sTadiA hAs tHE GaMEs yOu'rE lOoKing foR

Why won't you just stop? It's already dead!

Google's Stadia has had quite the rough go of things, wouldn't you say? Here is a platform that placed itself at direct competition, not just to the three big console developers of the gaming landscape, but to the very concept of gaming hardware in general. This alone has managed to garner quite a bit of criticism from just about anyone who glances their direction and starts to ask pertinent questions about issues like software ownership, longevity and the right to modify owned files. (Still no word on that last one, Google. Will you folk ever address that?) I'll not lie and conceal my own role in some of that scepticism, for it's true, I don't like the prospect of Stadia and what it is trying to enforce upon the gaming world. But then, I don't like the concept of streaming services in general, who remove practically all licencing rights from the consumer so that what we are allowed to watch is forever at the whim of the warring licencors behind these platforms. (It's just a huge mess and I don't want that for the world of gaming.)

Luckily, at least for me, Stadia hasn't quite rode in on the streaming service wave as they quite hoped that they would. Sure, behind closed doors they might argue that this is fine "Netflix didn't hit it off big from the getgo" but anyone with a working frontal cortex knows that it's the height of hubris to judge the success of your venture off of the literal zeitgeist that pioneered the movement; from a scientific angle there are so many unrepeatable factors tied into that process that it's mind boggling. And so that ultimately leaves us with a conundrum of what to do with Stadia. It's a service that has received a lot of flak, has failed to deliver on promises and is now relying on the tried-and-true strategy of literally giving subscriptions away to people in order to get them hooked like some sort of desperate street pusher.

But the folks at Stadia are never one's to lose hope, I'll give them that, and despite the dire predictions from anyone with even the slightest shred of foresight, they have persisted. Even as damning headline after damning headline gets scrawled about their failures, Stadia still assures it diminishing supporters that everything is okay, they have plans for the future; "50 new games." they cry, "by the end of the year we'll have 50 new games!" Of course, this ties into the rallying cry that they've been insisting since launch, that 'Stadia has the games you're looking for'. (Something you may remember from that, frankly insulting, advert they debuted last year.) This hasn't panned out at all for the first year as Stadia managed to snag a pathetic stable of games, most of which were years old, and have more games in their 'We promise folder' than in their 'we did it' one.

Things started to look up for Stadia, however, when they announced their first real exclusive from a title that isn't a small indie game no one cares about. (Sorry, Gylt) Now, if you've spent any amount of time here you'll know my feelings on 'exclusives'; they're a desperate and transparent way to score points with 'the community' at the cost of accessibility to the audience. (Why bother prove your superiority by actually establishing a superior platform when you can just chuck money around and strongarm an audience?) But Stadia needs all the help it can get right now so I say; screw it, let them flounder. Of course this game was the latest entry in the cult classic 'Serious Sam' franchise (Which I have never played, by the by), 'Serious Sam 4'. Now even I have to admit that this was a big deal on Stadia's part, 'Serious Sam' is a, pardon the pun, serious name in the gaming world and it shows something that Stadia have the pull to secure this long-awaited (I assume) title to their ranch.

At least that's the story that Stadia wanted to paint, the truth is actually a lot dumber. You see, whilst 'Serious Sam 4, Stadia exclusive' makes for attention grabbing headlines, in actuality the Serious Sam games is more of a PC exclusive, because it will be launching on Steam too. Now as this is a franchise that was initially spawned on the PC, which built up it's fandom on the PC, this might be a bit of a headscratcher for you; "then where does the exclusivity kick in?" Well on console, of course! Serious Sam will be missing a console release for the first half year but coming to the PC. (Geez, I wonder how much Stadia paid for that bum deal.) What this means is that the Serious Sam publishers are getting paid not to release their game on two consoles that are about to become obsolete, and instead are selling to the folk who are most likely their target audience anyway. (That's obviously Steam customers, by-the-way, not Stadia.) Sad trombone for that absolute five-head move, Stadia.

