
When will Google shut down Stadia? - naeemnur
http://stadiacountdown.com/
======
iamsb
A good model will be to start working on a new startup with a competing
product as soon as google launches something. In couple of years when they
shut down, provide migration paths. Swim in $$$.

~~~
marricks
I wonder about the damage Google does to any potential start ups in a field.

How much buzz can you get when everyone’s first thought is “how could this be
any good? Google already tried that and failed...”

~~~
rurp
I don't know, Google has failed at all kinds of products that other companies
have achieved massive success with. This includes some really ubiquitous tools
like a social network (Google+) or messaging apps (too many to list). I think
at this point most people assume a failed project from Google has more to do
with the company than the concept itself.

~~~
fluidcruft
A few days ago I was researching a bug I was seeing using with xfce on chrome
remote desktop. Apparently this was thoroughly solved in someone's Google+
post that everyone linked to. All I can see now is the Google+ termination
notice. Thanks, Google.

~~~
markstos
Google was one party in that. The other was the person who choose to gave
Google the content to post. When we choose to give content and power to a few,
large, centralized organizations, that's on us.

~~~
pfranz
What would you have expected them to do? Would you point to the user if Stack
Overflow stopped hosting content? Or GitHub? Before places like imgur, I'd see
forum postings linking to broken images hosted on personal sites--so self
hosting is unfeasible. Geocities data is still around as well as Usenet
postings going back to the 80s.

~~~
thephyber
> Stack Overflow

... which licenses its content with CC by SA 4.0[1] and has a public API.

Other licensing models of content will vary.

[1] [https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/stack-
exchan...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/stack-exchange-and-
stack-overflow-have-moved-to-cc-by-sa-4-0)

~~~
markstos
This is an important point. Someone else is allowed to use the StackOverflow
content and likely would if StackOverflow was turned off.

~~~
pfranz
I do think that is worth noting, but it is (mostly) separate from the original
point. It doesn't matter if the copyright is open if the content disappears.

At least in the U.S., I don't think it's that relevant to the use-cases I've
seen. IANAL, but in the 4-factor fair use test a place like Internet Archive
rehosting the content to me easily clears 3 of them if the original host goes
away.

------
40acres
I understand the cynicism of this community to Stadia but implore you all to
think a little broader.

Stadia is different, with this product Google is trying something really
innovative. For one, the fact that Stadia actually costs money should be a
signal of Google's long term ambition here. Yes, Fiber also cost money but was
bogged down by the hell that is infrastructure development.

Stadia will require a substantial engineering effort from Google to make this
work. The latency and network requirements are a great test to gauge network
requirements as we move into 5g, AR, and self driving cars.

Gaming is huge and if Google can be the first to provide (viable) steaming as
a service they can really threaten some of the incumbents like Twitch, Sony,
Microsoft, etc.

Obviously Google doesn't have the best track record here but I'm excited to
see them tackle this challenge.

~~~
mmanfrin
Glass cost money, more than 10x what this cost, and that was not a signal of
their long term ambition.

The problem with Stadia is that it costs money, the service costs a monthly
fee, and on top of it you have to buy the games. What happens to those games
if you stop paying the fee? If you stop using Stadia? If Google deprecates
Stadia like many are worried. I'll tell you: you lose the game.

If I, conversely, buy the same $60 game on Steam, I know it'll be there years
down the road, that I'll be able to play it on any PC I build, and I don't
have to maintain a monthly fee for it.

What Google is trying has been tried many times before, by people who had more
permissive game ownership structures.

Do not tell us we shouldn't be worried about using such a product from Google
given their track record -- _especially_ when the costs to them are enormous
in terms of computing power and the reception has been very tepid (meaning
those costs are larger per-user than they likely anticipated).

~~~
Waterluvian
> "...it costs money, the service costs a monthly fee, and on top of it you
> have to buy the games."

WHAT? I've been under a rock and I assumed that it was a service where you buy
a controller, already own a streaming device (or maybe the controller has the
device in it), and pay monthly for the whole service. You have to buy the
games too?

That is an immediate about-face for me. If they shut down the service then I
just stop paying the monthly fee. This is perfectly comfortable for any
service. But if I have to buy-in to every game...

~~~
JauntTrooper
I agree, if they had launched a subscription service to a large catalog of
games that would have been really something -- like how Netflix created an
alternative to the buy/rent single titles model.

I suspect they didn't have enough clout with development studios to create
that pricing structure.

As an example, Assassin's Creed: Odyssey is $59.99 on Stadia ($39.99 with
subscription for 4K). On Steam it's currently $59.99 too, but at 4K without
the extra subscription.

Game distribution is a hyper-competitive market right now, with Epic Games in
particular giving away high quality games for free every week on their Steam
competitor and paying developers up front to get timed exclusives.

I think Google's going to have to re-visit its pricing and customer
acquisition model on this one.

~~~
closetohome
It's entirely possible this is just a licensing thing. The early days of legal
movie and music downloads were an expensive mess too.

I'd expect after a few years of game streaming competition someone will try to
undercut the market with a Netflix model.

~~~
a_f
Microsoft is curenlty alpha testing its xcloud service by the looks of it,
which encompasses exactly that. There is also the Nvidia streaming service
too.

------
fjabre
Google’s different brands remind me of MSFT of the early 2000s. No rhyme or
reason. More chaos and throwing spaghetti at the wall. No issues changing or
deprecating APIs and products like this on a whim.

They certainly dont inspire trust in anything but their flagship brands like
Gmail that have been with us for decades.

~~~
inetknght
> _They certainly dont inspire trust in anything but their flagship brands
> like Gmail that have been with us for decades._

Even Gmail is a giant blob of garbage.

~~~
ape4
There is a hamburger icon (top-left), 9-dot icon (top-right), gear icon (top-
right) and 3-dot icon (top-left). What do they all do? (I actually know).

~~~
komali2
And that's before you open up the compose field. To this day I click the wrong
button _every time_ when I want to forward an email. Every time. Despite
knowing I do it every time, I still click the wrong one.

~~~
monkeypizza
Huh, I imagine that internally nobody notices this type of problem because
they all use keyboard shortcuts and hit 'f' to forward.

------
irrational
Honestly, as soon as Google announces a new product, my first thought is to
wonder how long until it is shut down. Google has completely lost my trust in
relying on any of their products. Even when they come out and claim that this
product will not be cancelled, for reals this time, pinky promise, etc. I
simply can't believe them.

