As always, there was (and still is) so much technological marvel inside Google and so many highly talented people working inside Google that I felt sorry that these marvel never gets to see the light of day and efforts by these folks ultimately wasted by inept management and terrible marketing.
Years ago Google was the coolest place to work at because of the tech and the people, and Google did so many things that everyone could find the most interesting thing to them. Nowadays the list of cool companies is a lot longer and more diversified. And switching companies is a bit more friction than switching teams. I sometimes wonder if more cool tech could emerge faster if there was a new Big Tech with old Google values, with better management and a new coolness.
If Stadia was strictly a subscription service, I bet it would still exist. People have already forgotten, but you had to buy the games on the service. On top of that there was a subscription to increase your stream's resolution. The pricing was already too complicated and the thing was brand new!
With customers already aware of the fickle nature of Google, nobody wanted to buy something that only gave you access to a game on Google's servers. It's actually surprising that Google reimbursed everyone. Nobody expected that, and nobody bought anything on the service because no one expected Google to reimburse when they inevitably shut it down.
The Stadia tech was so much further ahead of others, it's such a waste it didn't get time to flourish. They could have really changed the paradigm if it had better management.
One example of an intriguing idea I heard discussed on a podcast - imagine you're watching a streamer on YouTube and think the game is cool. If it were integrated with Stadia then with one click, you could be playing the game! In browser! Maybe even playing with the streamer (for multiplayer)!
So much potential wasted...I can only shake my head.
I wonder if it's some kind of selection bias - techies all praise how good it was but I can imagine that the experience for the general public with the typical combo of overloaded Wi-Fi backed by shitty ISP-provided router was much different and this may have contributed to its downfall.
> The controller upgrade process was something I never imagined a browser could do.
There's some (minor) controversy around this. WebUSB/WebHID are web standards that Google has pushed, and essentially gives a website similar access to USB devices as a native app running on your computer (which can of course do things like upgrade firmware on the device).
Mozilla refuses to implement WebUSB or WebHID, citing security concerns. I tend to side with Mozilla on this (your average non-technical user will click past most warning dialogs, just wanting things to work), but I can see the appeal: otherwise Google would have to release completely separate Windows and macOS tools to accomplish this, and then Linux users like me would probably be left out in the cold, waiting for someone like OP to reverse-engineer the process.
Of course, if I had one of these controllers and wanted to switch it to Bluetooth mode, I would then be grumbling that I'd have to install Chrome in order to do the switch...
Same fate with OnLive before it, which was super cool back in the day. Only Microsoft & NVIDIA have been able to build successful products out of cloud gaming but even then Microsoft doesn’t just sell the cloud part separately.
Not sure why it’s such a tough sell. Most games feel flawless through it, even back in OnLive days…
Heads up: this post is from January 2023. Google recently extended the ability to convert controllers to Bluetooth mode by one year. The new deadline is December 31, 2024.
Why even have a deadline? Why not just release the firmware to the public?
What does google gain from stopping people converting stadia controllers to Bluetooth in the future?
I can already see issues like people who bought new old stock who can no longer do anything with them.
The best case scenario is they release a toolkit to flash your own firmware so people can hack on the now completely otherwise useless controllers.
I worked with/beside the team that worked on the firmware for this controller, and they poured a lot of heart and soul into it, all good people working in a rather trying situation, and the engineering behind it is solid. I think a lot of them are working on Matter now (https://developers.home.google.com/matter/overview)
Stadia itself seemed doomed to me from day one, and I pushed back multiple times to avoid getting involved working on it because I didn't want to get dragged in. (I did work for a bit on the component that did the video receiving for Stadia streams inside the Chromecast; taking what another team did and heavily optimizing it and refactoring it etc.)
In any case, my cynicism was confirmed and the project killed -- but the worst thing is that in the round of layoffs last year they seemed to let go many (most?) of the people still working on it or heavily associated with it, instead of transferring them off to other teams like Google normally would. Kind of nasty.
I switched to Geforce now and did not miss stadia. The biggest problem with stadia was that they tried to make it into a store/ecosystem where you could only play things you paid for specifically for stadia. Got a huge steam library? Tough.
Geforce now just let's you play games you already own (with some limitations based on publisher deals, developer support FWIU etc). And it's just as good as stadia was in terms of user experience IMHO having used both.
Think of remote gaming as a computer where the connection between the computer itself and its input/output is stretched over the internet. It's bound to remain technically inefficient compared to local wires.
The goal, of course, is to make game running server shareable between different clients, right? But there already was a service to share your own idling PC with internet players. And unlike Google's servers it can be used to play locally by its owner.
But the biggest issue with the whole game streaming is the economy. What's more profitable for publishers and stores, to sell access to games which run on your hardware, or sell the copies of the games and let the players handle hardware cost themselves? The obvious answer leads for remote play services to live off the niche of people who would like to play games but can't afford to invest into hardware. If you compare the cost of a game console with the cost of games you'll understand there can't be a lot of people in this category.
