In other words, you might not want to trust them because they killed off a Pixel Pass that 25 people signed up for, a Google Podcasts app that was basically a browser in an app shell that was given a proper replacement, a niche business presentation screen in Jamboard, and Stadia…freaking Stadia. They gave you all of your money back and let you keep the controller, guys.
It’s not a good look when right off the bat it dismisses what is valid concerns by treating the opposition like they’re just whining.
For real I was going to say this reads like a Google marketing AstroTurf. Just watched the linked MKBHD video and it’s not unfair; definitely not “weird”
In 2015 Google said “With Google Photos, you can now back up and store unlimited high-quality photos and videos for free”. This is no longer true, even considering their vague corporate speak promise of “unlimited high-quality”. By Google’s own wording within the Google Photos app the options are “Original quality” or “Storage Saver”. There is no high-quality unlimited option.
But it’s not even about explicit promises. It’s about the constant erosion of user trust. Having to read into the details and interpret marketing vs legal speak does nothing to alleviate that Google has done this to themselves.
This lacks context and they did keep this promise after a fashion. They never promised it would be consistent across any phones but the pixel line at the time, and additionally never said it would continue on new pixel phones.
There’s a lot of asterisks attached to that sentence. My point being that no one wants to think about all the ways Google is going to wiggle out of its commitments each time they make a new one. It erodes trust and I’m glad that they are getting more and more negative press about it. They need to be held accountable. Their strategy of making a product at a loss while they drive out all competition until they realise it’s not a billion dollar product and promptly shut it down while shafting everyone who grew to rely on it needs to stop.
Stadia was amazing. I blame everyone but Google on its demise. You could literally play CP 2077 without a console but people still stuck to PlayStation and Xbox. Google handled the shutdown so well. I played around $500 worth of games got the money back. Kept two controllers and bought a steam deck with that money
Cloud gaming is bad for history. If the game was only released for the cloud, and that game is shut down, or the cloud service shuts down, that game is gone forever.
They want to push it, because it gives them control over every aspect of the experience. They know everything you do in the game, you can’t mod it, you can’t pirate, you can’t play offline, you can’t do anything unless they say you can.
You should blame me then. Once I saw that Google wasn’t going to honor steam library on stadia, and then charge full price for games on stadia, I noped out and never signed up.
I say this is a cloud gamer who uses G-Force now, and shadow. I was their target demographic. And they’re pricing model just noped me out of it
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?
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
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
At the time stadia came out as a game streaming platform Geforce now, and Shadow already were established, both of those services charged a subscription but let you bring your own library.
Google’s Offering required you to subscribe AND buy full priced retail games that you couldn’t use elsewhere, so it wasn’t competitive with geforce now and shadow.
It’s not a weird take… because Geforce now and shadow are both still in business now, and stadia is not, they were not able to convince cloud gamers to take their offer.
Stadia did not require you to subscribe. You could just buy the game and play. Unlike GeForce. You don’t even know what the fuck you are talking about.
Stadia subscription only brought in 4k and monthly games. The base was free. And you down vote my comment like you fucking made a point. Learn to Google before commenting dumb ass
Edit: not only that the base was free there were free to play games like destiny 2 where the only thing you needed was a Google account.
I didn’t realize they allowed people to stream purchased games for free, my mistake, thank you for the correction. According to IGN article, the free games were if you had a subscription.
It’s a mystery why cloud gamers didn’t flock to google then. My core point about stadia not being competitive with geforce now and shadow stills stands, even though I got the details wrong about being about to stream purchased games for free.
I loved the service but he neglected to tell you cyberpunk looked like hot garbage compared to its PC equivalent.
I pretty much only used it for Destiny, and I too spent hundreds of dollars supporting the platform only to get it all back.
The convenience was wonderful, but worthless if they didn’t have what you wanted to play, and Google became less and less interested in working with developers as time went on.
I’m just articulating why I, as a cloud gamer at the time they release their product, stayed with different providers. They didn’t exist in the vacuum, GeForce now, and shadow, both existed, allowed you to use a pre-existing libraries, didn’t charge per game.
GeForce now was cheaper, Shadow was more expensive but provided better resolution.
So Google comes into the mix, and their option, while I wanted to try it, wasn’t palatable for me as a cloud gamer at the time.