But this isn't the only string that Stadia have had their sleeves, oh not by a long shot. Remember, folk, they have '50 new games' coming sometime this year and that'll surely be what it takes to finally put their service on the map. Right? (Then they'll finally catch those Duke boys and stop those meddling kids, and that mangy mutt too!) Afterall, Stadia still managed to snag a day one version of the biggest release of the entire year- wait, it's 2020 so we can officially say; of the decade; Cyberpunk 2077. Woah, guys, how did you snag that gig? Actually, I'd imagine that it was more of a move on CDPR's part as they've always championed giving consumer's choices, but Stadia benefits all the same! Finally they can play in the big boy pool alongside the powerhouses of the industry and brag about day-one access to a AAA juggernaut. Wouldn't it be such a cruel twist of fate for something unexpected to happen that would prevent this olive branch to the Stadia platform from taking place?

Well as of right now we do not know exactly what happened, but consistent to the ruinous Stadia saga, Cyberpunk has been pushed back elusively on Google's fledgling service. You just cannot make this stuff up, can you? The biggest game of the decade lands on your system only to be hit with a delay, but only on your platform. What sort of message does that send out to the folks who are interested? That they should spend their money literally anywhere else, and if they are after the unmatched fidelity that can only be found from streaming a game from a uber-powerful server farm, why not try the much more reputable Nvidia Geforce Now which still reports to be receiving Cyberpunk on day one. (And offers an inherently better deal by allowing folk to stream their purchased Steam games, rather than having to pay for access to buy Stadia exclusive versions.)

You just cannot make up the level of misfortune that has struck the Stadia brand literally every single step of it's way, to the point where I'm tempted into slight sympathy. (But only slight.) At the end of the day, however, it's hard to predict what sort of tangible effect this will really have on Stadia's growth rate, especially as the biggest litmus for the Stadia community, it's Reddit, tends to err on the side of brainless bootlicking more often than not. (I swear that entire Reddit feels doomed to becoming a 'in memoriam' site in no time flat.) At the end of the day, however, this just speaks to the mood of the industry. "Well there's some problems with the Stadia launch, but that's not the priority, no one plays there anyway." If that's the attitude that the famously embracing folk over that CDPR are holding, then imagine what sort of conversations are happening at the more streamlined folk over at EA or Activison. (Or to be more accurate, the conversations that aren't happening. "Stadia who?") Does this spell the end for Stadia? No, Stadia spelt the end for Stadia long before it ever launched, this is all just the prolonged stable period of deterioration whilst we wait for the doctors to finally pull this brain-dead project off of life support. (Too dark? Meh.)

Should we celebrate the death of Stadia, or prepare to mourn it?

Get your free Stadia! Right here.

So Stadia went free the other day. Did you notice? Did anyone? This was just the latest attempt by Google to pimp out their brand new 'solution' to the expensive hardware issue, and to be fair it should have been rather a decent proposition. The ability for rando's to have a go at Stadia and see the systems for themselves is sure to renew some traction in the flagging service's life, and the inclusion of 2 free game (how generous) ensures that people can make use of this quarantine time to keep themselves busy. The only problem comes from the service itself, which is still as temperamental and jittery to play as always. I would have given it a shot myself but my Internet's not even in the ballpark for 'recommended speed' so it probably wouldn't even function. As it is, I haven't seen a great many people rave about this deal and I'm starting to wonder if this will make the splash Google want it to, or just be seen as the frantic failing of a drowning service.

It's a shame because let us be absolutely frank with one another: If this doesn't work to put Stadia on the map than literally nothing will. The service will be even more dead than it already is. Think about it: people have nothing else to do except for sit inside and try to take their mind off of the turmoil outside, Stadia couldn't have prayed for a more ripe opportunity; and yet they seem incapable of capitalising off it; so how could they possible cope in the normal everyday? Heck, for me this lockdown has managed to do the impossible and drag me into the Kingdom Hearts series, (I'm 37 hours in the first game and just beat the Kurt Zisa secret superboss. I think it's safe to say I'm hooked) and yet by simple lack of means I'm incapable of taking advantage of this Stadia offer. How many others are in that exact same conundrum? (Okay, maybe not exact same. Kingdom Hearts is pretty tough.)