~~~
throwaway35784
Aside: Costumers, er prospects rather, love my products until the end when
they ask, "so... how many people work there?"

As though that would indicate how likely it is that the product will have a
long life. They are telling me with that question they want my software for a
long time. But when they hear the answer they bail.

I still don't know how to get over that hump.

~~~
nradov
You'll have to find some early adopters who are willing to take a risk in
order to solve a critical business problem. Once you have those few reference
customers, additional sales become much easier and you can afford to hire more
employees.

In the short term try offering to put the source code in escrow so that if
your company fails the customers can take over the product themselves. This
reduces their risk a little, at least for large enterprises with competent IT
departments.

------
tempsy
What is going on with Google?

I used to think Google had the best product team in the world. In some ways I
thought they defined what modern product management is/was.

Now I have no clue what they are thinking with their product launches as of
late. All of their products (and marketing) invoke this conservative, risk-
adverse blandness that tries to appeal to everyone and in turn appeals to no
one.

~~~
dopamean
Maybe I'm crazy but I've never thought google had a good product team. Has
there ever been a coherent vision for their collection of products?

Edit: just to be clear. I'm not saying google doesnt have good products. I use
and enjoy lots of them but for a long time it has seemed like even google
isn't sure how all their products fit together. Perhaps that leads to weird
forays into territories that don't fit which then results in shutting things
down.

~~~
juped
Has a Google product ever been good?

\- Search (was once good, now just "marginally better than Bing")

\- Reader (was good, the highest profile victim of Google Death Syndrome)

~~~
steelframe
> Has a Google product ever been good?

Uhhh...

Maps? Mail? Pixel 2 and 3? Fi? Sheets?

Sure, their Cloud doesn't sell as much as Amazon's, but it's been praised as
being a much more coherent product.

Not sure how anyone could argue that Google hasn't gotten it right several
times.

~~~
juped
Maps, thanks. Still pretty good.

I agree with none of the others.

~~~
vonmoltke
I'm just one anecdote, but I love FI and my Pixel 3.

------
gilrain
The criticism of Google Stadia _and_ the defense of its concept in this thread
are correct.

There is a successful future in cloud gaming and nobody denies that. However,
it's extremely likely to be delivered by a company with both the technical
chops _and_ industry chops, including a deep existing library. Google only has
one of those, and they didn't even nail the technical side convincingly.

Look toward Microsoft or Sony instead; all the pieces are there for them to
waltz in and drink Stadia's milkshake. And we know they're working on it. It's
Disney+ all over again.

~~~
charwalker
Take MSFT game pass and back it on cloud servers. Almost all the games run on
Windows, their own OS, and can be optimized for whatever datacenters are on
the way out from enterprise apps but with some GPUs tossed in.

I'm over simplifying but I'm sure MSFT has a plan out there if they wanted to
move forward after seeing how Stadia works out.

~~~
mastax
MSFT has more than a plan. [https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-
streaming/project-xclou...](https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-
streaming/project-xcloud)

Both platforms are at similar levels of maturity, actually, with similarly
limited support for platforms, controllers, and games. Microsoft just hasn't
had the audacity to charge for their beta test.

------
juped
With Stadia's "negative latency" technology, it's like it's already shut down.

~~~
aeyes
FPS games have had this for a looong time. In Quake 3 it's called timenudge
and you can have it set to a negative value which means that the client will
predict the opponents movement before receiving the next packet from the
server.

The CPMA mod then came up with even better adaptive prediction in their
netcode.

Without some prediction opponent movement would be jerky depending on the
other players ping. The downside is that sometimes shots don't register which
are a clear hit on your screen and sometimes weird flick shots hit which are
far off the target.

~~~
whateveracct
Fighting games too via things like GGPO.

Not to mention even fighting games like Melee have a little local input lag,
which you can then remove and use to hide network latency online.

~~~
coldpie
Really good article on this topic:
[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/10/explaining-how-
fighti...](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/10/explaining-how-fighting-
games-use-delay-based-and-rollback-netcode/)

------
adamzapasnik
Very surprised of general negative sentiment towards Stadia. Why is it like
this? Because it's Google, the evil company?

Seriously, if any startup launched it in its current state, people would be
cheering and blaming it on a new tech/new challenges. But cause it's a very
big corporation with top talent it means that they have to release top quality
product every time? What the hell...

I'm very excited about the project, although not really interested in it at
the moment. I don't think its target audience is hardcore gamers, so why all
of you are so over dramatic? Possibly, feeling happy that "real" gaming isn't
going anywhere anytime soon?

Obviously, there are problems and challenges, but I'm pretty sure that sooner
or later it will get better. That's what the MVP is for, isn't it?

~~~
aeturnum
>if any startup launched it in its current state, people would be cheering and
blaming it on a new tech/new challenges

I'd direct you to a review of Onlive, a previous startup doing exactly what
you say[1]. The take away is exactly what I've heard about Stadia:

"OnLive's streaming game system is a really cool concept, and the ability to
access a library of games with no downloads, discs or storage worries is
definitely cause for excitement. Some gamers will be put off by the occasional
lag, though, and the list of currently available games isn't hugely tempting.

Still, OnLive is an exciting proposition, and it costs nothing to try it out.
It probably won't suit you if you're pernickety about lag and image quality,
but we'd recommend checking it out nevertheless."

I personally think that, after seven years, Google seems to be in the same
place as a much smaller company, speaks to why it feels disappointing to me.

[1] [https://www.cnet.com/reviews/onlive-
review/](https://www.cnet.com/reviews/onlive-review/)

~~~
modwilliam
I hadn't heard of OnLive until there were comparisons to Stadia. On the other
hand, Google is able to do some great first party advertising on YouTube.

