Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I don't know why you'd call it bait and switch.

Well, I can't even go back and look at the original marketing now because when I do I get a warning that Stadia must be played on Chrome and to download that. Obviously I could go in private viewing or something but why would I even bother with that? It's so user-hostile.

But the marketing that I do remember that enticed me to check it out was that I thought that it was for streaming games. When I checked out the site they had this big list of games that it looked like I could stream. If I could only stream, say, 15 games as it appears to be why not just show those? Hmm.

I do think there's a market for those (like myself) who have a few games they'd like to play. Cyberpunk 2077 looks cool - I'll pay $10 or $15 or even $20/month to stream that (among other games) because my alternative is buying it for $50 and not having it run at ultra-max settings on my MacBook Air. Not desirable.

To your point that this was a knock against it at launch, well, yea. They have all this marketing copy that makes it look so cool and then I have to pay retail price for a new game. Why wouldn't I just buy a Playstation or use Xbox or Sony's online services? Like what value is $9.99/month for some lame games that I don't care to play? Pass.

This service doesn't address any market that I can see.



You can stream any games in their library. You just have to buy them. They never said it was free.

Streaming doesn't mean it's free, or even all included in a subscription. It means it's running on a server and you receive the video.

The market for this is basically the same as consoles, except you don't pay for the hardware initially.


I find the marketing for the platform to be inadequate at best. It’s very much “stream all these games” - not as much on the side of “buy this game to stream it now”.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: