Google Reveals Stance On Exclusive Games For Stadia

Google is keeping plenty of details about Stadia close the the chest, but the company did sit down with GameSpot to further discuss the service.

Read Full Story >>
Nyxus1940d ago (Edited 1940d ago )

Everything about this thing sounds completely horrible. I just hope it flops hard.

Neonridr1940d ago

why? How does this affect you? You can keep playing your traditional box, and those who don't have the means to do so can possibly use this service..

Nyxus1940d ago

Because all of their ideas are horrible, and they are trying to push this as the so-called 'future of gaming'.

Neonridr1940d ago

@Nyxus - it's one future, not THE future. I think it's great that more options are coming. I mean who even thought this sort of thing was possible 5 years ago? Playing AAA titles through a web browser?

I love my consoles and will still choose to go that route, but for someone who doesn't have the hardware or means, this still allows them to enjoy gaming without the upfront cost of purchasing anything physical.

I hate how when someone doesn't like something they act like it's no good for anybody. You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't act like there aren't people out there who wouldn't benefit from this type of business model.

Nyxus1940d ago

@ Neonridr: You know who would benefit from this business model? Google.

Neonridr1940d ago (Edited 1940d ago )

@Nyxus - naturally they would. We live in a streaming world dominated by places like Netflix and Amazon Prime. Why shouldn't there be a gaming option delivered the same way? Playstation Now offers similar features / services and nobody complains about that model.

gangsta_red1940d ago

I hate this so I hope it flops and no one else should ever enjoy something I hate. So there!!!

Nyxus1940d ago

@ gangsta_red: if you are a gamer and you don't see how wrong all of this is, I don't know what to say.

2pacalypsenow1940d ago


Do you say the same for loot boxes?

Ricegum1939d ago

Can't help but notice the only people defending this are Microsoft fans. I guess it's since they know that's the way Microsoft are heading too. So they feel like they need to be on board with it all.

Such a shame.

DillyDilly1939d ago

It effects us because if successful Sony & Microsoft might try this route also people are hypocrites if they like this but gave Microsoft a hard time with their first X1 reveal since its another always online thing

annoyedgamer1939d ago (Edited 1939d ago )

Thats all good and well untill the latter is no longer available. Guess how many Physical copies of Metro Exodus sold on PC? None. Because it was never available.

Neonridr1939d ago

@Ricegum - I own a PS4 (Pro) and a Switch. Don't own any MS hardware, unless you count my gaming PC since it runs Windows.

XabiDaChosenOne1939d ago

@Ricegum Are you surprised? They were also defending the original drm elements of the X1 as well when it was first announced.

Christopher1939d ago

***I mean who even thought this sort of thing was possible 5 years ago? ***

OnLive, Gaikai, Sony.

Neonridr1939d ago

@Christopher - those services had terrible lag and limited resolutions.

yomfweeee1939d ago

It is a slippery slope type of thing towards getting rid of consoles. Then that means all digital, which a lot of people do not want.

Dragonscale1939d ago

@neon, yeah but it was still possible as flaky as it was at the time.

dumahim1939d ago

Because something new = scary and some people can't allow other people to enjoy what someone else is willing to offer.

Don't get me wrong, it's something I'll probably never use myself, but the instant hate over this is just silly.

rainslacker1939d ago (Edited 1939d ago )

As a Sony fan, I'll defend the service. I have nothing against options. My annoyance comes from those that act like there is a singular future, other things will die, or jump on business paradigms which are actually bad for the customer. I dont really feel that what Google is offering is bad, just like the other streaming services aren't.

Could it end up having bad policies attached to the service? Sure. But we dont know all those policies yet.

Could it cause a major market shift which will make devs and pubs prefer this kind of service? Maybe, but outside of these services buying exclusivity, or making their own games, it would mean a lot of people in the traditional model will have to shift to this new consumption model. If that happens, then it is what it is, and if the console market were so fragile, it probably wouldn't last anyways.

But for as long as there are enough people wanting the traditional, there will be someone to provide it, and docs to support it. If it means we lose the 3-4 games out of ten which want to chase the mt/dlc service based games where they get to keep complete control and expand as little as possible, then I say good riddance. Let other, better games shine, just like so many AAA SP games have this gen because we dont have ten big ones releasing each month anymore.

0hMyGandhi1939d ago

I believe Stadia sets a terrifying presedecent. Phil Harrison stating that the pricing of the game can vary, with options to pay by the hour and so on and so forth.
This will further incentivize companies to mold their titles into sink sink collect-a-thons with lootboxes, DLC season passes, and piecemeal narrative offerings.

It always scares me when I see pure streaming of anything, especially without having any option to download the content.

I am a movie buff. Love movies, like many others. So, even in the age of Netflix, I still own a decent collection of films on blu-ray. Why? because when Amblin pulls all the offerings of Speilberg and you cannot watch Jaws, what do you do? People need to be super careful about the immense power that a company like Google can exhibit. Ownership is important, and Google has a ton of influence.

