Google gives up on Stadia, will offer refunds on games and hardware

Quoting: STiAT

Quoting: MohandevirIt would be really nice of them to "turn on" the standard bluetooth pairing for the Stadia controller, so we may use it elsewhere, wireless... It could make a fantastic AndroidTV controller for GeForce Now...

I thought that was a hardware limitation not just a limitation by the firmware.

Would be nice, I really like the controller.

Nope. The Stadia controller has a standard 4.2 bluetooth chip... It's only used for initial pairing, though.

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: KlaasBut it requires a lot more power everywhere else, so it should be avoided at all costs.

It's a nice way to think, but like people who argue against capitalistic ways all the time, it's just not grounded in the reality of how we all live our lives. Should I care about how much energy servers on everything I use cost the planet? Yes. Do I? Not really, I'm just trying to survive and keep costs low like everyone else.

Everytime I read this kind of argument, I'm wondering if the environmental impact of the over the seas shipments of the new devices is taken into account... I guenuinely don't know, but I'm wondering if a few shipments to the likes of google, for their servers with the streaming impact is much worse than 25+ millions of units of consoles or pc being shipped to 25+ millions of different adresses, on huge ocean liners/trucks/airplanes that burns lots of unecological fuel... I'm guenuinely curious.

I don't know... but the 25+ million people will still need a device to access their games either way. Maybe less often, though.

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: KlaasBut it requires a lot more power everywhere else, so it should be avoided at all costs.

It's a nice way to think, but like people who argue against capitalistic ways all the time, it's just not grounded in the reality of how we all live our lives. Should I care about how much energy servers on everything I use cost the planet? Yes. Do I? Not really, I'm just trying to survive and keep costs low like everyone else.

Everytime I read this kind of argument, I'm wondering if the environmental impact of the over the seas shipments of the new devices is taken into account... I guenuinely don't know, but I'm wondering if a few shipments to the likes of google, for their servers with the streaming impact is much worse than 25+ millions of units of consoles or pc being shipped to 25+ millions of different adresses, on huge ocean liners/trucks/airplanes that burns lots of unecological fuel... I'm guenuinely curious.

I don't know... but the 25+ million people will still need a device to access their games either way. Maybe less often, though.

Not if you already have the device, because it runs on a potato. Yes there will be new devices to be bought, but streaming will lengthen your device's lifespan, thus less shipments required.

And think about electronics... Even more obvious with DIY PCs... Parts rarely comes from one place... I don't know. I'm wondering.

Edit1: Seriously, let's pretend we are in a 100% streaming world (absolutely not a wish; I like local gaming too much)... I'm probably still running my old i7-3770 from 2012. No Graphics card, one less shipment.

Edit2: And now, I'm thinking about all the upgrades I wouldn't have bought afterward... That much less shipments... Yikes!

Edit3: x25 million users? And one device for all services? No need for a Playstation and/or Xbox and/or Steam Deck and/or PC and/or Nvidia Shield, etc... One device that does it all in the form factor that you prefer? Think about all the shipments that gets avoided... Ok. It's highly theoric, but see where it could lead us?


Last edited by Mohandevir on 30 September 2022 at 5:35 pm UTC

Quoting: KuJo

Quoting: BlackBloodRumI wonder if they'll do real refunds to your bank account, or just give you credit to your google account so that you have to still use their services to use your refunds?

That would be okay for me. I get back about 280€. Could invest that in a Google Pixel 7, which I want to buy. :)

I guess there's that

Pixel phones are probably the only google things I do buy. Gotta love the ability to flash GrapheneOS the same day it arrives at your doorstep

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: STiAT

Quoting: MohandevirIt would be really nice of them to "turn on" the standard bluetooth pairing for the Stadia controller, so we may use it elsewhere, wireless... It could make a fantastic AndroidTV controller for GeForce Now...

I thought that was a hardware limitation not just a limitation by the firmware.

Would be nice, I really like the controller.

Nope. The Stadia controller has a standard 4.2 bluetooth chip... It's only used for initial pairing, though.

Then I hope they change that, otherwhise the controller is just waste while it could still be perfectly used.

I doubt it though that there will be a single dollar more invested.

Hope is the last thing to die though. I even like the Stadia controller better than the Steam one (my wife prefers the steam one though, so it would be nice if I could use the Stadia one).

