Jump to content
rllmuk
footle

Google Stadia

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Fletch said:

Streaming gaming has already been successful with millions of casual gamers.

 

beehive_3.png

 

Pff. People were playing Magic Pockets via streaming years before that!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Echoing my post from the Xbox SAD thread but I'm struggling to see how these "Netflix for games" services are going to be sustainable in the long term when publishers will just be getting a cut of a subscription fee for their multi-million dollar AAA games, especially after Google takes their share. The business model feels like a race to the bottom that'll benefit Google, at the expense of publishers. Surely standalone digital purchases remain the most profitable (and therefore attractive) option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Streaming is just the delivery device though, so you could still have full price purchases with it in addition to the subscription model, same as now with Game Pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all becoming Games as a Service in the AAA market anyway, so you'll never actually want to own any of the major IPs. 

 

FIFA, NBA, etc will also become GaaS type games sooner rather than later too. 

 

However, yeah, you'll be able to still buy and 'own' digitally any game you want, just delivered to you in a different ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with that is that come new releases you've got a huge amount of people concurrently playing Destiny or Anthem, say, not only all playing online but also streaming the game. 

 

I think MS' solution is more attractive and actually deliverable using a combination of the two methods.

 

You also have the issue of online subs like Gold and PS Plus, do you include that as part of the basic subscription or extra? 

 

I think expecting Google to launch a streaming service for a fiver a month or whatever where you play all the latest third party games and exclusive content with no additional cost or pricing is far fetched, and because of that it's not really the game changer people are claiming it to be, not if the aim is to reach all these billions of customers who aren't currently playing games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bradigor said:

It's all becoming Games as a Service in the AAA market anyway, so you'll never actually want to own any of the major IPs.

 

Is it, though? I mean, obviously there's a trend here, (Anthem and Division 2 in recent weeks) but also there's still plenty of just traditional singleplayer stuff (DMC5, Sekiro right now, but loads of stuff both AAA and lower-tier - from Spider-Man to Just Cause to Far Cry and onwards.)

 

I reckon the transition of everything to GaaS is overstated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncle Mike said:

the transition of everything to GaaS is overstated.

And unsustainable, even more so with streaming where you have the likes of Fortnite and Apex Legends being free to play. Do Google charge to play them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stanley said:

And unsustainable, even more so with streaming where you have the likes of Fortnite and Apex Legends being free to play.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Streaming is just the delivery device though, so you could still have full price purchases with it in addition to the subscription model, same as now with Game Pass.

 

Paying full price to stream something seems like absolutely terrible value. But I accept that I'm a thirtysomething currently waiting for Virgin to fix my crap broadband, so I'm probably not the target market for this sort of nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

 

I don't really understand what you mean by that.

There are only a finite number of players and hours in the day as publishers expect players to continue playing and paying for years as opposed to a few weeks or months with traditional games, in unsustainable from that POV and from the POV of the developer tasked with keeping up with the demand for more content. With streaming they'd also have to shoulder the burden of cost for actually delivering it to player's screens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DeciderVT said:

Echoing my post from the Xbox SAD thread but I'm struggling to see how these "Netflix for games" services are going to be sustainable in the long term when publishers will just be getting a cut of a subscription fee for their multi-million dollar AAA games, especially after Google takes their share. The business model feels like a race to the bottom that'll benefit Google, at the expense of publishers. Surely standalone digital purchases remain the most profitable (and therefore attractive) option?

 

That's if sticking with the current publisher model, though. This netflix-y model is probably not good for publishers at they currently stand: but the attraction to Google (and everyone else trying to get in on it) may well be to start acting like a publisher in the longer term, providing funding to developers to produce games exclusive to their service. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DeciderVT said:

 

Paying full price to stream something seems like absolutely terrible value. 

If you eliminate all the issues associated with it such as lag then it's no different from making a digital purchase now, no mean feat of course, and then you provide that game on tap to players whenever they want it in however many numbers for no extra cost, again that seems pretty unsustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DeciderVT said:

Echoing my post from the Xbox SAD thread but I'm struggling to see how these "Netflix for games" services are going to be sustainable in the long term when publishers will just be getting a cut of a subscription fee for their multi-million dollar AAA games, especially after Google takes their share. The business model feels like a race to the bottom that'll benefit Google, at the expense of publishers. Surely standalone digital purchases remain the most profitable (and therefore attractive) option?

 

They'll still have the option to sell the games rather than stream.   Well they will on every platform other than Google.   Streaming isn't the only revenue source. 

And even if it ultimately heads that way maybe more people getting a slice of the pie is better than 10 games being profitable and the rest a losss or whatever that stat was from a while back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rafaqat said:

And even if it ultimately heads that way maybe more people getting a slice of the pie is better than 10 games being profitable and the rest a losss or whatever that stat was from a while back. 

That's no how capitalism works though is it? No way Rockstar, for example, are going to give up their profit and revenue for the greater good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stanley said:

That's no how capitalism works though is it? No way Rockstar, for example, are going to give up their profit and revenue for the greater good.

