Google plan over 120 Stadia games this year, 10 coming to Stadia before other platforms

My guess is Steam Cloud gaming has more to do with Valve's partners than Valve itself. Microsoft and EA are both friends with Valve again, and both companies are developing their game streaming services. Considering it's been confirmed Origin Access is coming to Steam, it's not too far-fetched to expect some form of Game Pass to make its way as well. And since it's all but certain that the top tier of Game Pass will include the subscription to xCloud, it is very possible for EA to offer some equivalent. It's more likely (for me anyway) that Valve will enable such services through Steam, rather offer a cloud gaming solution of their own. Quite frankly, they just don't have the money and infrastructure to pull something like this themselves, IMO (don't get b*ttheart people, you know I'm right). Beyond Google and Microsoft, I can't really think of another company that has the network infrastructure and the infinite resources to create a palatable game streaming service. Even Sony has partnered with MS on that front.
End of speculations :)

PS I expect EA's streaming service to fail. I hope it's good, but I just don't see them being able to compete with MS and Google.

My guess is Steam Cloud gaming has more to do with Valve's partners than Valve itself. Microsoft and EA are both friends with Valve again, and both companies are developing their game streaming services. Considering it's been confirmed Origin Access is coming to Steam, it's not too far-fetched to expect some form of Game Pass to make its way as well. And since it's all but certain that the top tier of Game Pass will include the subscription to xCloud, it is very possible for EA to offer some equivalent. It's more likely (for me anyway) that Valve will enable such services through Steam, rather offer a cloud gaming solution of their own. Quite frankly, they just don't have the money and infrastructure to pull something like this themselves, IMO (don't get b*ttheart people, you know I'm right). Beyond Google and Microsoft, I can't really think of another company that has the network infrastructure and the infinite resources to create a palatable game streaming service. Even Sony has partnered with MS on that front.
End of speculations :)

PS I expect EA's streaming service to fail. I hope it's good, but I just don't see them being able to compete with MS and Google.

Well, in terms of Infra I would say Amazon is probably a key player here. Microsoft can potentially pull it off too, but I think all of them should partner to use the same protocols and technology to lower the cost and barrier for everyone. But that won't happen.

Epic started timed exclusives on PC and now Stadia follows their lead. I can only consider that anti-consumer. Such practices greatly reduce the chances of me spending money on your service.

Well, in terms of Infra I would say Amazon is probably a key player here. Microsoft can potentially pull it off too, but I think all of them should partner to use the same protocols and technology to lower the cost and barrier for everyone. But that won't happen.

Ah, Amazon - you're right. Them too. Actually, I think there are rumors of them actually building one. Would make sense really - they have tablets, Fire TV, Alexa, game development division and cloud of their own. It will be a interesting year, for sure.

I had forgotten that Stadia was even a thing. Seems like there was lots of hype about it, then it was released, and everybody promptly ignored it. Just doesn't seem like its made much of a splash.

Google: the company that owns everything Amazon doesn't. One hundred and twenty games seems pretty chintzy to me, at least for a big-bellied behemoth such as Google. Sort of sends the message "Our commitment to Stadia is ... meh."

I had forgotten that Stadia was even a thing. Seems like there was lots of hype about it, then it was released, and everybody promptly ignored it. Just doesn't seem like its made much of a splash.

I'd say that's because people don't want to jump in with both feet. Only the Premier edition is available now, which is $129 and comes with 3 months of "Pro" service. If I was me, I'd just want to sign up for one month and try it out using already-owned controller.

I do want to give it a try, but not for over $100. That's too steep to demo something when I already have a good computer, PS4, and Nintendo Switch.

If I was me

I have to remember that one! :D

I do want to give it a try, but not for over $100.

👍

I had forgotten that Stadia was even a thing. Seems like there was lots of hype about it, then it was released, and everybody promptly ignored it. Just doesn't seem like its made much of a splash.

I'd say that's because people don't want to jump in with both feet. Only the Premier edition is available now, which is $129 and comes with 3 months of "Pro" service. If I was me, I'd just want to sign up for one month and try it out using already-owned controller.