~~~
binthere
OnLive was kind of a big deal when it was announced. A lot of poeple used it
and tried it. They "gave" some games for you to play for free and test it out.
Also, Sony did a few things similar on Playstation but was never a huge
success because of the technical implications.

~~~
jmccorm
I remember playing an OnLive demo of a (then recent) Mass Effect title. I was
picky about both image quality and lag, and I was not in a top-tier city. I
was very impressed! Unfortunately, the problems with the business model
remained.

------
roland35
This makes me shed a solitary tear for Google Reader :'(

And another solitary tear from the other eye for Google Inbox :,(

~~~
ryanmercer
>And another solitary tear from the other eye for Google Inbox :,(

To be fair, Gmail has been my primary email since early 2009 and I'd never
even heard of Inbox until people on Leo Laporte's podcast started whining it
was going away.

~~~
abawany
I am surprised to hear this because I OTOH thought Google's attempts to corral
people into Inbox when it came out were obnoxious. The app notifications, the
Play Store nudges, etc. I tried it since I got the impression from the nudges
that maybe Gmail was going to get knifed; I hated it and went back to Gmail.

~~~
coldpie
Yeah, that's how I found out about Inbox, and switched to it away from Gmail
on my phone. Then they killed it and I'm back to Gmail. I learned my lesson
and ignored the notifications begging me to try Duo instead of Hangouts. Now
Duo is dead (hooray, I dodged a bullet) and I guess they're killing Hangouts
for no reason.

------
tasty_freeze
This is a grammatical nitpick, but I see it over and over and over.

The title says "When Will Google Shutdown Stadia?"

It should be "Shut Down", which is a verb phrase. A "Shutdown" is a noun, eg,
"There will be a shutdown in March."

Another common example of this:

    
    
        You need to log in.  (long in == verb)
    
        What is your login.  (login == noun)

~~~
gilrain
Embrace descriptivism or be forever an annoyed curmudgeon.

~~~
nguoi
I don't understand the internet's new obsession with descriptivism. Yes, it's
English, in a circular-argument kind of way, but that doesn't make it good
style.

The whole takeaway from it seems to be that self-described descriptivists
intentionally use non-standard definitions of words then blame the other party
for misunderstanding, making the writer fail at the primary goal of
communication. And that is literally ridiculous.

------
arcturus17
I really don’t get the hate... I’m reading that in general UX is pretty good.
I only have a Switch so haven’t been able to play RDR2 or AC Odissey... The
solution seems perfect for me given the price point and I’m seriously
considering picking it up.

When I worked for Nintendo we broadly called the segment I’m in “lapsed gamer”
and it’s actually a pretty big niche...

What I read between the lines is that people are pissed that Stadia doesn’t
address the “core gamer” demographic well (this kind of reaction is recurrent
- see the Wii!), but might this not be a _great_ go-to-market strategy?

~~~
Havoc
>I really don’t get the hate...

Not really hate but more people are so dazed by google's "product" zigzagging
that it's hard to take it seriously anymore. Google managed to induce massive
amounts of cynicism in their users.

e.g. Remember Google+? The thing that got shut down? Couple weeks ago I get a
corporate email saying please update your profile pic on google+.

1\. I thought it's dead.

2\. What profile? Did you guys create a profile for me on a dead product?

3\. Or did they keep the corporate version alive?

4\. What about google currents? Google+ pages? Different things? Same thing
but renamed?

I don't bloody know. And no I'm not updating my profile pic dear HR. Google
will kill it in 3 months time and/or launch 2 clones or relaunch it with a
lick of paint anyway.

It's the same with all their other stuff too. Their chat thing I use every
day? It's got 3 different interfaces with different functionality and I don't
even know what it's currently called. Hangouts? Meet? Google Chat?

------
_ah
There's an easy product fix for this. Offer every game purchase with the
option for a one-time key conversion, ideally managed through the game
publisher. In the event of a Stadia shutdown you could easily port your
purchase over to another single platform of your choice. This stragegy de-
risks the platform and would go a long way toward alleviating consumer fears.

We saw similar strategies around the launch of Steam. Sure you're just buying
a download code, but if you send us $5 for postage we'll mail you a physical
disc to go with it. Same concept.

~~~
sipos
This. I would buy games on it in a heartbeat if they did this.

The problem is that, to move them to a new platform, for example Steam, they
need to pay the platform's cut of the sale price. To give users the option to
do this in future, they would need to keep all of the revenue they get from
selling games in reserve to possibly do this in future. They would have to do
this by charging users what it cost. I think it'd still be attractive though.

------
131012
I feel that we are a little bit too hard on the big G on this one. They simply
have their own inner startups, which they kill if product gains no traction.

We should look at how many startups from YC die within 4 years and make the
comparison. I might be wrong, but the ratio could be very similar.

Still, Stadia will fail for sure ^^

~~~
LeifCarrotson
"No traction" for a Google product just means it's not the next Search or
Gmail.

It doesn't mean that zero people use it. Thousands or millions of people used
Hangouts, Google Reader, Google Code, or Picasa - they'd have been considered
big YC successes.

If big YC companies all got shut down if they failed to turn into another
letter in the FAANG acronym, maybe people would become reluctant to use
services from YC companies.

I still use some Google services, but I check out my data on a regular basis,
I'm not buying a Fitbit, and I'm not subscribing to Stadia because I want
those things to last longer than I think Google will keep them around.

~~~
pytester
>Thousands or millions of people used Hangouts, Google Reader, Google Code, or
Picasa - they'd have been considered big YC successes.

Other than google reader I doubt any of these would have gotten traction at
all without big g behind them.

~~~
WorldMaker
Picasa: Smug Mug/Flickr is rather highly valuated again today, now that they
are free of the curse of Yahoo! Instagram and Snapchat are a part of this game
now too.

Google Code: GitHub sold to Microsoft for a good chunk of change. GitLab,
Bitbucket, Source Hut, all seem to be doing fine.

Hangouts: Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, WeChat, Facebook
Portal, Matrix/Riot.im, iMessage, Skype is maybe back from the dead depending
on who you ask (certainly not kids, though). It's almost easier to ask who
_isn 't_ in the Messenger game right now. The fact that Google managed to
fumble _two_ huge market share leads between Google Talk and Hangouts is maybe
only equaled by Microsoft's multiple, complicated fumbles of MSN Messenger and
Skype.

