• paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Once I saw that Google wasn’t going to honor steam library on stadia

    That is such a weird complaint.

    Google doesn’t own Steam. Google has nothing to do with Steam. Why would Google give you free games just because you purchased those same games on a competing platform?

    Are you also complaining that Sony isn’t honoring your Steam library on the PlayStation? Are you complaining that Microsoft isn’t honoring the Steam library on the XBox?

    Heck, are you complaining that Steam isn’t honoring the Nintendo Switch library on the Steam Deck?

    I mean: what gives?

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s a good question. In my view Google was selling remote compute, remote graphics rendering, and charging a subscription fee for that. Just like GeForce now. Remember GeForce now and shadow, we’re both remote game streaming platforms that existed before stadia.

      So Google comes along and says hey for a little bit more money than GeForce now, we’re going to let you render and stream games from our data centers. Just like GeForce now just like shadow.

      Unlike those other platforms, you can’t bring your own library, you have to also buy the games from us, at full retail price. Even if the game is cheaper on steam.

      So it was both a subscription service, and a wall garden with higher than normal prices.

      It’s like subscribing to Netflix, and also having to buy the movies to watch. Pick your lane Google

      Anyway I understand your position, I’m just trying to articulate as a cloud gamer at the time stadia came out, I was enthusiastic, but disappointed with their pricing model which didn’t seem competitive.

      I think their options were to a, charge a monthly subscription, and allow people to bring their own libraries, like the steam library.

      Or b. Charge for games, and then stream for free.

      Doing both puts them in a significant market disadvantage, and I didn’t want to own games that were tied to a Google platform, because Google has a long storied history of shutting down platforms after a few years. I didn’t want to own games on a platform that would disappear. 100% Google’s reputation prevented me from trying out their platform because I didn’t trust them to be around for more than a few years

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You didn’t need the premium subscription to stream your games. You could stream at 720p for free if you purchased the game. Blame Google’s marketing for making it seem like you did though