Quoting: BielFPs

Quoting: slaapliedjeAnyone who knows anything about Google pretty much knew it. They try to diversify their businesses, but they almost always end up giving up on them and going back to 'give us data to sell ads to'

Maybe nowadays yes, but back then Stadia was still in beta and most of user were excited about the brand new Read Dead Redemption 2 support

Also kudos for @YoRHa-2B who apparently also saw that coming

Ha, yeah I mean I never signed up for it as I knew it was going to happen when Stadia was first announced. I'd have never signed up for it regardless, as it always seemed a way to take money from people without letting them ever actually own anything.

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: KlaasBut it requires a lot more power everywhere else, so it should be avoided at all costs.

It's a nice way to think, but like people who argue against capitalistic ways all the time, it's just not grounded in the reality of how we all live our lives. Should I care about how much energy servers on everything I use cost the planet? Yes. Do I? Not really, I'm just trying to survive and keep costs low like everyone else.

Everytime I read this kind of argument, I'm wondering if the environmental impact of the over the seas shipments of the new devices is taken into account... I guenuinely don't know, but I'm wondering if a few shipments to the likes of google, for their servers with the streaming impact is much worse than 25+ millions of units of consoles or pc being shipped to 25+ millions of different adresses, on huge ocean liners/trucks/airplanes that burns lots of unecological fuel... I'm guenuinely curious.

I don't know... but the 25+ million people will still need a device to access their games either way. Maybe less often, though.

Not if you already have the device, because it runs on a potato. Yes there will be new devices to be bought, but streaming will lengthen your device's lifespan, thus less shipments required.

And think about electronics... Even more obvious with DIY PCs... Parts rarely comes from one place... I don't know. I'm wondering.

Edit1: Seriously, let's pretend we are in a 100% streaming world (absolutely not a wish; I like local gaming too much)... I'm probably still running my old i7-3770 from 2012. No Graphics card, one less shipment.

Edit2: And now, I'm thinking about all the upgrades I wouldn't have bought afterward... That much less shipments... Yikes!

Edit3: x25 million users? And one device for all services? No need for a Playstation and/or Xbox and/or Steam Deck and/or PC and/or Nvidia Shield, etc... One device that does it all in the form factor that you prefer? Think about all the shipments that gets avoided... Ok. It's highly theoric, but see where it could lead us?

Yeah, except in a real streaming-only world, since there would be no alternative to the streaming services, and there would be only a few of them, they would cut anti-competitive deals with each other and all start mandating the hardware you use, so you'd have various incompatible-with-each-other consoles all over again that you'd have to spend money on . . . not because there was any valid technical reason for it, but because they could.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: KlaasBut it requires a lot more power everywhere else, so it should be avoided at all costs.

It's a nice way to think, but like people who argue against capitalistic ways all the time, it's just not grounded in the reality of how we all live our lives. Should I care about how much energy servers on everything I use cost the planet? Yes. Do I? Not really, I'm just trying to survive and keep costs low like everyone else.

Everytime I read this kind of argument, I'm wondering if the environmental impact of the over the seas shipments of the new devices is taken into account... I guenuinely don't know, but I'm wondering if a few shipments to the likes of google, for their servers with the streaming impact is much worse than 25+ millions of units of consoles or pc being shipped to 25+ millions of different adresses, on huge ocean liners/trucks/airplanes that burns lots of unecological fuel... I'm guenuinely curious.

I don't know... but the 25+ million people will still need a device to access their games either way. Maybe less often, though.

Not if you already have the device, because it runs on a potato. Yes there will be new devices to be bought, but streaming will lengthen your device's lifespan, thus less shipments required.

And think about electronics... Even more obvious with DIY PCs... Parts rarely comes from one place... I don't know. I'm wondering.

Edit1: Seriously, let's pretend we are in a 100% streaming world (absolutely not a wish; I like local gaming too much)... I'm probably still running my old i7-3770 from 2012. No Graphics card, one less shipment.

Edit2: And now, I'm thinking about all the upgrades I wouldn't have bought afterward... That much less shipments... Yikes!