~~~
pytester
I'm not denying that the market exists. I'm denying that the product google
launched in these cases was comparable to the competition. Google code, for
instance, was SO inferior to github that comparing the two is actually kind of
funny.

~~~
WorldMaker
There were people that felt Google Code to be quite advanced for its time,
with comparisons at the time more to SourceForge, Savannah, Trac, and some
others that have past into the mists of time. It didn't keep up or maintain
any of that "lead", but that just circles back around to the common aphorisms
that Google loved big splashy launches and failed to incentivize steady
maintenance or competition after a "product" launched.

------
juancn
Cloud gaming is solution looking for a problem. It's not customer demand
driven. Nobody want's cloud gaming (at least not yet).

They haven't shown anything compelling why this would be a game changer for
end users.

The games are not more fun or unique than on any other platforms.

Any of the cloud arguments also hold for consoles or PCs on internet connected
games.

I think the site may be a bit optimistic.

~~~
danielbln
I want it, but I want the Netflix model. What I don't want is to buy games
fullprice on their platform. Let me pay 10 bucks a month for a rich gaming
catalog that I can play on anything from Mac, to phone to tablet and I'm going
to use it.

~~~
hwbehrens
I think it will take some time for an effective business model to evolve that
works for games. Games don't exactly follow the lump-sum, zero maintenance
model of movies, but they also don't work well with the SaaS treadmill either.

Some games lock players in and absorb their time continuously (e.g. Overwatch,
PUBG, WoW, etc), while others package a digestible block of content that can
be consumed in 10, 20, 50 hours, and then it's done. Subscription payouts
based on proportional screen time would drastically favor the former over the
latter, while lump-sum compensation flips the tables since it doesn't consider
ongoing server and infrastructure costs needed to make multiplayer work.

I think this "Buy your games, and subscribe to them too" model that Stadia is
using is how they're trying to split that baby, but given that nearly every
other service is either subscription or one-time purchase, I have a hard time
seeing it stick around long-term. Then again, some console systems also
function that way, so I might be wrong.

~~~
jonny_eh
[https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass](https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-
game-pass)

------
carrozo
Brutal, but fair given the track record of so much out of Mountain View. I’ve
always detected a certain sense of tragicomedy about Google; their money-
printing ad machine is something they’ve always seemed to feel deep shame
about, which drives (and also pays for) all these other things that they give
up on when they realise they’ll never come close to that kind of commercial
success again.

~~~
PaulHoule
Something similar is true about Microsoft in that it's had a few core products
that have been big hits (Windows, Office, ...) and then to satisfy investor's
growth expectations they plow the profits into other lines of business which
often fail (Windows Phone, Hololens, Microsoft Band, ...) or stagger on
marginally (XBox).

Azure is the latest big hit.

Somehow Microsoft has adapted to this reality with some grace, they even
balance it with the "Who moved my cheese?" attitude of its customers.

~~~
aglavine
Surface is a huge hit AFAK

~~~
PaulHoule
I don't know if it makes money.

It's certainly helped push Dell and the like to improve the build quality,
thermal engineering, etc. on their laptops.

On the other hand, the whole "Windows Tablet", "2-in-1", etc. hasn't been a
big hit.

------
zerocrates
"Google kills all their products" is a bit of an overused meme trotted out at
any launch... But for Stadia it's a pretty legitimate concern, I'd say.

The model where you're still "buying" the games ties you to the ongoing
operation of the service much more strongly than in many of their services
where an eventual migration might be a little painful, but it's still
possible.

The counterargument would be that they've deployed a ton of network capacity
and GPU resources for cloud computing anyway, and so Stadia is just riding on
those coattails... But it's certainly not a promising track record.

~~~
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
> _The counterargument would be that they 've deployed a ton of network
> capacity and GPU resources for cloud computing anyway, and so Stadia is just
> riding on those coattails... But it's certainly not a promising track
> record._

Exactly, in fact, Stadia is really just a way for Google to subsidize their
cloud GPU buildout. Do you think those expensive GPUs are sitting idle in the
meantime? No way! They're crunching numbers or spot instances for AI/ML
workloads.

~~~
akhilcacharya
That's...probably not true at this moment. They're using AMD GPUs, which
generally support the sorts of workloads folks need, and AFAIK they haven't
opened up support for AMD GPU spot instances to users.

The OpenCL ML ecosystem is really lacking at the moment.

~~~
earhart
PlaidML?

(Disclaimer -- I'm one of the devs. Even though we were bought by Intel a year
or so ago, we've been pretty good about keeping the AMD / OpenCL support
intact.)

~~~
akhilcacharya
PlaidML is super cool, but it's not used by Google.

------
haolez
Although Stadia might fail, I see cloud gaming (i.e. streaming A/V) as a
revolution for multiplayer games. We can now have all kinds of complicated
physics and particle engines, since all players are known to experience the
exact same “world model”. It might help a lot with anti-cheat technology as
well. It’s pretty exciting!

~~~
windsurfer
Modern multiplayer games already do the "world model" calculations on the
server, with clients simply rendering the little data they have.

~~~
haolez
Then what’s stopping us from making a MMORPG with the physics of a simulator?

~~~
kllrnohj
A lack of gameplay from the resulting physics to justify the server costs?
Game devs don't simulate worlds for the fun of it. They have a purpose behind
things. There's a cost/benefit involved.

~~~
honkycat
> Game devs don't simulate worlds for the fun of it.

Unless you are Tarn Adams

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Or about a thousand other small indie devs, but somehow I don't think Stadia
has much interest in them.

P.S.: Don't take this statement the wrong way, I love small indie devs and
donated for Dwarf Fortress.

------
MrRadar
FYI this is run by the incorrigible Jason Scott of textfiles.com/BBS
Documentary/Archive Team fame:
[https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1196447880728453120](https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1196447880728453120)

~~~
textfiles
Entirely incorrigible.

