Google Stadia’s Revenue Streams Explained
Google Stadia’s Revenue Streams Explained
Google’s head of Stadia, Phil Harrison, announced that the platform will incorporate games available without cost and supported by advertisements, along with other features.
Discover Google Stadia's Revenue Model: Learn More
Following my viewing of the Stadia demonstration stage, here’s what I’m thinking.
(Stage demo starts at the 1:35 mark)
I'm hesitant about this, and not just from a technical perspective.
1. While I recognize game streaming services have existed and faced latency issues, and Google has significant infrastructure advantages, the demo showed instances of noticeable image distortion. It raises concerns that widespread adoption could lead to similar problems for many users as the platform grows.
2. This service will undoubtedly require a stable internet connection with no interruptions to function properly, and access to fiber optic (FO) lines isn’t universally available in the US. Even with provider availability, it might not be accessible within an apartment building’s infrastructure. This could create a situation where access is tied to property ownership rather than rental status.
3. There was no information provided regarding potential game pricing or required internet speeds, and I haven’t found any FAQs about Stadia. The “free” Google Play trial is presented as a benefit, but it primarily directs users to various Google-offered media and games – so I'm skeptical about its true value.
4. The claim that playing within the Stadia network is more secure than using a public internet connection contradicts Google’s frequent references to “the internet” when discussing where to purchase Stadia titles. I experienced Google Redirect bugs in the past, where links led to irrelevant websites unrelated to my searches.
5. Chromium is the dominant browser platform, but many users aren’t aware of Epic Privacy Browser, a secure alternative that doesn't rely on Google or Chrome’s tracking methods. It requires bypassing security measures, which can involve frustrating procedures like disabling VPNs or clicking through numerous images.
6. If this works as promised, it could quickly eliminate the need for gaming hardware manufacturers, creating a dominant monopoly and allowing Google to set prices without competition. Hardware companies could potentially form an alliance to disrupt the service.
7. Google’s customer support is notoriously difficult to reach and often provides vague, generic responses like “we'll look into it.” Game developers are likely to direct users back to Google. I used to respect Jade Raymond (54:00), but her work with Ubisoft has led me to believe she's become aligned with corporate gaming practices.
8. Image quality is a major concern. Simply stating “1080p” or “4K” doesn’t guarantee a good visual experience. Streaming services use compression, so onscreen resolutions won't appear as sharp as direct play on decent hardware. The constant emphasis on “on any hardware” suggests a compromise in visual quality for broader compatibility.
9. A significant obstacle is the need to port games to Linux, a challenging undertaking as Valve experienced with Steam Box conversions, delivering inferior performance compared to the original Windows versions. Given this history, it seems like a risky venture for Google.
However, if successful, this could become the new standard for streaming games like Steam—though many praise Steam sales primarily for older titles, requiring significant patience to benefit. Google’s pricing isn't particularly appealing when considering their existing services like YouTube Red and TV, which offer minimal value for the cost.
This could have been accurate several years ago, but you should investigate the present situation. Utilizing Linux is likely an optimal choice for this process when operating within a cloud environment, as (most cloud infrastructure) relies on Linux HVM virtualized instances.