I believe this new platform affects Microsoft more than anyone else. Google's primary bag is having the option to play virtually anywhere, and they are leaning heavily on 3rd party support. Microsoft is similarly banking on 3rd party support to get by. Their Gamepass program will be heavily compromised if Google decides to throw a few billion towards its own platform.

In all honesty, if Stadia could allow us to "rent" games via their platform, I am all in.

Christopher1939d ago

***those services had terrible lag and limited resolutions***

Goal post move much? You didn't ask about quality, only who thought of it.

And those services are just lower resolution but otherwise not proven to be worse than Stadia as far as performance. Saying otherwise it's just reading lines from Google PR and not real world usage.

Melankolis1939d ago

You're so naive. I know this is inevitable. But this kind of service, once it proved to be successful, it will affect gaming industry as a whole.
You want proof? Mobile gaming business model already found on consoles and PC. DLC, MT, loot box, those are the examples.
So what's next? DMC VI timed exclusive on Stadia? I hope not.

NXFather1938d ago

Well I can only speak for myself with my own ideas or above and the people for google but, you already know its an irrational fear. If we are talking about games right now.

T2X1938d ago

Options are always good to have!!!

Godmars2901938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

It effects him, traditional "box" gaming, in the way it shifts things more towards the mobile gaming model and away from physical. Not that physical gaming wasn't in enough trouble with online patching loot boxes and all else.

Think if it as EA - screwing up all the more - mandating use of Frostbite as example. How by all counts a game engine focused on FPS has negatively impacted titles like Andromeda and Anthem. Any 3rd party dev who prioritizes a multiplatform game for Google's service is likely going to make a worse PS or Xbox version by default, if they make them at all. Have less incentive to fix any issues to boot.

+ Show (21) more repliesLast reply 1938d ago
darthv721940d ago

you can hope but it prob wont. There is a world much bigger outside of N4G and Google is used by billions of people. chances are... they've been made aware of its soon to be existence.

Sono4211938d ago

I'm sorry but I really don't understand people who think this sounds like a good idea. What do we really gain from this kind of model? let's actually do this.

1. No downloads means you'll have a full game library ready the second you connect to the internet.
2. Because it is streaming, powerful hardware is not necessary, in theory you would never have to upgrade hardware ever again.
3. You can play with streamers? I don't know about this one, it sounds confusing? Don't really understand it.

That's really it, those are the good things to come from this.. the best argument for it (If you ask me) is number 2. Never having to upgrade your own hardware would seem appealing, but now let's get into the negatives.

1. You don't actually own your games, you are subject to them being removed at any time.
2. Crazy fast constant internet connection required.
3. Even single player games require a fast constant internet connection.
4. Input lag.

That's about all of them, and by looking at the list I really think the negatives vastly outweigh the good. The good doesn't solve any current problems, I think the most compelling is that in theory you'll never have to upgrade hardware, but I'm not willing to give up a lag free experience for that. It's crazy to me that there's actually a decent amount of people on here for this, where did all of the people go who complained about singleplayer games being always online? Are we so quick to forget all the issues that come with that?

Also who wants to give more power to google? They are a monopoly as it is and you just want to let them get even a stronger grip on your information? A controller with a built in mic always connected to wifi, what happened to all of the gamers upset about connect always being on and listening? Constantly collecting data on you. It's like the gaming community is forgetting a very recent history.

On top of that, who actually trusts google to do things right? I mean besides their site (Google) I can't think of anything else they've accomplished that I enjoy, (Youtube doesn't count as they bought it after it was a huge success and every change they make everyone hates) Google's OS for their computers is utter garbage, as well as just the chrome books in general, the worst PC's on the market. I don't know about their phone but I can only imagine how bad it is after dealing with their OS/computers.

This last one is just my personal opinion but I can't support a company that is openly sexist, I just won't I refuse. They flat out admit to paying men less then women, and still claim that men are more privileged at google (Seriously this isn't a joke they released this themselves) and if that isn't enough to make you think they are openly sexist twords men, they always do a womens day video and a mothers day video celebrating the days and posting them on youtube, yet they never do a fathers day video, why not youtube?

It's crazy how in today's PC and SJW era there aren't people going nuts over this. I don't trust google and they don't need to get even more information on everybody. Hard pass from me.

derek1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

Those billions of people dont exist. This may come as a shock to some but the vast majority of adults in the western world let alone elsewhere dont have the time, interest, or budget to invest in what is readily available now video games. I love video gaming and only invest so much time on a monthly basis to actually playing. The market for stadia and xlcoud and psnow is pretty much going to be the same market that exists today. This reality is what I suspect is going to hit Google and others hard who are trying to become the Netflix of gaming when they realize the interest isn't there.