A statement from a Google employee, Dov Zimring, has been released as a part of the FTC vs Microsoft court case (via 9to5Google). Only minorly redacted, the statement gives us a run down of Google’s position leading up to Stadia’s closure and why, ultimately, Stadia was in a death spiral long before its actual demise.

"For Stadia to succeed, both consumers and publishers needed to find sufficient value in the Stadia platform. Stadia conducted user experience research on the reasons why gamers choose one platform over another. That research showed that the primary reasons why gamers choose a game platform are (1) content catalog (breadth and depth) and (2) network effects (where their friends play).

“However, Stadia never had access to the extensive library of games available on Xbox, PlayStation, and Steam. More importantly, these competing services offered a wider selection of AAA games than Stadia,” Zimring says.

According to the statement, Google would also offer to pay some, or all, of the costs associated with porting a game to Stadia’s Linux-based streaming platform to try and get more games on the platform. Still, in Google’s eyes, this wasn’t enough to compete with easier platforms to develop for, such as Nvidia’s GeForce Now.

  • Chozo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The worst thing about Stadia was the squandered opportunities. Had Google actually put some effort into marketing it, it could have really succeeded. The tech behind it worked amazingly well. I played Destiny 2 on it from launch to the service’s shutdown, and it was a fantastic experience. The latency was nowhere near as bad as people (who often never even tried the platform) would claim, and it was also the best place to play Cyberpunk 2077 at launch, as it was somehow the most stable version of the game. Streaming to YouTube worked very well, and some of the integrated features with YouTube (where viewers could interact with certain games) were also kinda groundbreaking.

    But somehow, Google couldn’t be bothered to advertise the product at all. They ran 1 Super Bowl commercial which didn’t make a whole lot of sense to the average viewer, and then basically zero marketing after that. They refused to inform the public about what the product is or how it worked or what stood it apart from its competition, which led to bad-faith reviews and rumors being spread about the platform, ultimately leading to most people who knew about Stadia being wildly misinformed on it.

    It’s such a shame. I absolutely loved Stadia. It fit my needs perfectly. None of the other streaming platforms I’ve tried have even come close, even today.

    • mushroom@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was intrigued but I didn’t want to invest in it because of Google’s history of killing great products.

      They have some great tools for their cloud platform but at this point, I wouldn’t go all in on any new product of theirs.

    • sznio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      But somehow, Google couldn’t be bothered to advertise the product at all. They ran 1 Super Bowl commercial which didn’t make a whole lot of sense to the average viewer, and then basically zero marketing after that.

      Google is really bad at marketing despite being an advertising company. Most of the products they’ve launched then shut down I just never heard of, despite finding the ideas behind them really enticing after the fact.

      • Chozo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Google is really bad at marketing despite being an advertising company.

        They’re an ad server, not an ad producer. They don’t make ads of their own, they distribute other’s ads.

        Small distinction, but helps to explain why Google is terrible at marketing their products.

    • ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I always loved the “hardware running 24/7” e-waste part of it

      I owned a ps4 that I must have played 60 hours on for spiderman and horizon and now it’s never going to be used anymore

      Would’ve loved a streaming platform that doesn’t cost a whole console in a year in subscription fees + makes you pay for the games

      • Chozo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Would’ve loved a streaming platform that doesn’t cost a whole console in a year in subscription fees + makes you pay for the games

        Stadia’s subscription service wouldn’t have cost more than a console for several years. It was only $10/month, and also not required to play the games or use multiplayer.

        It would’ve taken over 4 years for Stadia Pro’s subscription costs to reach the price of a PS5, not even including a PS+ subscription. And during that time, you’d have been able to claim ~150 free games. Realistically, Stadia had the potential to be more economic than buying a console.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wouldnt call a PS4 e-waste, if the PS2 is anything to go by it will end up cycling about for a long time in some shape or form. Seriously PS2 parts are a solid mix of old new stock, newly manufactured parts, or spares taken from scrapped dead consoles.

        • ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even for ps2 I don’t know what percentage of it ends up seeing some regular use

          It’s a narrow long tail

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Regular use is irrelevant so long as it doesnt end up in a land fill, what matters is that they get some continued use and survive in solid enough numbers.

      • llii@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But you don’t need PS+ for Spider-Man and Horizon? And you could buy and sell the console + games after playing the two games you wanted to play on the platform.

        It’s not as convenient as just streaming the games, but it is possible.

    • MooseBoys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The tech behind it worked amazingly well.

      In my experience it was pretty shit. While visiting family in Minnesota, I got a better experience using Steam remote play to my desktop in Seattle than I did using Stadia, both in terms of latency and visual quality. I’m sure it would have been better living in California or New York, where you’re closer to a datacenter. But Doom Eternal was just unplayable for me.

    • Running_Out_Of_Plans@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google couldn’t be bothered to advertise the product at all. Except, apparently, to me specifically. I must have seen the same handful of Stadia advertisements literally 100+ times while watching YouTube. I got very sick of it after a certain point.

    • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I got one, was super disappointed with the functionality and didn’t like it at all. Returned it in less than a week. I got it after it’d already been steeply discounted and was so glad I hated it and got a refund when they killed it…

    • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Despite Google being heavily invested in the advertising space, they have always been terrible at advertising their own products. It almost seems like the top brass don’t actually care about their non-search products at all.

    • ZOSTED@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah a product like that needs a Big Personality to be a sort of spokesperson for it. To go around and do the press circuit, and be the face of the product. Get memed, etc.

      My guess is it was just a bunch of well meaning nerds behind this one, and no one wanted to actually go out there and bat for it.