At this point I find myself confronted with a peculiar conundrum, as it should be seeing as how I invented it for myself: Should the impending demise of Stadia be applauded or mourned? Now the only reason this struck me was because I recently became aware of how negative I've been towards Stadia ever since it's inception. I've acted like a professional heckler towards this product, laughing when it stumbles and poking it when it's down, but do I actually want to see it go away and die a painful death? (I'm exaggerating, obviously.) I guess what I'm really asking is whether Google Stadia is shaping up to be a failed venture of a promising concept, or a foolhardy proposition that was doomed from day one.

Firstly, of course I never wish for anyone to lose their jobs, and that will most certainly be the case once Stadia goes under. Many big tech companies are looking to get their mitts into gaming now that it's officially been crowned the most profitable entertainment medium in the world, and this serves as a great opportunity for a slew of promising future tech and game developers looking to make their first step into the industry in a big way. These are kinds of people that we need in gaming, and I just hope that this stumble won't end their careers prematurely. (The same goes for Amazon's 'New World', which I just have this really bad feeling about.)

On the otherhand, Stadia was an insanely stupid salespitch from the getgo, and supremely shortsighted for something that it's creators were selling as 'The future of gaming'. I mean sure, if you cast an uniformed preliminary eye over the gaming landscape then it would be easy to deduce that tech restrictions are the biggest issue facing the everyday gamer and if that were eliminated then all 'internal storage' will become redundant, but there's a little bit more to it then that, isn't there? When it comes down to the preservation of older games, modding, playing whilst offline or literally any other of the standard gaming aspects that clashes with Google's vision, the team were silent. Their ads already said it all; ' The big box in your room is ugly, toss it out and get a Stadia subscription so all will be right with the world.'

That isn't to take into account the whole idea of buying every single game you want to play on Stadia exclusively on their malnourished and under developed storefront. (Seriously, these guys make Epic Games look like overachievers) All on top of paying a monthly subscription for the right to use that purchased software. (And then there's the way that they 'magnanimously' gave their premium subscribers free access to Destiny 2, neglecting to mention the fact that Destiny 2 would be going F2P just a month prior.) Honestly, Stadia just seems like a poor financial investment no matter what you look at it, with Google swindling their consumers at ever step under the guise of "This is such a new concept! That means we get to establish the value of everything and the consumer has no say!" To that end there are so many controversies and broken promises from Stadia (Many of which would have been soften if they just admitted this was a 'Beta' service, rather than going around marketing it as a full release) that it's really no surprise why I, and so many others, are actively hostile to this platform.

But with all that said, I still think this concept is a rather cool one that actually has some legs to travel on, at least when handled by folk who aren't trying to supplant all traditional media and establish their own monarchical monopoly. Microsoft and GeForce have active beta projects delving into streaming games directly to people's devices and both of those seem like pretty cool additions to the world of gaming, rather than their new future. It does help bridge the gap between envy and tangibility, and I can imagine the future possibilities of a world perfectly synced to such tech. And some of those ideas and dreams were sparked by Google's own posturing for Stadia, so I cannot discount that they've had some good ideas along the way. (I'm still in love with the idea of streamers literally beaming their game for the audience to try their hand at, talk about interactive!)

So I guess it's time for me to dust off my old 'fence-sitting' crown as I declare that in my opinion: Google Stadia should be both praised and admonished. On one hand it was a naive adventure that you can tell spent more time in the 'creative conception' stage then in the actual tangible development stage; whilst on the otherhand it has been the most high-profile example of game streaming ever hoisted upon the public and has practically singlehandedly catapulted this concept right to the public's attention. So credit where it's due, Stadia's grave may become the bonemeal for a new chapter for gaming technology. (So, thanks Google?)

Ownership of software

You think you own this? No you don't.

As far as 'hot button' issues go, I'd like to think that this one takes some sort of precedent in the world of gaming at least. (There may be a slightly more pertinent 'hot button' on the world stage, but I wouldn't know. I don't go outside.) Although this is the sort of issue that, once raised, is quite likely to have people give you that look, you know the one; the look that quietly says, "You're being a paranoid weirdo again!" (Hmm? Only I get that look regularly? Oh...) But my patriotic British pessimism does taint my every thought so I cannot help but take a critical look at the direction the industry is heading when it comes to the ownership of software, specifically the ownership of games. (Although there's also a bit more to it than just that.)