------
sl1ck731
My theory is this was a ploy to make use of idle cloud resources Google
invested in for GCP. If that is the case I have much less fear of it just
being shut down since its just gravy on top.

~~~
SanchoPanda
I think the core insight here is right, that as far as they were concerned it
seemed silly to miss out on a chance to sell their "google-scale" experience
and know-how in many cloud/distributed contexts.

But similair things were true for lots of dead products, and google's
willingness to launch a large number of products and only keep the ones that
gain massive market traction shows just as much paranoia about ending up with
a stable full of lqggards and weak brands.

If user growth flattens out after two years, be nervous.

------
bookofjoe
Just in: Google kills Cloud Print
[https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9633006](https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9633006)

------
auiya
I don't know why everyone is so pessimistic about Stadia. All my Google+
circles are super excited about it.

------
mattkevan
Let's make it a sweepstakes. Everyone choose a date and put in $1. Person
closest to the date wins the pot.

~~~
martin-adams
Just don't organise it on Google Hangouts as that'll probably be shutdown
before Stadia.

~~~
fnordsensei
Indeed: [https://gcemetery.co/google-hangouts/](https://gcemetery.co/google-
hangouts/)

------
m0zg
Consider Stadia for what it is: it's someone gaming the system (if you pardon
the pun) to become a VP. Once that position is secure, and once all the rest
of top brass on the project is promoted, it will begin its inexorable march
towards shutdown. So I give it a couple of years. The only way of avoiding
this fate is if it gets viral and Google starts making at least a billion a
year on it (their official threshold for caring about a business), chances of
which seem infinitesimally slim.

------
mouzogu
I feel like this product is just a trojan horse for Google to gather and sell
customer data in some form. I'm just not convinced that Google has any real
interest in the video game industry itself at least not in the same way as a
Sony, MS or Nintendo. Further to that, this offering just feels so half
hearted that it almost certainly will go the same way as most Google
"experiments" \- I would avoid putting any money into their budding gaming
ecosystem as a consumer.

------
DevKoala
Stadia will stay. Google needs this to happen since they need one more revenue
stream. There is no way it gets shut down. All of the other products that
Google was quick to cancel didn’t represent long term key businesses for
Google. To shut down Stadia would be akin to shut down their self driving
division. Microsoft lost billions with the Xbox before it was profitable and
the brand stablished itself in the market. Google recognizes it will be that
kind of marathon with Stadia.

~~~
thekyle
Google+ didn't represent a long term key business for Google? From what I've
heard the general attitude at Google for a while was that Google+ was the
future of the company.

That's why they integrated it into everything that they could (YouTube, Drive,
GMail) and shut down any service that might remotely compete with it (Reader,
Wave).

If Google could kill Google+ then they can kill this.

~~~
DevKoala
Google+ was active for at least 8 years until it eventually folded. Stadia's
biggest issues, network latency and lack of exclusive content, are problems
that will disappear over time. If Google was able to support a social network
with no reason to exist for 8 years, they can support a gaming service until
it succeeds.

------
II2II
This should say more about treating software as a service than Google itself.
Many companies have created then cancelled products, been bought out then had
their products cancelled, or simply went out of business. We simply don't talk
about it as much with other companies since they are either smaller or, in the
case of larger companies, they were slower in transitioning to online services
so products simply lost support rather than no longer being available.

------
alephnan
The timer is based on historical averages of Google products. Seems like a
decent heuristic, except niche products like Youtube app for the Nintendo 3DS
is included

[https://gcemetery.co/youtube-
nintendo-3ds/?ref=lifespanrecen...](https://gcemetery.co/youtube-
nintendo-3ds/?ref=lifespanrecent/)

------
helen___keller
After all the bad PR I decided to sit down, put aside emotions, and honestly
evaluate with myself how I felt about Stadia as a video gamer.

I realized that I actually would really like video game streaming. It would be
really neat to pop open whatever game I'm playing on a tv in another room, or
on a chromebook or some other non-gaming device.

The problem is Stadia also wants to control the game library and the hardware.
I'm not okay with either of those. Really, I just want to stream from the ps4
in one room to the TV in the other room. And, I bet there's a way to do that
already (going to look more into it later). Either way, it's not a
multibillion dollar venture, so I think that's why google wants to be
_streaming, renting a computer, and owning your game library_ , all in one. I
don't care about the other two services. I have hardware and I have game
libraries.

~~~
spuz
I don't see what you've said as a criticism of Stadia. Stadia was never meant
to do what you want and never claimed to either. I personally would rather
Google managed my game library because I can't be bothered to download a 10gb
game only to play it for 10mins before deleting it. If Google can let me jump
in and out easily then it will make discovery much easier for me.

~~~
helen___keller
It wasn't intended to be a criticism, more of just an evaluation of why I'm
personally not interested in it. I like the concept of streaming, just not the
bundled steam and the bundled cloud compute.

If I could run Stadia with a game installed locally on my LAN in addition to
content from the internet (like how chromecast works) I would give it a try,
maybe buy a TV for my bedroom which is currently devoid of technology save an
iPad.

------
miguelmota
Game streaming requires tens of gigabytes worth of data downloaded every hour,
resulting in choppy gameplay because of the latency. Their production product
seems more like a beta release. They may be too early to market and could see
them shutting it down relatively soon.

------
raxxorrax
I fear that Stadia could bring change to gaming as publishers might decide
that streaming is the way to go against piracy, technical difficulties of
users and distribution costs. Maybe it would allow them to externalize support
to Google even. Another step to take software away from the user.

It would restrict things like modding and user modifications of games, which I
value rather highly. The fear that I suddenly loose access to software is also
present since I certainly am one of these backwards hoarders. I saw people
loosing some of their digital media when GFWL shut down.

Still, in context of this page I believe that there is life in the old dog
yet, even if the dog isn't old at all.

------
shadowgovt
In general, Google runs its operation like a family of startups still (even
given their new departmentalized org chart), and for any new Google product, I
consider the operational expected life to be the operational expected life of
a startup company announcement.

Google doesn't have a process internally (AFAIK) equivalent to series funding,
but the processes they do have are functionally equivalent; if management
decides a project isn't worth investing in, teams get re-assigned and that's
it.

And companies that can offer a 10+-year support cycle on their products
announce fewer new initiatives a year.

------
geddy
It blows my mind that anyone would support something like this. You're
spending full price on a _streamed game_ that will be instantly remove when a)
Google deems the service not profitable and closes the doors, rendering your
money wasted, b) rights expire for certain games, c) some PR nightmare occurs
from a CEO of a game company or something and they respond by removing
affiliations.

Digital games are bad enough in that they can be pulled out out of the
respective stores whenever, but when you can't even have it downloaded to your
own console? Get out of here. What utter nonsense.

