Business Insider recently published an article in which they interviewed a number of game developers for the Google Stadia. They went without their names attached to their words, and perhaps better for that. Without a criticism they’re offering about Stadia and its misgivings, the very same I went on about, wouldn’t reflect too well in their business relations. The main contest is incentives from Google, the benefits that the developer and publisher would gain for putting their title on Stadia. Or rather, the lack of them. Usually the audience would be an incentive on itself, the ones the Big Three currently hold, and Switch as the one with relatively unique and mixed amounts of users, while Stadia effectively has none to contest with. Google can’t compete with the amount of users they have compared to any other gaming platform out there, and they probably know just as well.
There is no reason for any outsider to put their meat on Google’s platter. They’ve done the exact same error so many other companies have before them when it comes to running a gaming platform, console or otherwise; you need to do the initial legwork yourself. To use Nintendo as an example, consumers purchase Nintendo’s consoles not because of gimmicks or whatnot, but because of the software Nintendo themselves are providing. That already offers a default installed consumers base, which can be easily expanded if new and proper software is presented on their platform. Without saying this also means the consoles with the most sales always had the most software on the system. Shovelware is rather important for the ecosystem to balance things out, but it can only balance if there are enough games on a platform. Otherwise it’ll just gather handful of games and they’re all junk. Not even shovelware, but just collection of ports and few exclusive titles worth jack shit. Atari Jaguar or CDi should be an example in of themselves enough.
If Google can’t offer that initial batch of games that would incentivise the customers to pick up their handy dandy controller, what are they using? Software sells hardware, and Google doesn’t have anything that would wake a customer interest. It’s as if they were expecting to come into the play on the backs of other developers and publishers without putting much of their own in there themselves. The few exclusive titles Stadia has seen have been less than stellar, and the whole of idea not having the baggage of prior culture of video games was absurd to begin with. Whether or not Google wants it to, Stadia is relying on pre-existing software that’s heavily ported from other platforms, and that brings the culture of those games and platforms with it. Not that there is a huge dividing lines between different consoles, though PC mindset is very much a different thing. Stadia, however, is very far from PC as a platform. Then again, so is Steam in its nature as a digital console, so maybe modern PC user’s mindset is far too eager to appease closed environments rather than open to controlling their system by themselves.
While other platforms can offer stability, especially the Big Three, Google can’t. You’d think that if Google is putting all this show, razzle and dazzle up to grab customers’ attention, surely they have a long-term plan for Stadia and see it through at least for the next six years. That probably isn’t the case. Google has a tendency to nix products and services that don’t succeed as well as expected, and Stadia is no different to them in terms of business. If it doesn’t rake in the expected revenue, it’ll be written off and they’ll move on. They don’t have the history of putting their best efforts to make a product or a service like Stadia succeed. Stadia, as it stands now, would need a soft-relaunch in terms of service and what products it has. This is similar how Nintendo had to relaunch the Nintendo DS through software and how to market the device. Rather than sell it as a portable N64, a pocket version of a system that was never a success to begin with and has a lousy software library, Nintendo turned the boat around and started to deliver its library closer as a portable Super Nintendo. From there the NDS went to success. Inversely, the Wii was marketed and sold very much like the NES was, but the moment they abandoned that mindset, which was directly reflected in the software library and how Nintendo moved to develop both the 3DS and the Wii U, its sales dropped. Still outsold the other Big Three consoles, but what also failed to carry over the new install base they had from both NDS and Wii.
Google is against all this and they haven’t really done anything to deal with it. Whatever fame Google has at the moment, it isn’t helping them with their gaming department. If all the reports of their customer service practically failing on the first day, some being completely in the dark Stadia was even a thing to begin with, and Day One delivers were multiple weeks late, it could almost be assumed Google was self-aware how things would end up going and had already given up internally. This wouldn’t be a surprise in itself, as at times corporations do put out big projects that might not go anywhere. Often it’s a project that’s been languishing in development hell for years on end and time has already passed it, like with CED, and other times a project is perceived as groundbreaking or making disturbing ways in the industry, but the technology turns out to be half-baked and barely functional. As much as VR has made its strives, in recent years, it has a thirty years history of numerous failed attempts and products. Well, VR will be a true hit when the headset becomes cordless and light enough to shove into basic goggles without the massive plastic housing.
Whether or not Google was unprepared or didn’t have their realities in check with Stadia is academic at best now. Stadia has been around few months now and the wakes it was supposed to make have been rather anemic. Still, let’s wait the first two quarters until we can say whether or not the direction Google has chosen is worth it, but if developers and publishers are willing to coin in and effectively show their distrust not only towards the system itself, but also towards the parent company, something very much askew. Google, as it stands now, really has nothing to compete with in Stadia, and whatever promises and statements they made about fast play anywhere you want without any baggage has turned out to be less fulfilling. If this really was Google trying to offer a way to play games to those who didn’t want to play games because of they hobby has its smears, they bet on the wrong horse.