 

They're free to continue selling physical or not joining in with streaming.  Capitalism will decide if that makes them more money or not.  Will be an interesting few years that's for sure. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stanley said:

There are only a finite number of players and hours in the day as publishers expect players to continue playing and paying for years as opposed to a few weeks or months with traditional games, in unsustainable from that POV and from the POV of the developer tasked with keeping up with the demand for more content. With streaming they'd also have to shoulder the burden of cost for actually delivering it to player's screens.

 

I don't really understand the point still. (Although it's probably a different discussion.) These games seem to do fine. And other games also seem to do fine. What's inherently unsustainable? The games that are well managed continue on. The ones that aren't don't. It feels like a different conversation to whether a console based on streaming can be successful, but this feels like a non-issue.

 

19 minutes ago, Stanley said:

With streaming they'd also have to shoulder the burden of cost for actually delivering it to player's screens.

 

Would they though? A GaaS currently runs a pretty cost daily because they have to provide all the infrastructure to support the online nature of things. We don't know what Google, for example, would provide in their back-end. It might be their platform fee includes a certain amount of provision (I assume MS or Sony provide developers with all the friend list and party stuff as part of their platform today) and a game on that platform doesn't shoulder all the cost as direct cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rafaqat said:

 

They're free to continue selling physical or not joining in with streaming.  Capitalism will decide if that makes them more money or not.  Will be an interesting few years that's for sure. 

 

Physical vs digital vs streaming isn't the issue it's this utopian all games for a fiver a month pipe dream people seem to believe will happen, less like Netflix and more like Spotify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

 

I don't really understand the point still. (Although it's probably a different discussion.) These games seem to do fine. And other games also seem to do fine. What's inherently unsustainable? The games that are well managed continue on. The ones that aren't don't. It feels like a different conversation to whether a console based on streaming can be successful, but this feels like a non-issue.

 

 

Would they though? A GaaS currently runs a pretty cost daily because they have to provide all the infrastructure to support the online nature of things. We don't know what Google, for example, would provide in their back-end. It might be their platform fee includes a certain amount of provision (I assume MS or Sony provide developers with all the friend list and party stuff as part of their platform today) and a game on that platform doesn't shoulder all the cost as direct cost.

Well they'd either have to shoulder the burden of cost themselves and just absorb or pass it on to the publisher which would then presumably eat into their profits.

 

The point about there being more and more GAAS type games is that publishers want customers to keep on buying and playing them but there is only so much time and so many players. I'd imagine it's really difficult to get a foothold. Look at what happened with Activision and Bungie, Activision wanted more and more revenue and Bungie couldn't service it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncle Mike said:

Is this a Jimquisition thing? I don't think he's as well-informed as he thinks he is.

Eh? Activision cut ties with Bungie because Destiny wasn't increasing their revenue by enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

Sure. Why is that a data point that certain types of game are somehow inherently unsustainable?

For the reasons I've already given. There's room for some of those types of games, but not many, and if the whole market leaned towards that model it wouldn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DeciderVT said:

Echoing my post from the Xbox SAD thread but I'm struggling to see how these "Netflix for games" services are going to be sustainable in the long term when publishers will just be getting a cut of a subscription fee for their multi-million dollar AAA games, especially after Google takes their share.

 

Same way they've dealt with the exponentially rising cost of production so far - by selling to a much wider audience.

 

The biggest games in the biggest month of the year used to sell 400,000 and cost $2 million, now they're failures if they don't sell 9,000,000 copies because they cost $200 million, the industry has expanded. But you look at Apex Legends 50 million players, or Fortnites 110 million, or Minecrafts 130 million, and there's a much bigger audience out available if you don't limit yourself to those who buy a $400 box and a $60 game on top. Even if you assume the publisher get the whole $60, which they don't, you make more if you get $5 on average from each of those people (ARPU), than you're making under the traditional model.

 

Quote

Surely standalone digital purchases remain the most profitable (and therefore attractive) option?

 

Do you buy a digital collection piecemeal from Google Play or iTunes, or subscribe to something like Netflix or Amazon Prime?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RubberJohnny said:

Do you buy a digital collection piecemeal from Google Play or iTunes, or subscribe to something like Netflix or Amazon Prime?

Both, you can't watch all the latest releases on those services, themselves which are secondary and tertiary revenue streams, same with Apple Music or Spotify, full price new releases is where the bulk of profit comes from in the gaming market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Both

 

Do you actually do both? Most people don't.

 

10 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Same with Apple Music or Spotify

 

Streaming accounts for 75% of the music market, only 10% buy CDs and 12% buy separate digital downloads. Gaming could become the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

Streaming accounts for 75% of the music market, only 10% buy CDs and 12% buy separate digital downloads. Gaming could become the same way.

Which is why artists are complaining they're not making any money from it. At least they have the live arena to fall back on, or licensing, games have no such luxury.

 

And yeah I still buy and rent movies, and I buy a lot of vinyl and CD's too. I'd buy more 4k Blu-rays too if they weren't so extortionate as the quality is far superior to streaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.