While it’s easy to forget after watching Google struggle for years to deliver a game streaming experience on par with a traditional PC or console, the mega-corporation initially introduced its Stadia service with much broader ambitions. The vision outlined in Stadia’s 2019 announcement promised many features that could actually be game-changers for the industry — if only some of them were available at launch or gained more widespread distribution once they arrived.
Now to be clear, I’m not talking about silly promises like “negative latency”. Some of its tech promises were nothing more than smoke and mirrors, trying to assuage legitimate concerns about streaming technology being the backbone of its video game offerings. Instead, I’m talking about synergistic goals that must it was entirely feasible for one of the richest companies in the world that already operates a huge and successful video streaming site and a network of server infrastructure.
Features like State Share, Stream Connect, Crowd Play, and Crowd Choice had the opportunity to integrate video games and the popular advent of game streaming for an audience like never before. However, each of these features were absent at launch and weren’t truly integrated at the platform level—individual developers had to implement them piecemeal, making the experience of using the service inconsistent. As of late 2021, Google boasted that more than 20 games in total included one or more of these features. That was less than 10% of the entire library, and even among those games, many of them only included one or two of the features, not all four.
In concept, at least, these were great ideas.
government share it would allow you to send a recorded game state to your friends, allowing you to help them through a difficult part of the game and then send it back or challenge them to surpass your own achievements. In the end this was mostly used as a bootstrapped challenge mode, allowing players and developers like id Software to share loads of Doom Eternal Horde mode.
Streaming connection promised a tightly integrated co-op multiplayer experience, showing each player in a game a live video feed of their teammates’ screens for better coordination. In the end, it was mostly supported by a handful of Ubisoft games — a solid use case given the plethora of tactical first-person shooters, but not enough to put Stadia on the map.
Crowd Play, a feature aimed at giving video game streamers more tools to interact with their community, could have been incredible. YouTube streamers could invite viewers to jump directly into the game and play alongside or against them. In theory, you could organize tournaments or create massive and asynchronous multiplayer experiences. This was the idea that would leverage Google’s YouTube business more centrally into its video game offerings, and it seemed like a perfect combination of the two. In the end, it was supported by about 10 games, which would create a queue for players to join. This also presented the obvious problem: the more popular the streamer, the longer the queue. No one wants to wait behind 1000’s of other people just to play a four player session of Borderlands 3.
And finally, Crowd selection it wasn’t a particularly innovative idea – an audience poll, basically – but the feature was meant to be built into the games themselves. Viewers could vote on important choices in the games and the streamer would live by what the audience suggested. Granted, many streamers already do this functionally by creating audience polls and simply committing to the track, but this was a cleaner way to do it.
Overall, these platform-level features weren’t available across the entire platform, which meant that elements that could have set Stadia apart were so sporadic that they never made much of an impact. Imagine if Xbox left an important platform-level feature like Smart Delivery up to individual developers, so it only appeared in about 10% of games. The inconsistency itself dooms the feature to failure.
This was exacerbated by the lack of first-party development on Stadia. While Google talked big about starting its own in-house development studios that would optimize games for the platform, none of that materialized. As we’ve seen with successful consoles from Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony, first-party development is more than just a way to win exclusives. Platform owners have a vested interest in ensuring that their internal development highlights the unique characteristics of the hardware and serves as a guide for third-party developers to follow. Stadia had no first-party development, just vague notions that we would eventually get exclusive games.
Imagine a world where State Share was built into every game, allowing players to pass their progress back and forth at will, and letting developers and streamers share their own builds to democratize their experiences. Imagine a multiplayer game built around Stream Connect, where seeing through each other’s eyes was a vital part of the regular experience instead of a nice-but-not-necessary add-on. Imagine a game built for Crowd Play that could scale based on audience size to allow small groups or massive streaming communities to play together. And imagine a game built for Crowd Choice, where watching your favorite streamer live based on your choices wasn’t just random, it was built into the experience.
These ideas were powerful, and Stadia presented an exciting vision for the future of gaming. Exactly where and how Google went wrong will be the subject of much speculation and debate as the service winds down. But these concepts are still viable, smart, and worth pursuing. Google had every opportunity to deliver on its promises, especially since it also had its video streaming service at the center of some of its most interesting feature ideas. But other platforms can and should take the plunge and work to implement these and similarly ambitious ideas.
The products discussed here were independently selected by our editors. GameSpot may receive a share of the revenue if you purchase anything featured on our site.