Gaming is not in Google's DNA and they lacked the will to make the required investments to break into the industry (this was clear when it shut down it's internal game studios)

They launched on the cusp of a new console generation with last gen tech. They made big claims about 4k/60 but in reality games performed on par with a PS4 Pro (which was about 3 years old at the time of Stadia's launch). They never updated the hardware after 9th generation consoles came out the following year.

They did not launch with a big exclusive AAA first party game. There was no killer app. No Halo, no Mario, no God Of War. They were totally reliant on third party publishers porting cross platform games over. The only people with a compelling reason to use it were those with fast internet but no console/PC because it wasn't better graphically than incumbents and had no major exclusive games.

Microsoft's GamePass in the cloud model (or something like it) is likely the one that will catch on. Netflix of gaming. Digital consumption is moving to all you can eat subscriptions. Google model was "own" games in the cloud. It's a bit like buying digital copies of movies vs Netflix/Disney+/HBO Max. The subscription model appeals to a wider market if it can be priced right.

I own a 2013 MBP. I reached the limit of dual booting a while ago, but still wanted to play new games without buying a new computer.

I subscribed to PlayStation Now, and got to play Spider-man for $12 per month and the cost of a controller. I knew going in that, like Netflix, I didn’t own the content and it might disappear.

I had a similar experience with Amazon’s service, where I played Watchdogs Legion for a few weeks. I used the PS4 controller.

I’ve been subscribed to Nvidia GeForce for sometime. I pay $4 per month (yay for legacy pricing) to have a high end machine for my casual gaming. My game selection is limited, but I own what I play. If I choose to build/buy a gaming PC, I’ll have games.

Stadia was flawed because I had to buy a new controller that was locked to Stadia, but games that are locked to Stadia, and subscribe to Stadia. That’s a lot of commitment just to _try_ a service. The idea of locking my game purchases to a single service was never going to fly for me.

Stadia could have been more successful if they adopted the models of Nvidia or Amazon, and just rented a machine in the cloud. The special controller can help decrease latency, but isn’t required.

Look at me, I hated the idea of a service like steam with a passion, hell it makes me nervous thinking of all my games, only playable at the whim of valve, but here I am, I buy all my games on steam now. Mainly because I trust them, it took about ten years before I bought my first game, but valve did not mess up, they kept to a simple straightforward honest service, and they have proven themselves an honest partner in my game purchases since. still sort of hate it, but it is so convenient.

But google does not think like that, they think that if something is not an instant success you throw it out and start over, no concept of growing a service. Also, google would have a hard time running an honest service, they are an advertising company.

They probably asked themselves "are we that serious about gaming?" and the answer was no, so they shut it down.

Every time this came up the question would be, what happens when it shuts down since you had to buy games specifically for it.

That was also a problem for it, it didn't work with your existing library on steam or piggy back on something like Xbox Game Pass. They were trying to enter a market that already has many engrained players.