~~~
jonny_eh
I imagine if the service shuts down, they'd provide full refunds for any
purchased games. Microsoft did that when they shut down their ebook store.

~~~
sipos
Surely if they planned to, they would say that when asked about this?

~~~
jonny_eh
I'm sure they don't want to even admit the service would/could shut down.

------
gnrlst
I kinda want this to turn into a game. Maybe by being able to buy a ticket and
bet that it is X days before/after the D-day. Whoever is closest at the time
of the actual shutdown will win the whole prize pool.

~~~
duncan-donuts
I wouldn’t be surprised if you could bet on it in Vegas

------
gameswithgo
Gamers Nexus has a scathing review of Stadia that is amusing:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6dyrtnLU_w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6dyrtnLU_w)

------
musicale
Perhaps they will switch to an LTS model for some services, committing to at
least 5 years of support.

For comparison in the game industry, Sony has publicly committed to 10 years
of support for each numbered PlayStation console generation, and that seems to
have worked out pretty well, with generations spaced about 7 years apart.

(Sadly the PSVita/PSTV didn't get that support, nor did some services like
PlayStation Vue, PlayStation Home, or Qore; also many multiplayer game servers
have shut down after a couple of years, rendering the games unplayable
online.)

------
MaximumMadness
I appreciate the sentiment here, but this feels incredibly reactive and
preliminary.

Stadia should have more clearly set launch expectations: there are only a few
games worth playing for, most of the cool cloud features aren't there, etc,
etc

But that doesn't mean all of those things aren't coming? For all intents and
purposes, this was a soft launch. Sure Google is going to burn a ton of
consumers by launching before the true value-adds are there, but it doesn't
mean that one-day Stadia won't be worth buying.

~~~
tux1968
That isn't the issue -- it isn't a comment about the quality of Stadia today
or even what is possible. It's a comment about Google's propensity to lose
interest in products and services and shut them down.

~~~
MaximumMadness
I think the two are inherently connected, no? By assuming Stadia is a failed
product out of the box, we just label it as another Google product that is
waiting to be shut down.

Google is on the hook for a bunch of titles and features they haven't
delivered yet, if they were to "lose interest" in the next six months to a
year I'd be pretty suprised

------
Mindwipe
I honestly wonder what it will take at this point to change Google's culture
of how they launch products.

They haven't had a success in a while, bluntly. Perhaps the "Google way" of
launching a half finished product over vague windows and iterating after that
doesn't actually work? Or if it ever worked, doesn't work now when Google
isn't a plucky underdog and the products aren't competing with other
unfinished platforms but often mature, feature complete alternatives?

------
totaldude87
Honestly, i cant even name one google hardware product that had a typical
industry longevity..

Smart watches were here and there long before Apple jumped in and made it main
stream, and just like iPhone they made an industry out of it.

Google should stick with what it does best, like Android model (even wear OS
model). Let the market for _a new product_ starts maturing, then use the its
software&services to beat the crap out of others.

------
dghughes
Don't forget there is already
[https://killedbygoogle.com/](https://killedbygoogle.com/)

------
fedups
In the source they cite ([https://gcemetery.co/](https://gcemetery.co/)), do
they consider only products that have died? Or do they track all products that
have started? (hopefully they have right censoring, otherwise it seems they're
underestimating the average lifespan).

I'm having a hard time finding the data in tabular format.

------
Rickvst
I think that this project has the economics to work, so, even if Google
abandons it, somebody should eventually build it. Why I think streaming games
is a powerful thing: Piracy. It will be more difficult to get a ilegal copy of
a game that was never released to the public, only run on servers. But yes,
kind of sucks to who wants to test games or live in third world countries.

------
RenRav
The idea of game streaming seems sound... at least for certain genres. But
having to buy games exclusive to that device is ridiculous, especially when
considering Google's graveyard. There is just a whole lot of doubt shadowing
it. If anyone can do game streaming correctly, it will end being Steam or
something, a platform where most gamers already have games purchased.

------
cjf4
Interesting parallel story about Sun's "Sun Blade".
[https://twitter.com/mcclure111/status/1196557401710837762](https://twitter.com/mcclure111/status/1196557401710837762)

Summary: they solved a technical problem without a clear user story, and were
ultimately too early. Sounds a lot like Stadia.

------
summerlight
Most of those products killed without any transition path are actually
consumer products without revenue. So my rule of thumb: if Stadia manages a
chunk of other Google business to depend on itself (which makes it much harder
to be deprecated), then probably it's okay to use it. Integration into Youtube
or Ads would be a good sign of their commitment.

------
trulyrandom
Also worth checking out: the "near death" page on the Google cemetery website:
[https://gcemetery.co/tag/near-death/](https://gcemetery.co/tag/near-death/).
Lots of obscure products you probably haven't even heard of.

------
radium3d
I have zero interest in Stadia personally and I would consider myself a gamer.
I just feel like I want less latency and video over internet doesn't seem like
it's going to catch up with a 4-6ft video cable direct to my monitor / TV.

If Stadia is successful I can see it being a way to pay for new data centers
for Google's cloud infrastructure.

If you consider that most consoles last a 4-5 years, they cost ~$299-500 over
that period, that's ~$39-$125 per year for the generation. Instead of the
users owning the machine locally, Google installs a consoles worth of power in
a data center. Once the generation is over, the data center is still there and
Google has put all that money into a semi-new server datacenter infrastructure
that can be rolled into Google's Cloud service offerings. "Kids" / Gaming
money then pays for "Adults" / Cloud Server infrastructure. The idea sounds
great as long as there are enough gamers who don't mind the latency.

I am unfamiliar with the lifespan of a Google data center but I imagine it's
around 5+ years.