I do want to give it a try, but not for over $100. That's too steep to demo something when I already have a good computer, PS4, and Nintendo Switch.

Yup, it's a big ask right now. Once Stadia Base is out, with anyone able to register for free and then try a free to play game or buy a game - it will be very interesting to see how the views on it change.

I'm really not sure I get the business model here. On one hand, they've got the premium service which is premium enough that I feel few will want to buy it. They can certainly make money on that, except not enough to make the infrastructure worth it because not enough customers.
And on the other hand, they've got the free service, where you pay a basically normal price for games and then play them on the network for free (well, except your internet service gets expensive from bandwidth), costing Google money as you use their server infrastructure like crazy. Probably people will go for that, with a decent marketing push. But can Google make money that way?

Microsoft and EA are both friends with Valve again

They are? I don't follow the broader news in this area; how did that happen?


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 17 January 2020 at 5:28 pm UTC

I wonder how many smaller indie titles will be among those 120. That's what I mostly play these days, and what makes up the majority of my wishlist. I'm definitely the wrong demographic for a service with such a limited selection. Even GOG fails to get all the neat little gems that I have set my eyes upon right now.

I'd say for Stadia to have any chance of long term success, they have to develop a couple exclusives that appeal to the masses (or hand out plenty stuff for free like Epic does). Neither would make them any dearer to me ...

Exclusives, are annoying at the best of times.

Exclusives for a gaming platform that is incomplete and lacking features, is enraging.

Exclusives for a gaming platform that is incomplete and lacking features, and requires buying new hardware and paying a subscription to access, is insulting.

Exclusives for a gaming platform that is incomplete and lacking features, and requires buying new hardware and paying a subscription to access, and officially only available in US/Canada/parts of Europe, is trolling on a corporate scale.

Exclusives for a gaming platform that is incomplete and lacking features, and requires buying new hardware and paying a subscription to access, and officially only available in US/Canada/parts of Europe, and a game streaming platform with minimum latency and speed requirements,... is downright cruel.

Slow clap for Google, Thanks Google! For locking 10 games behind a virtual wall that prevents the majority of the planet from being able to buy or play them.

The only positive is that at least the exclusivity is timed, so eventually the games will hopefully come to platforms that everyone in the world can access, hopefully a very short period of time, like 3 months.

It's fine for those who live in regions with fast connections who happen to live the US/Canada/parts of Europe and happy/able to sign up to Stadia, but for those who don't live in those areas, it seems we're just going to get shafted out of game streaming when combined with exclusivity. If there was any chance of me paying for Stadia when it eventually comes to Australia, it disappeared the moment Google decided to shaft me, just because they don't want my money 'yet'.

Epic started timed exclusives on PC and now Stadia follows their lead. I can only consider that anti-consumer. Such practices greatly reduce the chances of me spending money on your service.

there is no such a thing a san world without exclusives.
there is either:
'sony get 20 exclusives, microsoft get 20 exclusives, nintendo get 20 exclusives, and everything else is multiplatform'
or
'almost everything is windows exclusive, other platforms have to try emulators to maybe be able to run something wit an crapy performance and an experience that vary from game to game, varing from run fine to run with tons of bugs.'

i used to be against exclusives too, but nowadays i see that this is an utopy.

microsoft is playing dumb breaking their own exclusivity deals because they know that, in an world without exclusives, anyone with the biggest marketshare win.


Last edited by elmapul on 18 January 2020 at 6:45 pm UTC

120 looks like a lot, but its just 10 per month.
hopefully, they are 10 triple a games, because indie we already have enough, and any platform can play then anyway so there is no point in playing then via streaming

Microsoft and EA are both friends with Valve again

They are? I don't follow the broader news in this area; how did that happen?

Microsoft and EA are both releasing their games on Steam again - I think they're both realizing that the restrictions to Microsoft Store and Origin are just limiting their profit margins. No idea, but Microsoft being all buddy-buddy with Valve is turning out to be a very bad thing for us.

