Everybody is talking about how terrible Google and their culture is, so I'll just put it out there that this is great news for gamers. Cloud-based gaming services are a terrible deal for gamers.
Gamers shouldn't cede so much control to some 3rd party who will be watching over their shoulder and collecting every scrap of data on them and their friends while they play. We don't need our performance in games being used to determine our physical and mental capabilities, our online chats being mined, or our social networks being graphed. When I fire up a single player PC game nobody is logging the days I play, or how many hours that I play to draw inferences about my life and responsibilities.
With very few exceptions, the games I play on my computer can't be remotely censored or modified against my will. Neither can the games on my shelf, and I can resell those too. Instead I retain the ability to mod games and alter their settings to my liking without anybody's approval even when the creators or publishers would disapprove.
All the benefits of Games-as-a-Service came with massive trade offs and provide far more benefit for the 3rd parties who would insert themselves between gamers and the games they want to play than they provide for gamers themselves.
Well; One afternoon of gaming every month and a match here and there.
Why do you feel that this is a bad demographic?
It’s basically perfect because people like me can’t really justify a console let alone a full fledged PC gaming setup and all the work that would entail.
Streaming services lose money the more they are used, the worst customer is the one who plays a lot and the best one is the one who doesn’t play at all.
Infrequent use is really ideal, and it would have suited me better than the alternatives too.
Why can't you justify a console? The cheapest Xbox is 300 dollars. If the console lasts 5 years, that's similar to paying 5 dollars a month for a streaming service.
If I want to play God of War a few hours a month then paying 700eur to enter or 75eur and a Netflix style subscription? Which is more reasonable sounding if you're not devoting much time.
Put it this way: Why do people use cloud based hosting over buying their hardware?
Mostly it's because they convert the one time cost to an amortised cost based on usage.
consoles are very affordable really (compared to the cost of a PC), but they do share a lot of the same problems as cloud services. Constant updates, little control. The PS5 interface is sadly filled with ads.
People who pay a monthly subscription but barely use the service? I would think that would be the best demographic to target, at least from Google's perspective.
There is a setting for this and it seems to work some of the time.
As soon as there is an OS update it doesn't progress (which, granted, is uncommon) and it only works for the last game you played. So if I play GTA and Apex Legends, then only one would get the update, and only if there is no OS update, and only if I use rest mode.
A lot of circumstances where it isn't going to help.
How is a terrible deal? I would literally need to spend at least a 1000 dollars for a gaming pc, and that is 4 years of GeForce now, without considering maintenance, the space, etc.
I’m playing cyberpunk 2077 max settings on a 2cm thick MacBook Pro, I don’t have a bulky pc to move every time I move, and most importantly, if I ever get bored I’ll simply stop paying instead of having a pc collecting dust
There's no doubt that cloud gaming services are convenient, but you give up a lot for that. If you don't really care about having access pulled out from under you, or your games being censored/changed, or your personal data being collected and used against you than it's probably worth it, but for gamers and gaming as a whole it's a problem.
You don't even need a bulky PC. You can get a gaming laptop if your worried about space/mobility. No doubt the video cards are expensive though.
The problem is that you have minimal control of your game. If Google bans your YouTube account b/c your video of you walking your dog recorded a restaurant playing a copyrighted song, then you could also lose your entire collection of games.
Looks like multiple games/developers have already been pulled off of the service and there's no shortage of people posting about being banned or locked out of their accounts. I'm sure the convenience is nice when it all works, but you have to give up a whole lot for that.
> When I fire up a single player PC game nobody is logging the days I play, or how many hours that I play to draw inferences about my life and responsibilities.
If you're playing through Steam, Origin, Epic, or even GoG's launcher then yes those two things are being recorded. Unless your PC is totally air gapped it will definitely be sending that kind of telemetry back to the mothership.
> With very few exceptions, the games I play on my computer can't be remotely censored or modified against my will
That's not really true if you've purchased a digital copy of a game (unless it's from GoG I suppose). You're buying a license that can be changed or revoked for any number of reasons, and the actual content you're given can be changed at any time.
Left 4 Dead 2 in Australia is an example of this; for the first ~5 years of its life Australia had a censored "low violence" version of the game thanks to our pearl clutching regulators.
Agreed on Steam (the only launcher I've allowed). They're absolutely collecting data too.
I prefer physical copies or at least complete installers. GoG is the first place I check. Anything I buy on steam I make sure to grab a cracked copy of as well (I've been burned by steam once already) so I can be sure games that don't need to be online don't have to be, and I can keep my purchases if steam closes shop.
The US can be weird about censored games too, but usually only with sex/nudity. I had to download Fahrenheit since Americans were only allowed a censored version named "indigo Prophecy", and I've had to patch some older games like BloodRayne too but it's nothing like what you guys have to put up with!
Well, you conveniently ignore the reality of lots of people who cannot afford or just don't want to buy a gaming computer or console there. Streaming services are an actual, viable option for them. Even though Google has done its best to show why it might not be just so viable after all...
Not having to keep up with hardware is pretty much the main selling point of games as a service and it's still not worth the tradeoffs.
I'm what they call a patient gamer anyway. I'm often 10 or 15 years behind, but I've never once run out of games to play and the savings are substantial.
Consoles (which have many of the same problems Stadia did) aren't usually terribly expensive if you're willing to be a generation behind and used console games are insanely cheap with the exception of certain franchises (Nintendo titles and JRPGs are notorious for staying expensive. Castlevania Symphony of the Night came out in 1997 and can still go for well over $100 for a copy!) but thankfully emulation covers a lot of that. By the time I picked up a PS3 I was picking up 10-15 games for the same cost as just one game at release.
As a bonus, waiting a few years to play the latest title means that everyone else has finished beta testing it for you and the entire experience is much improved. You can also usually get all (or most) the DLC included with the already low price of the game.
Point being, you don't have to spend a fortune or have a blazing fast video card to have a nearly endless selection of exceptional games.
You raise great points, but often a big motivator to play a specific game is the social aspect - playing with friends. Stadia gave me access to that when I wouldn't have otherwise. I have some really nice memories thanks to it.
Not to say I can't convince friends to replay older games - it's just a bit tougher.
Coincidentally, Russian users of Switch can currently experience this dilemma firsthand, as Nintendo forbid downloads from the shop even for already bought games. (Sony forbids purchases, but at least allows downloading games that are ‘owned’.)
Gamers shouldn't cede so much control to some 3rd party who will be watching over their shoulder and collecting every scrap of data on them and their friends while they play. We don't need our performance in games being used to determine our physical and mental capabilities, our online chats being mined, or our social networks being graphed. When I fire up a single player PC game nobody is logging the days I play, or how many hours that I play to draw inferences about my life and responsibilities.
With very few exceptions, the games I play on my computer can't be remotely censored or modified against my will. Neither can the games on my shelf, and I can resell those too. Instead I retain the ability to mod games and alter their settings to my liking without anybody's approval even when the creators or publishers would disapprove.
All the benefits of Games-as-a-Service came with massive trade offs and provide far more benefit for the 3rd parties who would insert themselves between gamers and the games they want to play than they provide for gamers themselves.