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.

  • smoothbrain coldtakes@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    One of the main issues with Stadia is that they didn’t even do the basics. I saw basically no marketing, and on top of that, I heard all kinds of rumors about the business model that were entirely false. They made no effort to combat the misinformation. It was never the case that you literally had to purchase the game on top of the subscription fees, but that was like the number one issue brought up in every discussion.

      • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        From everything I can see, you did have to buy games on Stadia. They would give you a free game a month, but if that wasn’t the game you wanted to play, you had to buy it. The base version of Stadia was free, but the Pro version gave you a discount on games - it did not make them free.

        This is the official support forum and there are many Q&A’s about purchasing games:

        https://community.stadia.com/t5/Payments-Billing/Can-t-buy-games-in-the-Store-OR-HDT-01/m-p/52482

        Got my Stadia Pro account with a credit card…

        … If you have an Android device, you can also try via the Stadia app to purchase games (once purchased, you can play them everywhere, on mobile, TV or PC).

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

            The “wrong” part was that you could theoretically play games you owned without the subscription active.

            But it was downgraded heavily enough that it wasn’t really worth doing.

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

            I couldn’t figure out how to do anything with one without paying the subscription. The interface was horrible and clearly designed to force you into subscribing before you could even use the thing.

        • Facebones@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          The “pay for sub then buy games on top of that” was 100% how I heard it worked and NEVER heard anything different from anywhere.

          That’s kinda nuts.

          • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            It was basically true.

            There was a bad experience version you could use without a subscription to games you purchased outright, and they included “free” games with your subscription, but to get a reasonable experience you had to pay for both.

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

              The subscription was only necessary if you wanted to play in 4K or wanted “free” monthly games. Everything else worked just fine without the sub, with no change to performance.

              • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                The subscription was absolutely required for performance not to be a complete dumpster fire.

                The free tier wasn’t mediocre. It was unplayable.

    • Molecular0079@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was never the case that you literally had to purchase the game on top of the subscription fees

      It depends on the game. There were a bunch of games under “Stadia Play” that came along with the subscription, GamePass style. And then there were games you had to outright purchase.

    • Trihilis@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The main problem with stadia was Google. I knew it was doomed from the start and that’s why I never bothered with it. I actually know a lot of people that didn’t bother with it because it was from Google. It’s basically a self fulfilling prophecy at this point that most of their shit ends up on the Google graveyard.

      A lot of people actually don’t trust Google anymore since they’ve already been screwed over many times by them.