It looks like I may have one crucial detail of the Google Stadia package completely wrong.
Like many people, I was thinking that Stadia was basically "Netflix for Games," but if the team at Techlinked are correct, then Stadia may closer kin to XBox Game Pass, with a monthly fee that only gives access to a few free games, with major AAA titles being something you'll need to purchase separately in order to secure access outside of that free period.
This means that the US$1090 over 8 years cost of Stadia that I had calculated as being comparable to the average 8-year cost of console ownership is wrong. The Stadia actually costs US$1690 ($1090 for the service, plus $600 for the games), which amortizes over 8 years to US$211.25 per year, compared to the US$112.50 annual cost of console ownership over the same period. With the added disadvantage, for Stadia, that you own nothing at the end of those 8 years, compared to the console experience which leaves you with a console and 10 games that you own.
Much of Stadia's marketing is still deliberately vague, so clarification
on these details could still emerge and magically make the whole thing
suddenly awesome, but I doubt it. If this is indeed how Stadia will work, then Stadia... sucks. Even the free version won't actually be a new gaming paradigm; it'll just be a new digital distribution channel. Which nobody wanted. Mazel tov!
Making matters worse, the mobile functionality that Google was hyping as part of the Stadia package is going to be restricted, at least initially, to Google's own Pixel 3 and 3a phones. Which means that their $10/month streaming service will actually have a $400 or $1000 hardware buy-in, in addition to the $130 hardware package, if you want to equal the functionality and convenience of a Nintendo fucking Switch.
Why won't Stadia work with any Android phone running Android Q, right out of the gate? Is Google seriously thinking that people will factor fucking Stadia into their next $1000 flagship smartphone purchase? Is Google trying to drive adoption of Stadia here, or their Pixel phones? Because a currently-nonexistent game service is probably not going to drive phone sales, while gating a crucial part of Stadia's planned functionality behind an expensive additional hardware will almost certainly hurt adoption of Stadia itself... which makes those Pixel phones look just that much less attractive, to the sort of people who'd be basing their smartphone purchases on the availability of Stadia... which is nobody.
Seriously, what's the market here? Who is this even for?
Google's foray into the gaming market probably isn't dead on arrival, if for no other reason that Google's deep, deep pockets can ensure that it can continue to ignore the normal market forces which govern every other corner of the videogame business with reckless abandon to rival the Epic Game Store's (although with a much better PR strategy). It's the same strategy which Facebook is pursing with their Oculus platform... which is also not taking off.
I've been wrong before, of course, but I think that Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, and Valve can all sleep easier tonight. There's just no value here for consumers, and the Nintendo Switch aside, consumers have proven themselves to be pretty damn good at smelling the bullshit on these overhyped tech product rollouts over the last few years. I didn't see anything from Google today which convinced me that
videogame streaming is any more viable than VR, or 4K, or the Internet
of Thing, and Stadia will need to gain a lot more consumer value before that changes.
Now, we wait with bated breath for Microsoft to announce XCloud! Which will be equally shit, and thus a perfect competitor for Google's Stadia. And this E3 nonsense is just getting started...