I just don't see the value add of stadia. Can someone explain? Why would a gamer choose it over a PS5 or Xbox?
Plus you can play on your TV, mobile device, computer, etc, with the same game saves seamlessly moving between all of them.
No initial $400+ cost.
It offers a lot of the same benefits as consoles, including a monthly subscription that provides good, free games.
The downsides are latency and having to have an internet connection, and the latency is actually pretty decent. Oh, and having to buy the games from Stadia, even if you already own it on Steam, but that's no different than other "consoles".
It's a very compelling platform that they've completely failed to market correctly. With them giving up on first-party games, it seems pretty inevitable that they'll give up on the whole thing now, too. A lot of people never thought it'd last in the first place, and that's partly from their history and partly because Google didn't show enough commitment to it. Those studios that they just shut down were the best proof of their commitment.
Worth pointing out that Microsoft has opened up their platforms so you can buy a single copy of a game and play on any supported Xbox or Windows PC: https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/xbox-play-anywhere
I dunno about that. Counter example: YouTube got huge before Google made original content for it. So, I don't buy the whole "not serious cuz they don't have first party content" argument.
Can you only play select games in the subscription? Do they ever get removed?
I'm just trying to see why it is struggling. It seems like a great concept
They also offer a paid subscription (like XBL and PS Plus) that offers certain benefits (higher resolution, etc) as well as free games each month.
If you cancel your subscription, you can no longer play the games you got for free, and you can only play your paid-for games up to (IIRC) 1080p.
It's a great concept that a lot of people don't really see the point of, since they've already invested in PCs and/or consoles, and they don't really want to game remotely at all.
There's also very, very few exclusive games, and they're all pretty weak.
The system as a whole looks good until it's compared to other systems, and then the problems start to show up.
This was all made worse by them requiring that you buy $100+ of hardware to get started at launch, when one of the best use cases for it is people who can't afford to put much money up-front for a console. You can now play it for free, but that wasn't the case at launch when the hype as at its peak. They ruined their best marketing window, and they didn't trumpet the change loud enough when they finally made everything available to anyone.
They've basically screwed up marketing on this in every way possible, and now they aren't even committed to making first-party games, unlike every other console.
Its also nice to not have a large box hooked up to your TV.
Putting aside Cyberpunk's overall problems, it performed a lot better on Stadia than last gen hardware https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/10/22167303/cyberpunk-2077-...
Theoretically nobody's going to play 24/7 so you could share the hardware between multiple customers, but in practice latency means that your DCs need to be close to them anyway.
The only way Stadia (or some other bullshit like it) could possibly be cheaper would be:
1. Price dumping
2. Preferential game pricing from publishers (to instead hide the hardware costs there)
3. Gym model (tricking casual users into signing long and expensive contracts)
From my perspective, I probably average 8 hours of gaming a month, so there is plenty of opportunity to pack my usage onto some shared hardware.
I personally wouldn't use it because I'm anal about refresh rates/max settings/latency/etc but for other people (especially younger gamers with less disposable income) I think it's pretty compelling.