Microsoft and EA are both friends with Valve again

They are? I don't follow the broader news in this area; how did that happen?

Microsoft and EA are both releasing their games on Steam again - I think they're both realizing that the restrictions to Microsoft Store and Origin are just limiting their profit margins. No idea, but Microsoft being all buddy-buddy with Valve is turning out to be a very bad thing for us.

Eh, that's not "friends" or even a collaboration for mutual gain. That's just MS and EA suffering a tactical defeat from Steam's superior network effects, and facing reality.

there is no such a thing a san world without exclusives.
there is either:
'sony get 20 exclusives, microsoft get 20 exclusives, nintendo get 20 exclusives, and everything else is multiplatform'
or
'almost everything is windows exclusive, other platforms have to try emulators to maybe be able to run something wit an crapy performance and an experience that vary from game to game, varing from run fine to run with tons of bugs.'

i used to be against exclusives too, but nowadays i see that this is an utopy.

microsoft is playing dumb breaking their own exclusivity deals because they know that, in an world without exclusives, anyone with the biggest marketshare win.

If a game is developed for only one platform it is not an exclusive. It becomes exclusive at the point where an agreement is done with whoever to exclude a certain platform from development.
It is one thing to not care about a platform. Actively hindering that platform to prosper is a different thing.

Also I do not agree with your statement on Windows becoming the only gaming platform without exclusives. Yes Exclusives sell consoles. Without exclusives consoles would have to offer another benefit over the PC. If they can not do that they would die (rightfully so). However Linux and MacOS have been around without attention from game developers and do obviously offer a meaningful benefit for the user over Windows, therefore there will always be Linux and MacOS users and there will always be a market of Linux and MacOS users to sell their games to. That would also apply to any cloud gaming platform, arcade hall or any other gaming platform assuming there is a meaningful enough benefit offered or a market to capitalize on.

If a game is developed for only one platform it is not an exclusive. It becomes exclusive at the point where an agreement is done with whoever to exclude a certain platform from development.
It is one thing to not care about a platform. Actively hindering that platform to prosper is a different thing.

Totally agree, developing for one platform is not exclusivity. That said I would wager alot that many if not all of the games in 2020 will be exclusive to Stadia because of a agreement.

Gylt Exclusivity

Except it is not.

Eurogamer spoke to Raúl Rubio Munárriz, co-founder and creative director of Tequila Works and asked for clarification as, until way in to 2020, the only way to play Gylt is to fork out £120 on the Google Stadia Founder Edition package and that seems rather limiting.

“OK we haven’t confirmed that it’s an exclusive yet,” he said “that’s a question we cannot answer”.

Wait. What? Is it a timed exclusive?

“We haven’t answered that yet and I cannot answer yet” is the reply.

So it’s coming to other platforms?

“I cannot answer yet.” evades Munárriz. “Of course, we will try to make Gylt accessible for everyone. I guess it’s not a design question, it’s more of a business question. Today is not the time to answer that question but rest assured, everyone will be able to play the game.”

If a game is developed for only one platform it is not an exclusive. It becomes exclusive at the point where an agreement is done with whoever to exclude a certain platform from development.
It is one thing to not care about a platform. Actively hindering that platform to prosper is a different thing.

Totally agree, developing for one platform is not exclusivity. That said I would wager alot that many if not all of the games in 2020 will be exclusive to Stadia because of a agreement.

I wouldn't bet against "many" exclusives--that's rather an indefinite target. Ten, which we have already, could be "many". But if it gets into "the majority" territory, there's gonna be some serious backlash given how much of the world can't actually use Stadia at all. At that point they've effectively stolen gaming from everywhere in the world that can't access Stadia. Be a lot of people worldwide hating on Google, just when issues like "antitrust" have started to be raised seriously even in the USA.

Google could probably pay off all the game companies enough to go for it anyway if they really wanted, they've got more money than God, but how long could they keep on paying all the game companies to dump half their markets? More likely they'll just do enough high profile games to drive a bunch of people to the store in the first place, hoping that many will keep using it once they've had a taste.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 20 January 2020 at 5:36 am UTC