Follow TV Tropes
xCloud is launching with over 150 games. Stadia's only at like 100(?) right now and its library is vastly inferior to this launch lineup.
The new Chromecast doesn't natively support Stadia. (You can sideload it with mixed results.) Official support won't roll out until next year. GeForce Now is supported, funnily enough.
Google seems to have already given up on Stadia.
Edited by Karxrida on Oct 3rd 2020 at 5:02:41 AM
So, 1 year and 7 months, give or take?
I think it's too early to say that they're giving up on Stadia, since there will eventually be official support for it. It is, however, safe to say that Stadia apparently isn't very high on Google's priority list at the moment.
Keep in mind that Google kept Google+ running for a few months short of eight years despite the memetically low userbase. I'm sure Stadia will last at least three years before Google commits to dropping it.
It's very clear that Google doesn't understand the video game market in the slightest and that they need to be way more aggressive. Their platform lacks exclusives to draw people in, marketing has been nonexistent after the initial launch, and the pricing model makes no sense. That's not even getting into the issues inherent to cloud gaming.
I'll give it a couple years before they stop adding notable new games, and then a year or two after than before the whole thing is canned. I'd almost feel sorry for the people being suckered into this, but r/Stadia is in total denial.
Stadia is trending because a creative director for one of Google's studios decided to shit on streamers through Twitter and is causing a lot of drama. (He got the bad retweet/like ratio.)
Edited by Karxrida on Oct 22nd 2020 at 1:53:03 AM
Love this guy saying they're paying in exposure.
Okay, I donít understand the issue here. Streamers generally do pay for the games they stream.
I admittedly have no understanding of legal mumbo jumbo, so what do I know?
They mean streamers should pay a licensing fee to stream the game for people to watch, like how you would to play music or show a movie.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
Iím unsure how I feel here.
Unlike restreamed music or film footage, video of someone else playing a game is very clearly not the same thing as a game to play yourself.
Edited by Perseus on Oct 23rd 2020 at 3:01:58 AM
For all its flaws, the video game industry is lightyears ahead of the other entertainment industries in this regard: They recognize that letting people just use their stuff is basically free advertising, so they let them be.
I actually agree.
Video games, unlike other forms of entertainment, canít be enjoyed by watching other people play them.
Unfortunately, there are still a few publishers that complete jerks about this and want control.
At this point, itís just greed.
Basically. Watching people play games can be enjoyable, but itís not the same experience as playing them yourself.
Well, for most games. The real story-heavy games like Telltale's output or VNs kinda can be experienced second-hand
I guess that explains Telltale's fall. Streaming really bites them.
But a game like Mario or Sonic can't be experienced second-hand.
Edited by powerpuffbats on Oct 22nd 2020 at 11:19:03 AM
Legally speaking he does sorta have a point. In that streaming mostly exists by the grace of corporations not pushing on that. Lawyers on twitter are particularly divided on this, which is usually a good indicator that there's at least a legal case. While you can argue playing a game is a transformative work, there's argument to be made that it's not so in a legal way. For example, reading an entire book out loud isn't transformative enough that you wont get sued for doing it and posting it online. Even if you make funny voices for all the characters. Adaptations are "Transformative", yet still require a license. There's a case to be made that Streaming is not that different, legally speaking.
By and far Streaming as it is exists in a strange world because no one's tested the water legally - and there's plenty of reasons companies dont want to, from the obvious backlash to the fact that streaming tends to help sales, not hinder them. But it's not impossible that there's a world where streaming a game requires a license in the future. The AAA Corporations always look for ways to be dumber. And Nintendo for example is really controlling about how people stream their games.
Is a good point for one of these unanswered question. Do genres matter? Copyright laws don't really make a difference with genre.
(Also one must note the irony of google, a company that has massively profited from copyright infringement, and with a... poor history of copyright abuse, and DMCA abuse, having an employee trying to teach anyone anything about licensing is laughable)
Edited by Ghilz on Oct 22nd 2020 at 12:28:59 PM
There were actually several reasons Telltale went under, ranging from bad management, to technical issues, to declining audience reception.
Heck, Google actually put out a statement saying that his tweets didn't represent them.
And constantly releasing Walking Dead, which helped contribute to those factors.
Look at all the publicity the Stadia is getting.
I wanna report a murder
The real truth is you had to change your bio after you got called out for this dumb take because saying you were Stadia's creative director turned out to be a gross overstatement.
Think about that.
Being Stadia's creative director is aspirational to you. Ha ha ha.
There is also a case that streaming is more akin to using a clip from a movie in a video essay.
Books consist of words. If you post all those words online, it's piracy, regardless of whether you do it in the form of images, character encoding, or audio.
Comics consist of words and pictures. If you put all of those words and pictures online, again, it's piracy. (It's for this reason that the Transformers wiki doesn't allow uploads of entire pages).
Movies consist of pictures and sound. Putting all those pictures and all that sound online is piracy.
But games are different. They consist of pictures, sound, and most importantly, source code. Streaming puts (some of) the pictures and sound online, but the source code stays on the streamer's computer. As such, they are only uploading a small part of the whole. As such, a fair use case can also be made.
The other difference, as mentioned earlier, is that video games require people to actually play the game to get the full experience, which watching streams or lps canít replicate.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?