TThe most important thing that happened in the world of video games last week, not counting the launch and success of Pokmon Sword and Shield, was the launch of Google Stadia, at least academically speaking. It's easy to see why it should be: it is the first major new player in the market since Microsoft launched the original Xbox almost two decades ago (!). It is the first major release of a completely new type of gaming platform: the transmission, which promises to change the future of game development and consumption, if it takes off. It is also, at least theoretically, our first glimpse of what the next generation may be able to do.
It really should have been a jonrn. Hell, if nothing else, the great publicity and marketing of Google, basically they are online marketing and advertising and have one of the largest advertising platforms on YouTube, they should have ensured at least a lot of enthusiasm, talk and enthusiasm. . And yet, if you came to me and told me that you didn't know what had been launched this last week, I believe you. And at least he will be an enthusiastic follower of the medium: most of the most casual followers of video games lack awareness that Stadia even exists. And those who are very, very confused about what it is, or what it does, or what are the characteristics.
There has been a spectacular marketing and messenger failure with Stadia, for who exactly is this? If he drew a Venn de quin diagram apparently he is being attacked with the Stadia, he will end up with nothing: he plays, but he is not interested in buying a console or a PC. He wants high-end games, but is not interested in buying a console or a PC. You are not interested in buying a console or a PC, but for some reason you have a last generation high speed fiber optic Internet connection. He wants to play games on the go, but he doesn't want a switch, and he wants more than just mobile games. He wants to play games in 4K, but he doesn't want to have them at all. I am not sure that this person really exists. Google seems to be targeting a demographic group of exactly zero people.
But even the much less attractive platforms than Stadia have achieved a minimum of success in the past thanks to the brute force with great games: watch Wii U selling more than a dozen million with nothing more than Nintendo's production, which you won't get in nowhere else If Stadia had attractive games, games that could not be enjoyed anywhere else, games that might show what this new form of cloud-assisted gaming could only achieve for video streaming, then there would be those who had bought it despite of all the other alarmingly poorly communicated things about Stadia. Surprisingly, Google failed even here: they have no major exclusives at launch, except for a small independent game. The importance of games in the sale of new platforms, especially by new market participants, is practically an axiomatic wisdom at this time. Sony said they had Pygnosis and Namco by their side before the launch of the first PlayStation. Microsoft said Rare and also Bungie Halo before the launch of Xbox. Google … did … nothing?
But let's extend this hypothesis even more and suppose that someone somewhere wanted to check it just to see how this potential future of the games could be, as a media enthusiast. If Google had at least fulfilled what they had promised, at least there would be a pure novelty appeal to sell it to the technology experts and the first users, while Google hastened to address the other problems. And yet, somehow, Google spoils even this.
Most of the main features that were promised for Stadia, including the ability to share game streams in real time, spontaneous remote gaming through real-time broadcasts, family game sharing, or simply, you know, the ability To play wherever you want, whenever and however you want, the latter is an important marketing point, they are not present at the launch. For God's sake, achievements are not present at the launch! As in, there are achievements; you simply cannot see them because the interface to see them still does not exist. How? What the hell?
It gets worse. There is no way to buy games for Stadia without using the Stadia application for your phone. Do you want to access a web store? You can not! There is not one!
But suppose you have a Chromecast or a Pixel phone (the only two devices that currently support Stadia) and we believe that, even in this half-baked state, you want to verify it, just for the least curious curiosity. I have bad news for you: at least for Chromecast, right now, the only ones who can run Stadia are the specific brands of "Founders Edition" and "Premium Edition". You can't even, for now, use it on your existing Chromecast.
My mind is stunned by how bad all this is. The transmission was always going to be difficult to sell at best, but Stadia seemed to have conceptual flaws, then suffered from poor marketing and then exacerbated that with confusing messages, THEN apparently she hurried to launch without even having the basic fundamentals of A modern platform, not even a gaming platform, just a platform, like UI, does not complete. And for what? Why was he rushed at all? Why not wait until you have all this resolved and complete, and maybe one or two games of one of those new and elegant studios that you have created, before taking out this damn thing? What was the rush?
It should not surprise anyone anywhere, then, that the first indications are that Stadia has completely failed, the last of a series of increasingly high profile faceplants in the field of video game streaming. Leading industry journalist Jason Schreier has stated that the launch of the platform has apparently not met Google’s expectations, and a look at the number of downloads of the Android Stadia application is certainly not the most scientific base survey of users, but it is an easy way of fewer stadium numbers, if nothing else, it shows that less than 200,000 people have currently downloaded this application (which, as I noted, is necessary to use Stadia).
So Stadia is a failure, at least for now. Maybe in the future, that changes. Perhaps in a dramatic change of routine, Google decide to persevere and continue with it and work to address its many problems to slowly develop it in a main pillar of the games, and a pioneer of the supposed future transmission market. But right now, it is a failure. Only the last in a long line of failures for the transmission market. What does that tell us?
It is tempting to say that this means that the transmission is a dead end. After all, we have had several high profile transmission failures in the game space before (someone remembers OnLive?), And if a company as massive as Google could not do it, who can?
But I feel that any pronouncement about the fate of the transmission market is premature. I am not necessarily saying that the transmission market has a future: it is entirely possible that it is a dead end, and that the games, which require huge data transfer packages along with contraction player inputs, are simply not suitable for transmission, unlike, for example, movies or music. But it is also possible that the transmission may take off in the future. Because, as I have spent an excessive amount of time highlighting in this article, for all the reasons on paper that Stadia should have been a dump, those reasons remained firmly on paper; In execution, Google completely failed Stadia. It is possible that Microsoft's unique position as custodian of content, infrastructure and community means that xCloud is the form of cloud game that takes off. Quizs PS Now become a dark horse contender and become the leader of this new game segment. Maybe Amazon's rumored streaming service can do what Stadia couldn't.
Sony and, especially, Microsoft, at least, seem more suitable for the task. They are veterans of the gaming market. They have massive libraries of compelling exclusive content. Both are equipped with a cutting-edge infrastructure (Sony because they really depend on Microsoft, but still). And both seem to understand that the transmission as the only form of play is probably unsustainable, especially due to the inherent limitations. Both offer streaming services to complement their existing center console offers. And that, I think, is the right way to do it.
So yes, maybe the transmission still has a future. However, if this is not the case, it is not Stadia's failure that marks the moment of death. Too much was wrong with this hurried and halfway effort to really represent what a real attractive transmission proposal will do in the market.
Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of TecNoticias as an organization, and should not be attributed to them.