Disruptive ideas and technology are always exciting to me
There is something about new ideas which can potentially change how we live that I love. They do not necessarily have to be good ideas. Take for example Google Stadia, it itself might completely fall apart in 3 years, but competition will start to build and Microsoft might have an amazing service instead. On the other hand, the creation of social media, communication around the world is easier than ever, I don't need to spend absurd amounts of money on international calls. Another example is new jobs, Youtuber is a legit job. Being an Instagram Model is a legit way of earning money because people are looking at the clothes you wear. Of course this has resulted in new problems that we need to tackle, but that is ok too, we have to take it one step at a time. A few examples, are arguably because of social media, fake news is spreading, outrage culture is building, people are doing stupid shit to become viral, and this disconnect with the people around us.
I am not saying disruptive ideas are clearly good or bad, I just find them fascinating.
Regarding the Google Stadia project itself, people are making good criticism of the initiative already. Some of them:
I have not clicked on the article, but just the bullet points you have mentioned:
I think some people are expecting too much from the 1st public version of a product. Cutting edge technology takes time to develop. By putting out the mvp, they can also assess demand and see if this is worth investing more time into. Also, this isn't necessarily for people who have a 1080 or 2060 +, this is for people who do console gaming, who play less ping intensive games, and this is very crucial: people who don't game or cannot game.
1: there are not a lot of companies with the ability and muscle to pull off something like that. Others have tried.
3, 4: these criticisms are related to game preservation, not with the commercial or technical viability of the platform. Game is art, and art must be preserved due to its inherent cultural value.
Item 5 is true, but not being able to run every kind of game is certainly a weakness of the platform.
I find very unlikely that companies release the code of games they chose to stop maintaining... when they lose economic value, these games will rot in their hard drives. Most companies have no interest in preservation. And, when your game runs on a server you do not control, that is a reason for concern.
3,4: But that is such a weird argument dude. If you are really trying to preserve a game, then yes buy it. But these people are not the intended audience and these people are also not even a large percentage of players. You can make the same argument with Netflix. Movies are art and should be preserved. Well... then buy it? And buy the hardware that can support it (e.g. bluray player), but the fact that Netflix still is doing so well indicates most people dont care about preservation.
With 5, yeah that is something that comes with every platform. There are weaknesses with all of them, PCs don't get the same exclusive games that PS4 does. PS4 does hit the same fps as PC. etc. It really isn't that big of a deal to the majority.
"I find very unlikely that companies release the code of games they chose to stop maintaining..." Ok I actually agree and understand what you are saying here. You have a fair point. If Stadia has a game now, and say 10 years later I want to play it, will I be able to play it on Stadia? Or will it be gone.
I find that hard to believe. Sony seems unable to make PlayStation Now catch on, and something like that is not in Microsoft's DNA. Steam doesn’t have the structure. Amazon would be my best bet. But there are no guarantees.
The argument is not weird because serving games is very different from serving music, video or whatever. To preserve a video game you must preserve its logic, its code. A client won't have access to it. Equating Netflix with a game on demand service doesn't make much sense. Even for content that is only available online, it is not hard to screen capture from Netflix, and you better believe there are lots of people doing that. The same cannot be said about games played via internet. Google will protect their code fiercely, we're not dealing with silly Flash games here. If I download a game on Steam or even on my PS4, it is possible to access and reverse engineer the code somehow. If most of the code is stored on a server, it might go away forever. Like Kojima's Silent Hills, but much worse.
Preservation is a big deal. Just think about it:
How would you feel if, starting today, no one could watch Steven Spielberg's E.T. ever again?
I agree. But I never said other platforms do not have weaknesses of their own...
I'm not the exact opposite of that, but I'm certainly biased towards skepticism. It doesn't help that I'm basically a (very) moderate Marxist. Historically, many technological advancements that were supposed to liberate us from the shackles of labor served only to generate more profit to the ones in power. 20 years ago, your job was over when you left the building. Now we have company-issued smartphones and mandatory email, GitHub, WhatsApp, Slack and a bunch of other service accounts. Many jobs demand you're constant available.
And this is not just about work: I've had personal issues with people that think it's unacceptable to take more than 60 minutes to answer a message. You could say: "but why don't you delete WhatsApp, Messenger or whatever?". Well, because that would also entail serious repercussions.
I'm not saying technology isn't awesome overall, though. I don't miss TV reruns, for example. Netflix is a great source of joy. And medical technology is literally life-saving. But I'm not instantly excited about such advancements. Some people salivate with the idea of a smart fridge, smart toaster, smart-everything. But, more often than not, I think: "why the fuck do I need X to be smart? Wouldn't it become more expensive and hard to repair? Do I really need the added complexity?"