Scenario 1: buy the game on steam, play it on local hardware, or GeForce now for $5 a month
Scenario 2: buy the game on steam, play it on shadow, or local hardware, for $20 a month
Scenario 3: by the game from Google for more than it costs on steam, only be able to play it on stadia, and pay I think it was $15 a month.
You can see why I chose scenarios 1 and 2 instead.
Without a doubt it was amazing and me and my family were extremely sad, but in the end what is there to be mad about with stadia… I was part of something different, I was also a founder and played all the time. I think I owned all the games before I didn’t 😂
Because the opposition frames the situation as Google never keeping any promise ever, in addition to refusing to acknowledge Google’s positive precedent with Android updates.
If you view the Android update situation in isolation, you’ll see that in the 10+ years Google has sold Pixel and Nexus phones, they have kept each one of their Android update promises.
I dunno, I kinda don’t disagree with them. Companies discontinue products all the time, and Google just seems to get a lot more flak for it.
Apples discontinued the iPod, and a bunch of different hardware devices. I’m about as worried that they’ll discontinue the iPhone as I am that Google will discontinue the pixel line.
Google discontinue a lot more than almost anyone else though. It’s a meme at this point how often they kill things off. Does a website like this exist for any other company?
Well, no, but that doesn’t mean that it’s an accurate assessment.
Additionally, have you ever actually read what they put on that site? If Google changes the name of a product, then they “killed” the original. If they merge a product into another, then they killed one or both.
Did you know they killed Google street view? It’s now just a tab in maps. They also at one point had “leaving reviews of businesses” as a separate system, which they also killed by making it a core feature.
But yes, Google does kill more products than some other companies. They also make more products available than others. Apple has never developed a car, a series of bipedal robots, or blood sugar monitoring contact lenses.
So yeah, it’s a meme. I don’t generally take memes as honest statements of fact.
Google probably kills products that don’t hit their internal success metrics, and this allows them to go on and try new things instead of maintaining products that didn’t work out.
Have they made some questionable decisions? Sure.
However, for the Pixel to stop receiving these updates, that would essentially mean that Google is discontinuing Android development and there are much bigger concerns (ie Apple monopoly on smartphone OS).
Google will absolutely be stopping Android development in the relatively near future. They’re already making almost all the new features pixel exclusive, never making their way to AOSP.
Ok bud. They’re making pixel exclusive features, because it depends on their tensor chip. The whole point of the Pixel exclusive features is to draw people to the Pixels over other android devices.
Do you have any actual sources for this, or is this just an assumption because “Google bad and kills all their products!”
Will Google also stop developing their other products that actually bring a profit, like their search engine and Google ads?
Their pixel exclusive features absolutely do not require the tensor SOC. They would work on any flagship chip.
The source is Google want to be Apple with respect to phones. They crave that locked down closed source OS where everyone is beholden to them. They don’t like that their product is used against them by their competitors who often do it better. They’ll drop android in the relatively near future 100%.
No? Not sure how you got that from what I posted lol.
Google aren’t going to kill android. I never said that. What they’re going to do is make a new OS for their mobiles and devices and stop android development. As I pointed out, they’ve already begun this with fuchsia and by not adding 90% of their new OS features to AOSP. They don’t want their OS to be open source anymore, that was just how they would capture the market they wanted.
The last few Android OS versions outside of pixels have just been essentially UI and security updates. Virtually no new features. Everything is pixel exclusive. This is their way of weaning off Android into their new closed source OS. They’ve already updated all of their Google home hubs to fuchsia.
I think more Pixel’s a true flagship product. Big Tech corps are always launching likely contenders, then they evaluate them over time and if the benefits don’t realize or they find a better product it gets discontinued.
But some products are proven. The only way Alphabet and Apple would discontinue their flagship phones is if there’s some kind of mass turn away from mobile phones. Same as how Alphabet is not going to exit the search engine field.
More that the concern feels hyperbolic. You should feel as much concern of Google canceling a flagship product as you do about apple doing so. I don’t see iPhones, pixels, or say, Kindles going anywhere soon.
It just doesn’t feel like a reasonable concern, proportional to how much attention it gets.
It’s not a good look when right off the bat it dismisses what is valid concerns by treating the opposition like they’re just whining.
