I'm not much of a gamer, but I've always been interested in playing Red Dead Redemption 2. However, I neither had a console nor a PC with a decent enough graphics card.
This spring, I picked up a Google TV with Chromecast, and realized I could pair any bluetooth device with it. I bought a cheapo PS4-like controller off of Amazon, saw that RDR2 was on sale on Stadia, and gave it a shot.
I have to say, the experience was quite pleasing. No need for an expensive/out-of-stock graphics card. No need for a dedicated console. If feels like a great solution for a casual gamer. Overall, I've been impressed with the experience, and haven't experienced any lag or game stutters. Heck, it even plays Cyberpunk smoothly!
Stadia definitely lacks in terms of marketing and game library, but I feel like it's a concept that works.
Same.
I had a month off between jobs and used a week of my evenings off to play through red dead.
I don't particularly care about losing the license, because I just wanted to play the game through. Haven't touched it since then.
Stadia's ideal market wasn't "real gamers" -- those folks will buy rigs. Their ideal market was people like you and me, who don't have the time or interest to justify purchasing a gaming machine but still want to play through a AAA title or two every once in a while.
I'm guessing this value proposition is what made it unsustainable for Google.
I think the basic model will eventually work out, though. The bandwidth is there. The compute has to be cheap enough that the biz model works by just taking the retailer's cut of the title sale + maybe a tad more. The tad more can come from one-time hardware sales and maybe better negotiated cuts of the sale from the studios. I would never ever have purchased a copy of any AAA title without Stadia and similar services. I think the same is true for almost all Stadia purchases.
But Google's failure here makes sense. It's a low margin game. google sucks at low margin games.