Khm-khm...
...
...
probably trigger warning...
...
A coffin should never be that small
*youtube*

Some developers are concerned because they said that will be refounding user, but they don't talk about who will refound the games, if Google will refound 100% or will try obligate the devs to refound, or if just will be the porcentage they get... hard to know, it's too recently.

RIP

the second step is to make a good android tablet with external(not on the screen) controllers for Gog.com by Google and everyone will be saved

I think it is more about pricing, making a streaming gaming service a profitable business is tricky. Especially now with soaring energy prices.

Keeping up a cloud server farm with enough CPU power and RAM for playing modern PC games is in a quite different ballpark (hardware, operating costs etc.) than a server farm for transferring video feed or music (like Netflix and Spotify).

I guess Google realized that they are still quite far from the critical mass (enough userbase to make it profitable with sane prices), and the soaring energy prices were probably the nail in the coffin.

Oh well, to Google's credit, successful businesses realize fast when some endeavor doesn't fly, and are quick to drop it. Which is what Google did in this case, instead of trying to keep it alive when it was clearly just not going to fly.

I think some Youtube video, which reported about Stadia's problems already a long time ago, summed it up quite well that the userbase that Google Stadia, and other similar game streaming services, think is there, just isn't.

Like as if there is some untapped gaming market which doesn't want to buy a PS5 or a gaming PC, but somehow still thinks it is fine to pay a monthly fee just for an extra gaming service. As if they are cheapskates that don't want to pay for a PS5, but not cheapskates when it comes to subscribing to a game streaming service.

The video made a good point how the people who subscribed to Google Stadia were enthusiastic gamers who already had the latest gaming consoles and/or gaming PCs, but just subscribed to Google Stadia as kind of a backup for those rare cases when they don't have access to their main gaming devices, and maybe people who were just interested to see how this "new technology" works in practice.

So Google Stadia was not really the primary gaming platform for its paying customers, only a secondary backup.

I think GeForce Now! might have a better concept in their hands, in which you can play your EXISTING games (bought from e.g. Steam) on their streaming service. So it is much better suited to be an additional service to supplement your existing gaming, rather than trying to replace your existing gaming console or gaming PC.

I am unsure though how profitable business Geforce Now! is either, but at least to me the concept itself seems better for existing gamers, than what e.g. Google Stadia was.

Did someone actualy believe in this thing? To play on it you have to buy a copy of the game on Stadia + the subscription. A subscription only could have attract more peoples but seriously who wanted to buy games that can be played only on cloud, in Geforce Now there is not a lot of good games suported, but at least you can play them on your own computer too as you buy them from Steam, GOG, Origin,...

It was never alive in the first place.

Comparing the GOG launch back in 08 and Stadia's GDC announcement is kinda sad.
Soulless to say the least.

Poor execution. But they at least folks are getting refunds. OnLive "managed" to owe a bunch of cash to a local bakery ;P

Stadia killed itself not due to the technology (other stream services shows that ot wors just fine) but due to their buisness model. becuase of that they did not attract customers, and since there was no customers, developers did not publish their games on it. since there was not much games (over 50+ games!!!) they did not get new customers, and you had a spiral of death.

I think the service had a good idea and could have functioned as modled, but was killed by the 1-2 punch of Phil Harrison and pure unadulterated hubris.

Plus the executive dysfunction that comes with Alphabet Inc.

Google (Alphabet) do have a long standing tradtion of quickly killing of things if they do not work. there are positives and negatives to sucj a strategy.

for fun - https://killedbygoogle.com/

I must say i'm positively surprised they seem to refund everything? Did i read that wrong?

The failure doesnt surprise me: a very greedy/monopolistic model where people had to re-purchase the vgames to use the service...

The surprise is Guugle seems to refund hardware & software purchases...
I don't care anyway: That does not change even slightly, the way I consider them
They earn(ed) themselves that reputation

While energy and prices may be part of it, i disagree.

Back in 2005 when i was getting trained in the army, we had the Xbox, and i remember someone had gotten this mini plasma screen so he could game (Electronics had to fit within a confined space, so the original fat PS2 wasn't good, but the slim was workable). Problem is the screen had a 1/4th second delay. This is unimportant if playing DVD videos and media, but made ALL games useless that weren't say board/strategy, and all FPS and where reaction time was important.

You'll only have to try it for 30 seconds on any game and you'll find LAG is a major mood killer.

Add on that you either have more serious gamers who have the equipment and would dish out said money, or are people who play free games or under $5, and are more likely on their phones.

No, without a ton of disposable income, the market just is impossible.

Thoughts and prayers to the cloud assholes.

Surprisingly gallant of them, though I guess they had few enough customers that the sum of money involved was, while huge from the perspective of a middle class person, very manageable for the company of Google's size.

Somehow, I just don't see Steam being able to do the same when they shut down, even if they want to (which is far from a given).