the costs of distributing Stadia games far outweigh the costs
Games are just another form of media. YouTube costs Google a ton of money. But the control over media, virality, discovery, and advertisement is worth it to them. So has it been for video. So it shall be for games.
Google bought YouTube when it already dominated the video sharing market. Stadia might not dominate the gaming market in a couple years. Google likes to kill products that don't consume all, at least, that's what it looks like to me.
Stadia strikes me as an end-run around the competition of Twitch game streaming. One way to beat the competition is to reduce the friction around your own offering. The big draw of Stadia is the reduced friction between streaming and gaming.
YouTube is profitable and brought an estimated 15 billion in revenue for Google last year. It’s not operational because of some other motive, it’s operational because it’s successful.
The same can’t be said for this new business model. The entire point of the comment you’re replying to is that Google doesn’t have a good track record of letting products that don’t make them money live.
YouTube is profitable and brought an estimated 15 billion in revenue for Google last year.
Through ad revenue?
The entire point of the comment you’re replying to is that Google doesn’t have a good track record of letting products that don’t make them money live.
Not exactly. I thought the point of YouTube was to control media to control ad revenue. If Google is now directly makes ad revenue off of YouTube, that doesn't contradict my position. It means they're more successful and farther along than I was aware of.
Games are just another form of media. YouTube costs Google a ton of money. But the control over media, virality, discovery, and advertisement is worth it to them. So has it been for video. So it shall be for games.