~~~
koala_man
A console and a Google project has a similar life expectancy, but when the
console EoLs, you can continue to use it indefinitely for free if you want.

~~~
radium3d
Yes, that is another reason I prefer local hardware too. But Google can't sell
enterprise priced cloud services with the console in your house (yet).

------
refik
It sure sucks to invest in a product and then see it shut down. However, I
like the idea of a company that constantly tries new things, iterates and is
not afraid to pull the plug if it doesn't work rather then have hundreds of
zombie products that suck the profits.

------
reustle
I (half) surprised to see there are more than one Google product cemetery
sites

[https://killedbygoogle.com/](https://killedbygoogle.com/)

[https://gcemetery.co/](https://gcemetery.co/)

------
ivankirigin
I tried Stadia and had a wonderful first experience on my Mac. Mac is relevant
here because it's still worse for gaming, with access to fewer titles.

If the product is good, I'll pay for it. With streaming bundling, they can
create a solid business.

~~~
aylmao
> With streaming bundling, they can create a solid business.

I do wonder if this would be profitable though. Is Google operating at a
profit even with the current model?

NOTE: I got way into writing this comment. I have things to do, but I thought
I'd do some napkin math instead haha. I'm probably way off, but it's an
interesting thought experiment.

My guess is it isn't. I'd be surprised if Google is selling the hardware at a
profit right now, simply because the volume is not too high and they
definitely want to reduce the barrier of entry.

On the software side, game companies probably don't want to lose margins and
it sounds like right now they have leverage since this is a nascent platform.
My guess is they're taking around 70% of the game sale (wild guess from the
"digital sales" info in these Ubisoft slides [1]).

Let's ignore Stadia Pro for now and just assume the $10 a month go towards the
the free games, or the extra compute for the 4k games / surround sound, or the
discounts. If we go with $60 as the average price of a game, this napkin math
tells us Google is making like $18 per game and that this their main source of
revenue.

How long is a game? It varies widely, depending on the game (and the player)
[4]. Let's say people spend an average of 20 hours on a game though. An hour
and a half a day for two weeks.

Can Google stream games, HD at 60fps, for less than 90¢ an hour? Of course,
this is Google so they're just employing their existing developers
infrastructure, etc. The scale probably means they can probably get RTX 2080s
in bulk at a discount. It's perfectly plausible they can. Im again, also
certainly way off in my numbers. But it is a huge investment— the promise is
it could open the doors of an industry for Google, but if it doesn't, is it
worth it?

To be clear, I'm not calling doom on Stadia just yet— YouTube operated [2]
(operates?) without profit and there's still old services that have stuck
around. Google Voice still exists in spite of many calling its doom years ago
[3]. Just wrote this for the analysis, not really to make a point one way or
another.

[1]:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/7x2sp3/ubisioft_reta...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/7x2sp3/ubisioft_retail_game_margins_are_55_vs_70_digital/)
[2]: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-
profit-f...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-
youtube-1424897967) [3]: [https://gizmodo.com/google-voice-is-dying-and-its-
beautiful-...](https://gizmodo.com/google-voice-is-dying-and-its-
beautiful-1632920573) [4]:
[http://www.gamelengths.com](http://www.gamelengths.com)

------
musicale
I liked the halloween google graveyard:
[https://twitter.com/leftoblique/status/1179476277549400064](https://twitter.com/leftoblique/status/1179476277549400064)

------
xyst
Haven’t tried Stadia, but I imagine the input lag problem is not resolved. FPS
games will likely be unplayable.

I tried Steams version which steams a video from your gaming pc to another pc
on local host and the input lag is still noticeable

------
Lagogarda
Gonna share this on my Google+!

------
broknbottle
I give it 2021
[https://github.com/codyogden/killedbygoogle/issues/444](https://github.com/codyogden/killedbygoogle/issues/444)

------
Abishek_Muthian
To be frank, I don't want and don't think Google Stadia will go down.

I don't want it to go down because, I'm sure Google will lobby with ISPs to
improve their latency and ISPs in many countries have long hidden their
pathetic latency behind bandwidth/data numbers.

I don't think it will go down, because once latency issue is fixed there's no
debilitating issue with stadia and western reviewers who are bearish about
Stadia are forgetting how big mobile gaming is in Asia. Many of those mobile
gamers haven't owned a console let alone a computer and Stadia in their cheap
android mobile would be first console quality game they experience.

------
mananvaghasiya
I have no idea how it works, but it would be fascinating to learn about how
the video is encoded/decoded in such a latency sensitive environment.

------
daveguy
This seems like it will be a more difficult one to shut down since it is a
subscription service from the start. More likely to be profitable early.

------
ibdf
I hope this service grows, but right now there are no incentives to jump in.
Pay $130 to play old games + pay full price for more old games.

------
29athrowaway
The ads are unappealing, reviews are not favorable, the name does not really
sound like an entertainment product.

A dead on arrival product.

------
m3kw9
$$. When it doesn’t make enough, shut down. That’s what they are all about,
bets. They don’t hold onto the bag too long.

------
innagadadavida
Has anyone implemented an AI based prediction for this? OR is it as simple as
saying "in 45 months" ?

------
buboard
you should change it to a bidding war. would be fun to watch as the
predictions change every day

------
m3kw9
Q10 shows big $$ lost from Stadia, investors brings heat to the CEO. Shit
rolls down hill

------
hipjiveguy
Google understands that the Xbox is what keeps Windows alive, and making $$$
for MS.

They want to get into the gaming industry, but take a gordian knot solution.
They don't want to compete against consoles. They want to be a console for
computers, regardless of OS.

Do they kill things? Yes. But, if those things are making billions.

Video games make billions.

Survey says?

------
salvagedcircuit
Not all heroes wear capes. Props to the developer who made this. This is
perfect.

------
pkulak
Wow, it's really amazing me how much people hate Stadia. It's a perfect storm
of Google + subscription gaming, so I guess it's not surprising, but I do
wonder if there's a whole bunch of people behind the ones with the pitch forks
who like the idea, even a bit.

~~~
techntoke
There are a lot of people that want Google to fail, and will try to manipulate
public opinion without any substance to their complaints against Google.
You'll see this with Chrome/Chromium as well.

------
RocketSyntax
This is a prototype for thin client. It's a more advanced chromebook.

------
netsharc
Hah, excellent joke/insight! If this goes viral it might become a self-
fulfilling prophecy - people realizing Google likes to kill their services
will say "Stay away from Stadia, it'll hurt if you get into it and they kill
it".

~~~
Analemma_
Joking aside, this self-fulfilling prophecy issue is turning into a serious
problem for Google that needs attention from the C-suite. Killing a product is
no longer isolated to that product alone but is reflecting badly on the entire
company and kneecapping completely unrelated teams. It's especially bad in the
cloud: there are tons of enterprises that won't even look at GCP because of
Google's flighty reputation.

~~~
sorenjan
The constant cancelling of products combined with the risk of having my Google
account banned in one service and then locking me out from all others are the
main reasons I don't even try out new Google services. The data collection
would be one other reason, but they already know everything about me.

------
miklax
Counter is optimistic :D

------
WilliamEdward
This won't be shutdown and I'm betting on it now. If it ends up doing badly,
they will pivot chrome into another gaming platform similar to steam and the
browser will become a Swiss army knife app where you do almost everything.

------
dreamer_soul
I'm still bitter about them closing Google trips

------
simonebrunozzi
Nice joke and nice irony. I actually think that Stadia will be very successful
in the long run, and I think Google will never shut it down. Same for GCP.

(Just IMHO, and not much to substantiate my prediction.)

~~~
kllrnohj
> I actually think that Stadia will be very successful in the long run

So far nobody has come up with a viable revenue model for cloud gaming that
people are willing to pay for. People are already complaining about Stadia's
$10/mo just to then pay full price for old games. And there's no way even that
is covering Google's costs to run the service.

The biggest hurdle is not Google gets bored and canning it. It's at what point
does Google decide Stadia needs to at least be revenue neutral and prices
double if not quadruple, with the free tier eliminated entirely. Is the
service still viable at that point? Will anyone stick with it?

------
winrid
They already blew it with the name...

------
Karunamon
I wouldn't be surprised if it's gone in 2 years or less. Stadia's launch has
been nothing short of disastrous.

------
edsammy
When will they shutdown Waymo?

------
robertoandred
*Shut Down

------
frostyj
make it shorter

------
polynomial
This may be the first Betteridge exception I've seen.

~~~
polynomial
self-reply: post title was edited.

------
dimino
So like, what is the counterargument? Google keeps projects alive that drain
resources for longer?

I guess I don't understand what people want here.

~~~
dageshi
It's the daily hate on google thread. It doesn't really matter what
specifically google is or isn't doing you'll see the same litany of complaints
repeated over and over. HN has become painful in that regard.

~~~
dimino
There's a certain old-guard zealotry that's a common thread on HN, amplified
by the echo chamber.

Can't wait until it dies off.

~~~
dageshi
I don't really know what happened. This place used to be excited about new
tech nowadays it's... curmudgeonly.

------
robbrown451
Sorry, but pet peeve. Shutdown is not a verb. (should be "shut down")

[http://notaverb.com/shutdown](http://notaverb.com/shutdown)

~~~
hombre_fatal
Sure it is.

And I'd rather take it from Merriam-Webster than someone's belabored
"notaverb.com" hobby horse.

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shutdown](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/shutdown)

First known use of shut down as verb: 1779.

If your issue is merely with the lack of a space, then it just seems petty to
me, like getting technical about raincoat vs rain coat.

~~~
robbrown451
Webster agrees with me, it should be two words, not a single word. That was my
point (and is the point of the "notaverb" site).

~~~
JohnFen
Language is defined by how people actually use it. If people are generally
using and understanding "shutdown" as a verb (which has been true in the
computer industry for at least 30 years), then it's a verb regardless of what
language prescriptionists say.

~~~
robbrown451
I'm generally a descriptivist vs. a precriptionist, but this is a different
thing. Is there anyone arguing that, just because many people write "there"
when they mean "their", that we should consider it correct? To me this is the
same.

Can you show me anywhere "shutdown" is used as a verb (in the computer
industry or otherwise) where it appears as a choice rather than a simple
error? Like in the title of a well circulated article, or otherwise in
something that has been subject to professional editing?

[https://twitter.com/apstylebook/status/1087717834975789056?l...](https://twitter.com/apstylebook/status/1087717834975789056?lang=en)

~~~
JohnFen
> Is there anyone arguing that, just because many people write "there" when
> they mean "their", that we should consider it correct?

Not yet. But if that becomes common enough, then that just becomes how the
language is, like it or not. I personally would hate it and would be that
annoying pedant who always calls it out, but if people mostly accept it, then
I wouldn't really be in the right. When usage is in transition like that, it's
these sorts of debates that determine what the end result will be.

My current pet peeve is the use of "literally" for emphasis rather than
actually meaning literally. Although I will always object, this usage has
become very accepted by people (below a certain age), and so I can't really
say they're wrong in some sort of objective sense. But I'll complain anyway.

~~~
robbrown451
Yeah, if it becomes common enough, I suppose you are right. But since this is
a whole class of "phrasal verbs" that all have the same rules, it seems less
likely that that is going to happen any time soon, as opposed to something
like "all right" changing to "alright" which is more of a discrete case.

There is also the issue that phrasal verbs are often split up or rearranged
("when will they shut it down?" "it is shutting down", etc), which isn't all
that compatible with merging into one word.

Anyway I'm glad to see they changed the title on HN, even if I got downvoted
for my complaint. :) I appreciate your pointing out the value of this
discussion, though! ("it's these sorts of debates that determine what the end
result will be.")

I'm personally ok with the non-literal use of the word "literal," but that's a
different tangent...

------
jahrichie
This title is such click bait lol. Granted this service was a terrible idea in
the first place, and WILL be shutdown, but this is a hypothesis, extrapolated
over hundreds of companies that have nothing to do with each other.

~~~
NullPrefix
>extrapolated over hundreds of companies that have nothing to do with each
other

What are you talking about? The hypothesis was extrapolated over hundreds of
Google's products.

------
dageshi
The end goal for google with this tech isn't stadia, it's something completely
new. It's loading and playing a game as easily as you load and watch a youtube
video right now.

Stadia's just the beta test to get the hardware running, tested and get
developers familiar with the backend platform they need to develop for/port
too.

Video games are one of the few really massive and lucrative markets which
Google can move into and make a dent on their balance sheets.

So yeah Stadia will probably get canned at some point, but the technology will
probably go onto bigger and better things.

