Stadia was successful. Everyone just hated on it for some reason. Didn’t get the playerbase so it was sold off. Was a fantastic service and I curse google daily
It’s fine if it actually worked perfectly for you, but “just working” isn’t exactly a measure of success.
They still needed the playerbase to actually use it, and devs to actually make games for it. Which they got very little of both. So it wasn’t successful.
It didn’t have a way to function in the event of system failure.
Steam sometimes goes down. When that happens, people can often still play their singleplayer games. If Steam had totally failed business-wise, it either would have been sold to another publisher who would maintain access, or the games would’ve been unlocked for permanent offline play.
Take a look at Stadia’s failure resolution strategy; they had to fully refund every person who bought a game there, because all purchases became completely unusable. Imagine if they’d gone a decade selling games to people and building off of their revenue, before encountering failure.
Nothing works in a system failure. It’s a system failure.
They can only play their download games if it doesn’t need to access steam for a reason. Yeah you can go get a Nintendo 64 and play a game. Modern games require an internet connection. Yeah it’s a downside to it but it’s like saying you can’t play when it’s a powercut. It’s what board games say to video gamers.
Also true. An issue that has just come up with Ubisoft. They have discontinued a game. No way to access it. That’s probably the most legit point.
Very true. Look at Sony. Look at discovery. They aren’t refunding. Are you calling them failures ?
Stadia was successful. Everyone just hated on it for some reason. Didn’t get the playerbase so it was sold off. Was a fantastic service and I curse google daily
So it wasn’t successful
Wasn’t successful in playerbase no. Was in terms of a cloud gaming system. It worked. All I neeee it to do. Didn’t hit googles lofty ideals though.
It’s fine if it actually worked perfectly for you, but “just working” isn’t exactly a measure of success.
They still needed the playerbase to actually use it, and devs to actually make games for it. Which they got very little of both. So it wasn’t successful.
It didn’t have a way to function in the event of system failure.
Steam sometimes goes down. When that happens, people can often still play their singleplayer games. If Steam had totally failed business-wise, it either would have been sold to another publisher who would maintain access, or the games would’ve been unlocked for permanent offline play.
Take a look at Stadia’s failure resolution strategy; they had to fully refund every person who bought a game there, because all purchases became completely unusable. Imagine if they’d gone a decade selling games to people and building off of their revenue, before encountering failure.
Nothing works in a system failure. It’s a system failure.
They can only play their download games if it doesn’t need to access steam for a reason. Yeah you can go get a Nintendo 64 and play a game. Modern games require an internet connection. Yeah it’s a downside to it but it’s like saying you can’t play when it’s a powercut. It’s what board games say to video gamers.
Also true. An issue that has just come up with Ubisoft. They have discontinued a game. No way to access it. That’s probably the most legit point.
Very true. Look at Sony. Look at discovery. They aren’t refunding. Are you calling them failures ?