If you've never looked into this before, you'll likely think that buying a game is similar to buying a movie. You access the shop, buy a copy of the movie and thus are free to indulge in perpetuity. And in truth that is exactly how it is, although I fear you may be slightly ignorant of the specifics of such a transaction. You see, when you purchase a movie you are actually acquiring a licence to watch that movie and signing a contract to do so. This contract comes equipped with a bevy of specific instructions that are meaningless to the everyday consumer but protect the distributor should someone decide to go burning and reselling their copy of this film; as that action would essentially be a breach of contract. With the world of gaming things are very much the same with a slight extra stipulation that video games are becoming increasingly online, to the point where some companies reserve the right to withdraw service of their title to you whenever them damn well feel like it. Of course, this is an idle clause which has never been significantly enacted, but it's existence is enough to set folk like me worrying.

Now in an ideal world someone would buy a game and have access to it until death, and that does seem like the model that a lot of companies wish to follow, but there are a few who like to test that relationship just a little. Most notably is, surprise surprise, EA who have at least once in their history used their position of superiority to withdraw their entire library of games from an individual. Now of course there was some special factors involved in this situation; namely the fact that EA own their own storefront and launcher through which their games are distributed, but this could theoretically be invoked by any company out there. Now I can't recall exactly what this specific user did to receive such a harsh punishment from EA but that doesn't even really matter, the point is that goods and services that have been paid for can be in risk of getting revoked at the sole discretion of the distributor at any time. And this is something that we should all be aware of, heck for some games we have to sign a contract which stipulates as such for the privilege to access that game in the first place.

Another situation in which software ownership laws are often invoked by games companies is in any situation involving mods. Now mods, as you likely know, are modifications to the base of any game that can do anything from adding new content, blocking old content, fixing bugs, or remodelling existing assets. Sometimes, such as with Bethesda games, this practice is almost entirely encouraged by the developer as they enjoy the creativity that goes into it and realise that it helps to bolster the community. Other times, however, the developers can be less than receptive such as was the case with Rockstar and their GTA games. You might not remember this, but in the early days of GTA V on the PC, Rockstar became notorious for hunting down mods for their game even on single player specific modes. They exploited their user agreement to bully and threaten mod developers and even today it's difficult to figure out why. It's not as though Rockstar had any plans for single player GTA, so the whole scenario is as confusing in hindsight as it was in the moment. But it was these iffy software ownership laws that paved the way for them to do that.

All of this has come to mind for me again in the wake of the rise of game streaming. Google Stadia specifically. That tech comes with the premise of running all of the game files in the background and streaming the results directly to one's device allowing for them to play games far beyond such systems' capabilities. Unfortunately this means that people who take part have none of the game files on their systems which means if something were to happen to the people who run the service like, for example, them shutting down a year into business because nobody's playing it, then players will be left potless. As far as the conversation goes regarding 'software ownership' I think that Stadia is one of the extremes that we should all be paying attention to. When we entrust a third party for literally all of the relevant files then we have given up the majority of control over what we play to an unknown party and that's just a perfect recipe for disaster.

To a much lesser, but still pertinent degree, I feel like this conversation touches on the way we should look at modding in the future too. That GTA example highlights a certain over-cautionary tone that a lot of developers take towards this concept, but what about those who straight up attempt to corral their audiences for financial gain? Such was the situation with Blizzard's 'Warcraft 3: Reforged' wherein their updated user agreement meant that any content developed through their custom tools was solely owned by Blizzard and not the creator. Those who made custom games were not due recompense for having their work appropriated, should Blizzard see fit, or even a mention of their work to inspire any of Blizzard's ideas. (As is indicated by the 'waiving of moral rights') Now, this is a rather transparent way to prevent a similar situation as to what happened with the original 'Warcraft 3' wherein that game's custom tools were used to create a popular custom game mode known as 'Defence of the Ancients' which then evolved into a standalone game called 'Defence of the Ancients 2'. (Otherwise known as the smash hit genre-creator; DOTA 2.) Say what you will about "protecting intellectual property" but that makes for a sobering example when it comes to how little the consumer actually owns their games and the things they do in said games.