Edit3: x25 million users? And one device for all services? No need for a Playstation and/or Xbox and/or Steam Deck and/or PC and/or Nvidia Shield, etc... One device that does it all in the form factor that you prefer? Think about all the shipments that gets avoided... Ok. It's highly theoric, but see where it could lead us?

Yeah, except in a real streaming-only world, since there would be no alternative to the streaming services, and there would be only a few of them, they would cut anti-competitive deals with each other and all start mandating the hardware you use, so you'd have various incompatible-with-each-other consoles all over again that you'd have to spend money on . . . not because there was any valid technical reason for it, but because they could.

Not sure about that. Your reasoning revolves around an hardware centric business... Cloud gaming is a SaaS. What hardware you use, they don't really care. What they care about is the subscriptions and the services you pay for. In many cases, those that supply cloud services don't even supply the hardware. Why would they bother? If what you say is true, I wouldn't be able to use GeForce Now on the same device as Stadia. Sony wouldn't have put their games on PC. There is a paradigm shift caused by SaaS.

Edit: What you will definetly see, though, are exclusive games from service to service.


Last edited by Mohandevir on 30 September 2022 at 6:52 pm UTC

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: Purple Library GuyPeople didn't actually have to pay a monthly fee for Stadia; it's just Google's terrible marketing made it look like they did.

google or a bunch of influencers who lied?

All I know is what I read here, and back when it was significant news Liam regularly noted both (a) that the actual deal did not require subscription, and (b) that figuring this out from anything Google were saying was nigh impossible. He opined repeatedly both that the service itself worked pretty well and was, all concerns about the fundamental nature of streaming game services aside, a decent offer, and that in his opinion Google were doing a perfectly pathetic job of selling it. Not just the bad messaging on subscription, but terrible ads and all kinds of stuff. I'm prepared to take his word.

really? i dont think it was that confusing.
instead of paying 400 dollars upfront for an ps4, and 400 dollars again for an ps4 pro, you pay just for the game, and a montly subscription if you want to play in 4k.
with 10 dollars per month, it would take 40 months to reach the price of an ps4, 3 years and 4 mounths is almost the entire generation.
and while you do that you get exclusive discounts and some games as part of the deal.
dont seems like a bad deal for me, unless they rise the price or shutdown the service and you lose your games without a refund, that is the part that google should make more clear.

google didnt fail to comunicate that as fair as i remember, but a lot of youtubers miss interpret and repeated what they understood.


Last edited by elmapul on 30 September 2022 at 6:50 pm UTC

Quoting: Purple Library GuyReally, it's amazing Google make so much money, because they are obviously pretty terrible at business. Decent at technology, but terrible at business. I guess they just were the people with the right piece of internet tech in the right place at the right time, and it doesn't matter how many other mistakes they make as long as they keep that stranglehold on search + ads.

It's kind of comforting actually, because they clearly jettisoned "don't be evil" a long time ago and want to be bastards like Facebook or early Microsoft, so if they're going to be like that I'm glad they're pretty crap at it.

Or they are actually good at business, just specifically at the search+ads business, then you add in that they make so much money on that one business that people around them constantly tell them how good they are so you start to think that you can take on any other business, and when that fails it's not because you failed (obviously since every one tells you how good you are at your business) but due to some other external factor.

I see this all the time where successful people tries to go into a completely new venture with the "how hard can it be" attitude only to find out that the answer was "more than you thought". This is probably also why most companies survives one major change in their market, but you seldom see any one survive two major changes in the market.

One locally classic example is Facit (Swedish company that could have matched IBM if things hadn't gone to shit) who had a large business in the 1930:ies with office machines such as calculators and type writers (just like IBM), in the 60:ies they even started to build main frames (11 in total if I'm not mistaken) so they both saw the future being the computer, had the money and the experts in house, yet they where basically killed over night in 1971 when the Japanese started to make electronic calculators and Facit was still selling their mechanical ones. And since they had expertise knowledgeable enough to build mainframes they obviously could have built electronic calculators, but they never did.

This is why this business theory is called the Facit trap (Facitfällan) here in Sweden. Not 100% compatible with Google since they are not experiencing a technology shift, but I think that it's the same mechanisms that explains why they keep on failing in their new businesses.

The obvious solution would have been to invest in some smaller existing game streaming service and just support them with money and resources but keep it as a separately managed entity, but they never do.