Like many people, I was immediately skeptical when Google first announced their Stadia video game streaming service. Details were sparse, and questions abounded, from the technical (several previous efforts at video game streaming had failed because of latency issues), to the basic economics of it all. How much would it cost? Would it be worth its asked-for price?
Well, as of today, we have a few more details, and while the technical issues are still awaiting some hands-on "in the wild" experience to be adequately assessed, we can certainly assess the economics of it all. So here's my ake:
Google Stadia is a rent-to-own scheme, with the added disadvantage that you never actually end up owning anything, and the average gamer should stay far, far away from it all... at least for now, while the "Founder's Pack" is the only version of this thing available.
This isn't based on any subjective aspect of the Stadia "experience," either, even if Google clearly wants consumers to make decisions based on exactly this sort of nebulous, emotional criteria. No, my objection pretty much comes down to simple math. For consumers, the Stadia numbers simply don't add up.
The Status Quo
First, let's consider the average console gamer, who will serve as our baseline (yes, PC gaming is bigger than console gaming, but Stadia doesn't seem to be taking aim at PC gamers so we'll exclude them for now). The average entry-level gaming console (PS4, XBOne, or Switch) currently retails for US$300 MSRP (that's actually much, much more than you'll pay for such a console, since all of them except the Switch are perpetually on sale these days, but we're establishing a baseline here). That's your "buy-in," so to speak.
Then, you need to buy some games. The attach rate (the average number of games that a console owner buys over that console's lifetime) varies from brand to brand, but the PS4 had an attach rate of 9.6 the last time I looked, and the Switch's was 9.3; Microsoft have never said what the XBOne's attach rate was, but I'd be very surprised if it's much below 9.0. Let's be generous, and call it 10: for our analysis, the average console owner will be assumed to buy 10, US$60, AAA games over their console's lifetime.
At this point, the math is pretty straightforward: $300 + (10 x $60) = $900, total, as the average cost of console gaming over a console's lifetime. The current generation of consoles is currently on its 6th year, with new consoles being another year or two away, at least, which means that this costs amortizes to US$112.50 per year over 8 years (i.e. total cost, divided by the total years), and the end of which you own a perfectly fine gaming console and ten AAA-quality games for it.
The New "Hotness"
Now consider the Stadia Founder's Pack Edition, which has a US$130 buy-in, and costs US$10 each month. That adds up to US$1090 in total (yes, already more than the console package), which amortizes to US$136.25 per year over the same eight year span... at the end of which, you end up owning nothing. The "low" buy-in is a trap here. If you can't afford the $112.50 a year to be a console owner, then you really can't afford the $136.50
This is classic rent-to-own, and is why consumer advocates are almost always against it; you end up paying more while getting less. You could even end up paying more while getting nothing, which is exactly what Stadia delivers... all for an experience which, technologically, is still pretty much vaporware, since nobody outside of Google has actually seen this thing working yet.
Is Stadia's technology truly capable of delivering an acceptable-quality, lag-free gaming experience to the entire area of the markets where they're launching? And, even if Google's hardware is capable, can the internet infrastructure in those regions handle the traffic, even during peak gaming hours? The answer to the first question might be affirmative, but for wide swathes of the USA, the answer to the second question will be firmly negative.
Is the convenience worth this cost?
For most, the answer will be no, even if the performance is flawless. There are some, however, who might see this differently. Do you have so much money that the Stadia's cost is basically pocket lint for you? Then the fact that you'll (eventually) be able to access Stadia from a wide range of Android devices might (eventually) be worth the extra cost... for those with deep enough pockets to pay for it. Does the average gamer need this functionality, though? Probably not.
The same applies for the recently hyped cross-save functionality, which will apparently be coming to Destiny 2. Do you already own Destiny 2? Do you have deep enough pockets to want to be renting it again on the monthly, in addition to already owning it? Then Stadia's ability to (maybe, eventually) support cross-saving with XBOne, and maybe even other platforms, might be worth your pocket lint. Does the average gamer need this functionality, though? Again, probably not.
And the same applies to every aspect of Stadia's "convenience" or "experience" features. Are they potentially cool? Sure. Are they worth the cost of Stadia? As of right now, the answer is no, unless you have so much money that the cost of Stadia is truly trivial for you.
The only other people for whom Stadia might make sense are the heavy users -- or, as the gambling and gaming industries like to call them, "whales." If you buy a brand-new, AAA game every month, or every other month on average, then the comparison looks a lot different. Of course, if you're that heavy a user, then you probably already subscribed to something like XBox Game Pass, which is about to gain XCloud support - details to be announced in mere days.
The Future?
This analysis might all change once the lower-quality free tier comes available sometime next year... or it might not. Por ejemplo, what hardware will consumers need in order to access the "free" tier? Because Google won't be providing any. And how will the "free" tier be monetized? Because it will be monetized; Google isn't a charity, they're a hybrid tech/advertising firm, and some form of unavoidable advertising is almost certainly going to be a feature of "free" Stadia. Remember: ain't nothin' free, and if you're not paying up front then you are the product, and not the customer.
I, however, won't be waiting with bated breath for Google to launch the free version of this thing, and anyone who's already heavily invested in an existing platform (e.g. Steam, or PSN, or XBL) should probably steer clear, too. Right now, if you already own a gaming platform and a gaming library, then video game streaming is a waste of your time and money; the true cost of streaming will have to come way, way down for that to change, for most consumers.
Is video game streaming the future of the industry? Google sure hopes so, but consumers have a lot more power here than they sometimes realize. Industry analysts and tech pundits were blithely predicting that consumers would have no choice but to adopt Windows 10, and VR, and the Internet of Things, and any number of other consumer-hostile products and business practices that are still struggling to win over those very same consumers. I predict that video game streaming will be much the same; it will have to be awesome, and cheaper then game ownership, in order to change the paradigm.
Thus begins E3 2019...