TL;DR
Remote play is doomed to stay on the fringes due to the economy and physics.
I wish they pushed an update to fix the pairing bug. Once you update to support Bluetooth and pair it it works the first time and will stay connected but provide no input after reconnecting.
It was closely tied/integrated into Google hardware and data center architecture as far as I understand - it is not just some binary you can run on a raspberry pi.
We see a web UI, but that is the tip of the iceberg.
[+] [-] nzoschke|2 years ago|reply
I got the Cyberpunk 2077 bundle which came with the game, controller and a chrome cast.
Gaming with a little HDMI WIFI puck and a WIFI controller felt very “cyberpunk” itself. Like buying some new tech to hack into the mainframe.
The Stadia version of Cyberpunk 2077 was basically the PC version which was far less glitchy than consoles.
Years later they issued a full refund for the bundle and unlocked the controller.
The controller upgrade process was something I never imagined a browser could do.
Thank you OP for reverse engineering and preserving things!
And thank you Google for pushing the cutting edge. Crazy to think how much went into Stadia only to be abandoned.
[+] [-] kccqzy|2 years ago|reply
Years ago Google was the coolest place to work at because of the tech and the people, and Google did so many things that everyone could find the most interesting thing to them. Nowadays the list of cool companies is a lot longer and more diversified. And switching companies is a bit more friction than switching teams. I sometimes wonder if more cool tech could emerge faster if there was a new Big Tech with old Google values, with better management and a new coolness.
[+] [-] philistine|2 years ago|reply
With customers already aware of the fickle nature of Google, nobody wanted to buy something that only gave you access to a game on Google's servers. It's actually surprising that Google reimbursed everyone. Nobody expected that, and nobody bought anything on the service because no one expected Google to reimburse when they inevitably shut it down.
[+] [-] marklar423|2 years ago|reply
One example of an intriguing idea I heard discussed on a podcast - imagine you're watching a streamer on YouTube and think the game is cool. If it were integrated with Stadia then with one click, you could be playing the game! In browser! Maybe even playing with the streamer (for multiplayer)!
So much potential wasted...I can only shake my head.
[+] [-] Nextgrid|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kelnos|2 years ago|reply
There's some (minor) controversy around this. WebUSB/WebHID are web standards that Google has pushed, and essentially gives a website similar access to USB devices as a native app running on your computer (which can of course do things like upgrade firmware on the device).
Mozilla refuses to implement WebUSB or WebHID, citing security concerns. I tend to side with Mozilla on this (your average non-technical user will click past most warning dialogs, just wanting things to work), but I can see the appeal: otherwise Google would have to release completely separate Windows and macOS tools to accomplish this, and then Linux users like me would probably be left out in the cold, waiting for someone like OP to reverse-engineer the process.
Of course, if I had one of these controllers and wanted to switch it to Bluetooth mode, I would then be grumbling that I'd have to install Chrome in order to do the switch...
[+] [-] chewmieser|2 years ago|reply
Not sure why it’s such a tough sell. Most games feel flawless through it, even back in OnLive days…
[+] [-] codyogden|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vincheezel|2 years ago|reply
I can already see issues like people who bought new old stock who can no longer do anything with them.
The best case scenario is they release a toolkit to flash your own firmware so people can hack on the now completely otherwise useless controllers.
[+] [-] ShamelessC|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Reason077|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmrdporcupine|2 years ago|reply
Stadia itself seemed doomed to me from day one, and I pushed back multiple times to avoid getting involved working on it because I didn't want to get dragged in. (I did work for a bit on the component that did the video receiving for Stadia streams inside the Chromecast; taking what another team did and heavily optimizing it and refactoring it etc.)
In any case, my cynicism was confirmed and the project killed -- but the worst thing is that in the round of layoffs last year they seemed to let go many (most?) of the people still working on it or heavily associated with it, instead of transferring them off to other teams like Google normally would. Kind of nasty.
[+] [-] mattlondon|2 years ago|reply
Geforce now just let's you play games you already own (with some limitations based on publisher deals, developer support FWIU etc). And it's just as good as stadia was in terms of user experience IMHO having used both.
[+] [-] viktorcode|2 years ago|reply
The goal, of course, is to make game running server shareable between different clients, right? But there already was a service to share your own idling PC with internet players. And unlike Google's servers it can be used to play locally by its owner.
But the biggest issue with the whole game streaming is the economy. What's more profitable for publishers and stores, to sell access to games which run on your hardware, or sell the copies of the games and let the players handle hardware cost themselves? The obvious answer leads for remote play services to live off the niche of people who would like to play games but can't afford to invest into hardware. If you compare the cost of a game console with the cost of games you'll understand there can't be a lot of people in this category.
TL;DR Remote play is doomed to stay on the fringes due to the economy and physics.
[+] [-] srmarm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nzoschke|2 years ago|reply
Maybe with OPs work we can study and hack the original firmware.
[+] [-] koinedad|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tripdout|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redder23|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattlondon|2 years ago|reply
We see a web UI, but that is the tip of the iceberg.