For real I was going to say this reads like a Google marketing AstroTurf. Just watched the linked MKBHD video and it’s not unfair; definitely not “weird”
The thing is, google guarantees 7 years of support, they can’t cancel that. The services they closed had no promise on the longevity
In 2015 Google said “With Google Photos, you can now back up and store unlimited high-quality photos and videos for free”. This is no longer true, even considering their vague corporate speak promise of “unlimited high-quality”. By Google’s own wording within the Google Photos app the options are “Original quality” or “Storage Saver”. There is no high-quality unlimited option.
But it’s not even about explicit promises. It’s about the constant erosion of user trust. Having to read into the details and interpret marketing vs legal speak does nothing to alleviate that Google has done this to themselves.
This lacks context and they did keep this promise after a fashion. They never promised it would be consistent across any phones but the pixel line at the time, and additionally never said it would continue on new pixel phones.
There’s a lot of asterisks attached to that sentence. My point being that no one wants to think about all the ways Google is going to wiggle out of its commitments each time they make a new one. It erodes trust and I’m glad that they are getting more and more negative press about it. They need to be held accountable. Their strategy of making a product at a loss while they drive out all competition until they realise it’s not a billion dollar product and promptly shut it down while shafting everyone who grew to rely on it needs to stop.
Stadia was amazing. I blame everyone but Google on its demise. You could literally play CP 2077 without a console but people still stuck to PlayStation and Xbox. Google handled the shutdown so well. I played around $500 worth of games got the money back. Kept two controllers and bought a steam deck with that money
Cloud gaming is bad for history. If the game was only released for the cloud, and that game is shut down, or the cloud service shuts down, that game is gone forever.
They want to push it, because it gives them control over every aspect of the experience. They know everything you do in the game, you can’t mod it, you can’t pirate, you can’t play offline, you can’t do anything unless they say you can.
You should blame me then. Once I saw that Google wasn’t going to honor steam library on stadia, and then charge full price for games on stadia, I noped out and never signed up.
I say this is a cloud gamer who uses G-Force now, and shadow. I was their target demographic. And they’re pricing model just noped me out of it
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?
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
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
I had no idea, thanks for pointing that out.
You know who else doesn’t honor steam library? PlayStation or Xbox. What a weird take
At the time stadia came out as a game streaming platform Geforce now, and Shadow already were established, both of those services charged a subscription but let you bring your own library.
Google’s Offering required you to subscribe AND buy full priced retail games that you couldn’t use elsewhere, so it wasn’t competitive with geforce now and shadow.
It’s not a weird take… because Geforce now and shadow are both still in business now, and stadia is not, they were not able to convince cloud gamers to take their offer.
Stadia did not require you to subscribe. You could just buy the game and play. Unlike GeForce. You don’t even know what the fuck you are talking about.
Stadia subscription only brought in 4k and monthly games. The base was free. And you down vote my comment like you fucking made a point. Learn to Google before commenting dumb ass
Edit: not only that the base was free there were free to play games like destiny 2 where the only thing you needed was a Google account.
Lots of hostility and name calling, are you ok?
Also, I didn’t down vote your comment.
https://www.ign.com/wikis/stadia-google-game-console/Google_Stadia_Price_Breakdown%2C_Release_Date%2C_and_Launch_Games
I didn’t realize they allowed people to stream purchased games for free, my mistake, thank you for the correction. According to IGN article, the free games were if you had a subscription.
It’s a mystery why cloud gamers didn’t flock to google then. My core point about stadia not being competitive with geforce now and shadow stills stands, even though I got the details wrong about being about to stream purchased games for free.
Another stadia user here.
I loved the service but he neglected to tell you cyberpunk looked like hot garbage compared to its PC equivalent.
I pretty much only used it for Destiny, and I too spent hundreds of dollars supporting the platform only to get it all back.
The convenience was wonderful, but worthless if they didn’t have what you wanted to play, and Google became less and less interested in working with developers as time went on.
Weird ass complaint man
I’m just articulating why I, as a cloud gamer at the time they release their product, stayed with different providers. They didn’t exist in the vacuum, GeForce now, and shadow, both existed, allowed you to use a pre-existing libraries, didn’t charge per game.
GeForce now was cheaper, Shadow was more expensive but provided better resolution.
So Google comes into the mix, and their option, while I wanted to try it, wasn’t palatable for me as a cloud gamer at the time.
Scenario 1: buy the game on steam, play it on local hardware, or GeForce now for $5 a month
Scenario 2: buy the game on steam, play it on shadow, or local hardware, for $20 a month
Scenario 3: by the game from Google for more than it costs on steam, only be able to play it on stadia, and pay I think it was $15 a month.
