadia, and pay I think it was $15 a month.
You can see why I chose scenarios 1 and 2 instead.