And if you think that you may be safe from this just because you play on a console, or buy all your games from Steam, think again. Every single disc game nowadays has a customary install period that requires at least some the content to be installed online, meaning that somewhere along the way you need the permission of the publisher in order to install a game. Steam games will, whenever possible, run games directly through their client, meaning that you'll require their permission at some point in order to play your games. (Unless you plan to play everything offline forever.) Now, I know all of this reads like the delusions of an incredibly paranoid gentleman, (To which I thank you. No one ever calls me a 'gentleman.') but I feel disquiet in the knowledge that all it takes is for one link in that chain to be broken for us to be denied access to the software that we paid for, and I worry that in the future this divide between what we think we own and what we actually do is only going to expand.

When you look at the modern film watching audience you'll note that the vast majority of it is taken up by folk who exclusively watch Netflix or some other streaming service. What they can watch is, as such, decided by the whim of whatever movies or shows that these services can get ahold of. Should gaming move into a similar situation, as services like Stadia seem adamant that we do, why wouldn't the exact same content accessibility scenario play out? Now I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a gaming ecosystem where what I can play is limited by whatever the populace seems most interested in, encouraging their service provider to secure the appropriate rights, cause I like a whole bunch of weird crap that no one else is probably playing. Right now I'm playing a long game of 'Stellaris', whilst cutting that up with bouts of 'Divinity Dragon Commander', and 'Star Wars Empire at War', with odd sessions of the 2015 remaster of the 2002 'Resident Evil remake', and back-and-forths between 'Oddworld: New 'N' Tasty' and 'Oddworld: Abe's Odyssey'. My taste is weird and eclectic and I love it for being so, and thus I lament for the day where my taste becomes forcibly limited due to software ownership conundrums. 

Stadia teeters on the edge of the abyss...

Is this a Stadia I see before me, Chromecast towards my hand?

Hark, be that an angel I hear harping her sweet way to my ear? Nay, tis but the latest official word from the Internet's favourite whipping bo- one of the Internet's favourite whipping boys: Google Stadia. You remember Google Stadia, don't you? The promises, the lies, some foolishness about a future in- wait, have I done that bit before? I've been covering the insanity of Google's 'breathrough' into the gaming market for so long that everything just seems to blur into one. From the getgo I was dubious about the prospect of moving gaming entirely into the cloud, and every lie that Google told to allay my fears served only to make me more suspicious. Seems I wasn't alone in my trepidation because Stadia's eventual launch was modest by every expectation. Just around 550,000 units isn't exactly an abject failure, but it isn't the healthiest launch either. For comparison, the Nintendo Switch (A console which followed the disastrous Wii U) reigned in 1.5 million units in it's launch month. (So Stadia has a little bit of catching up to do.)

But not to worry, our Google overlords say, for the official Stadia website released a 'comforting' blog post to let everyone know that everything is going according to plan and not to worry. (Or something like that, I don't know.) This post starts off by making the excessively bold announcement that "in November, we delivered a great gaming experience for players." Strong words, I guess, but shouldn't those players be the judge of that? Just like any post that is supposed to be telling everyone what they should look forward to in the next year, Stadia's blog then went onto remind everyone about the things that happened in the past 3 months. (Almost as if to say "See! It ain't all bad, you guys got this stuff!") They spoke of all the great titles that were added to the Stadia library, (Which is now up to a whopping 26 games!) their recent acquisition of Typhoon Studios, (A studio who have made one game that is yet to release. Still, a moment of silence please.) the addition of achievements to the Stadia ecosystem (That puts them one up on Nintendo, I guess) and the surprise release of a second 'buddy pass' for Stadia founders. That last one really does make me smile, they're attempting to gather praise for desperately attempting to get more people to play their platform. (Come on, guys, show a little decorum!)