You can see why I chose scenarios 1 and 2 instead.
Without a doubt it was amazing and me and my family were extremely sad, but in the end what is there to be mad about with stadia… I was part of something different, I was also a founder and played all the time. I think I owned all the games before I didn’t 😂
I just got a nice discount on my Pixel 8 preorder with my Stadia refund.
Because the opposition frames the situation as Google never keeping any promise ever, in addition to refusing to acknowledge Google’s positive precedent with Android updates.
If you view the Android update situation in isolation, you’ll see that in the 10+ years Google has sold Pixel and Nexus phones, they have kept each one of their Android update promises.
I dunno, I kinda don’t disagree with them. Companies discontinue products all the time, and Google just seems to get a lot more flak for it.
Apples discontinued the iPod, and a bunch of different hardware devices. I’m about as worried that they’ll discontinue the iPhone as I am that Google will discontinue the pixel line.
Google discontinue a lot more than almost anyone else though. It’s a meme at this point how often they kill things off. Does a website like this exist for any other company?
https://killedbygoogle.com/
Well, no, but that doesn’t mean that it’s an accurate assessment.
Additionally, have you ever actually read what they put on that site? If Google changes the name of a product, then they “killed” the original. If they merge a product into another, then they killed one or both.
Did you know they killed Google street view? It’s now just a tab in maps. They also at one point had “leaving reviews of businesses” as a separate system, which they also killed by making it a core feature.
But yes, Google does kill more products than some other companies. They also make more products available than others. Apple has never developed a car, a series of bipedal robots, or blood sugar monitoring contact lenses.
So yeah, it’s a meme. I don’t generally take memes as honest statements of fact.
Google probably kills products that don’t hit their internal success metrics, and this allows them to go on and try new things instead of maintaining products that didn’t work out.
Have they made some questionable decisions? Sure.
However, for the Pixel to stop receiving these updates, that would essentially mean that Google is discontinuing Android development and there are much bigger concerns (ie Apple monopoly on smartphone OS).
Google will absolutely be stopping Android development in the relatively near future. They’re already making almost all the new features pixel exclusive, never making their way to AOSP.
Ok bud. They’re making pixel exclusive features, because it depends on their tensor chip. The whole point of the Pixel exclusive features is to draw people to the Pixels over other android devices.
Do you have any actual sources for this, or is this just an assumption because “Google bad and kills all their products!”
Will Google also stop developing their other products that actually bring a profit, like their search engine and Google ads?
Their pixel exclusive features absolutely do not require the tensor SOC. They would work on any flagship chip.
The source is Google want to be Apple with respect to phones. They crave that locked down closed source OS where everyone is beholden to them. They don’t like that their product is used against them by their competitors who often do it better. They’ll drop android in the relatively near future 100%.
Ah ok, so this is just “Google bad and kills everything” got it 👍. Whatever you need to tell yourself to help you sleep at night I guess.
No? Not sure how you got that from what I posted lol.
Google aren’t going to kill android. I never said that. What they’re going to do is make a new OS for their mobiles and devices and stop android development. As I pointed out, they’ve already begun this with fuchsia and by not adding 90% of their new OS features to AOSP. They don’t want their OS to be open source anymore, that was just how they would capture the market they wanted.
The last few Android OS versions outside of pixels have just been essentially UI and security updates. Virtually no new features. Everything is pixel exclusive. This is their way of weaning off Android into their new closed source OS. They’ve already updated all of their Google home hubs to fuchsia.
I’m not sure I get your point, people should not doubt Google’s promise not because they don’t discontinue product but because everyone does?
I think more Pixel’s a true flagship product. Big Tech corps are always launching likely contenders, then they evaluate them over time and if the benefits don’t realize or they find a better product it gets discontinued.
But some products are proven. The only way Alphabet and Apple would discontinue their flagship phones is if there’s some kind of mass turn away from mobile phones. Same as how Alphabet is not going to exit the search engine field.
More that the concern feels hyperbolic. You should feel as much concern of Google canceling a flagship product as you do about apple doing so. I don’t see iPhones, pixels, or say, Kindles going anywhere soon.
It just doesn’t feel like a reasonable concern, proportional to how much attention it gets.
I doubt people takes apple claim for granted either, they do have a class action lawsuit due to them volontarily throttling their phones.