61
Netflix developing over 10 games in-house currently
(www.eurogamer.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
61 points (81.4% liked)
Games
32985 readers
932 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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 kinda is though. In terms of what others attacked it for. All the attack videos and yet I played it via VPN in a non supported country. Google fucked up by launching in America. A place with plenty cash and a spoiled player base. Where it would win would be poor countries. Just look at down votes ? For saying a device worked as intended. Tells you all you need to know.
Internet infrastructure was a big issue and games were mostly Ubisoft but still. What a game changer. Then I moved to GeForce and haven't looked back.
I think you’re saying it showed it could work. Where others are saying a success on the sense of a viable product that can make enough money to operate and, ideally, to be profitable.
And unfortunately when it comes to a service that requires servers, bandwidth and staff to maintain and operate it then there has to be a certain threshold of users to make it profitable or else it is doomed to fail.
But it did I work. I used it. Many other used it. It was cloud gaming. What hadn't been accomplished before.
That was an issue. However many companies aren't profitable in their first few years. The toll out was a complete mess. Also as stated they chose wrong. I get why they picked murica. Infrastructure was always going to be an issue but that's not where you get people looking to save money and not buy a console. Third world would have been the sweet spot. A rig they can play red dead for pennies.
They opened it up to phones and with Enough bandwidth you could play games you'd never manage before.
Yes but long run. Nobody thought Google was going to saunter in and beat the big Bois. Takes time to build a playerbase get the product actually working and improve it. None of that happened in first year.
I don't think 3rd world countries would have the Internet infrastructure for wide spread adoption of cloud gaming. Also it's not like they were giving the games away, those were full-price titles on stadia.
Even if there was a demand for something like this you want to deploy you product first in countries with as much disposable income as possible. If people can't afford the prices how are you going to make money? (not just in the first few years, but ever) In the end someone has to pay for the servers and GPUs.
People are not saying it wasn't functional. Just not financially viable.
They don't have as good as first but they do obviously have some capacity. Plus you can use data. Obviously very expensive using data but you save not buying the console. It's still where I think Google should have pushed. America didn't want or need stadia. Same with Europe.
The games were discounted and you got free games in the paid tier. 10er a month for games. Not the worst deal.
Which is where they went wrong. They didn't get the numbers as people already had gaming units that were better and faster.. the issue
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 ?