But team Stadia didn't just spend this entire new-years blog patting themselves on the back, (just half of it) the rest was dedicated to a whole list of promises that Stadia assures everyone will arrive at some point within the next 12 months. (So mark your calenders, Stadia owners.) Their first bullet point was a real doozy, "Support for 4k gaming on the web". Yeah, you know that thing that Stadia advertises in all of their adverts? It's not available yet, at least on the browser form of Stadia. (And then there's the fact that Stadia's games don't even run at 4k 60fps on platforms for which 4k is supported, but that's a whole other blog in itself.) Secondly, they want to bring Stadia to other Android phones other than their Pixel products, and they want to release that wireless functionality for their controllers which was promised all the way back at their launch event.

The one bit of news that's really going to win Stadia some fans, however, is the 120 new games that Stadia already have slated to launch in 2020. (I wonder how many of them were even made in the last 2 years?) Best of all? For the first half of the year Stadia are looking at 10 games which will be timed exclusives for Stadia. (Because everyone just loved it when Epic Games started doing that, right?) To be honest, the real victim in all this are the poor studios that Google managed to rope into this deal. I hope that the money they received was worth chucking all their hard work down the drain for a year, I really do. (Knowing google, it probably was.) They ended their post by promising more new games for Stadia Pro come February. But that reminds me of something- February seems like a significant date for some reason...

Ah, that's right. February is the date when folks who bought the founders addition of Stadia, and thus received a complimentary 3 months of Stadia Pro, will be hit with the first $9.99 monthly charge. Seems kinda dirty to think about, doesn't it? Especially when you consider the catalogue of features which Stadia promised to launch with and just plain didn't. This is the truth that is starting to hit the wave of fans who initially supported Stadia like a ice bath full of buyers remorse. Gaming journalist outlets are being even lazier than me, of late, by linking directly to the official Google Stadia Sub-Reddit (The central hub for all Stadia sympathizers) and noting how folk seem disquiet about their potential future with the service.

Now, normally I would link a few juicy threads, but there's honestly too many of them going on right now so I thought I'd just impart the general vibe from over there. Basically, folk are wondering whether or not it makes sense to start dishing out on a subscription for Stadia when the bill hits or to just cut their $120 losses and be done with the whole thing. There's a whole load of overly long threads of folk who feel the need to share their entire families life stories before revealing that they feel betrayed by Google, and one more succinct post of someone rounding up Stadia supporters with Stadia leavers and finding that the latter seems to win out. (For now.) We'll see if that sentiment shifts once Stadia start announcing their coming exclusives. (Which they should really get to long before E3. No one is going to want to hear their crap by then.) 

But the evidence of Stadia's impending downfall isn't just anecdotal, I'm afraid, it's statistical too. PocketGamer.biz recently managed to track a decently reliable number of Stadia users despite Google refusing to share that info. (This is due to an Android app that is needed to set-up Stadia and buy games for it. These guys got the figures for how many folk downloaded that app, therefore showcasing roughly how many people had Stadia. I suppose multiple purchases wouldn't count in that.) It's with data that I could relay earlier how Stadia is sitting at around 550,000 units, and how we know that 383,000 of those downloads came in the launch month. Since then the number of downloads has only increased by 43.6% in the space of 2 months, (going on 3) which would usually be a sign of dropping interest.

I may be a curmudgeon, but I don't delight in seeing Stadia fail. (Well, at least not entirely. I don't like being lied to either.) A lot of folk put their heart, and several years of their lives, into bringing this service together, and it must suck for them to create something so ill-conceived. I just fundamentally disagree with Stadia's approach to completely supplant physical gaming as I, and most anyone with half a brain cell, can see what a terrible idea that would be for the future of gaming. That being said, I like the idea, which is why I find myself gradually growing more interested in Microsoft's Project X-Cloud and hope that grows into something decent. Until then, however, the world does not appear to be quite ready for a cloud gaming platform, and already we can start to hear the ringing bell signalling the last hours of sunlight for this doomed venture. Hear it not, Google, for it is a knell. That summons Stadia to heaven or (More likely) to hell!