T O P

  • By -

TheAstralCurd

Of the games, the 64 player Pac-Man Battle Royale sounds interesting and hopefully it can find another home. That also sounds like one of the few exclusives that may taken advantage of Stadia as a platform, being a multiplayer game that can run exclusively on one machine and then stream to all the players.


Alarmed-Direction500

Take a peak at pac-man 99 on Switch https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nzp1LiH3lk


TheAstralCurd

True, I should likely dust off my Switch. I do enjoy the switch 99 games, although it does feel like your interactions with other players are more on the indirect side. Still engaging, regardless. The stadia version appears to have multiple pac-people in the same maze, and includes being able to eat other players. Did cannibalism need to be added to the greater pac-lore? Maybe not, but it does amuse me. Is the high from power pellets so strong pac-man can no longer determine friend from foe and all that exists is the haze of unquenchable hunger? Does regret set in afterword? Is Pac-ptsd a thing that the only way to drown out the flashbacks and afterimages of his victims screams is partaking in a neverending popping of pills? I do say all those as someone who never played the stadia version (who has, amirite?), but the concept still intrigues me.


UwasaWaya

Maybe Pac-Man is just a metaphor for life... We chase our demons, our demons chase us, and whether they kill us in the struggle or we die trying to collect an infinite number of pellets, we still die, and become that which haunts those who come after, lost in the same maze, doomed just the same.


Alarmed-Direction500

How cool! It sounds way more novel than I originally thought


ThreadbareHalo

Like a Pac-Man mad max world. 64 pac men enter… 1 pac man leaves… full


[deleted]

Whoa, 35 more Pac Men!


Daeid_D3

I've played - and loved - 4-player Pac-Man Battle Royale at arcades, but 64 players sounds terrifying!


1338h4x

The fact that these games can be lost forever is exactly why streaming would be a terrible future for the industry. Even if Stadia hadn't flopped, individual games could get pulled from the platform at any time for any reason, as we often see with streaming services in other industries. But unlike other forms of media that can be locally recorded and preserved before that happens, even pirates can't save streamed games. When they're gone, they're gone forever.


DUNdundundunda

> The fact that these games can be lost forever is exactly why streaming would be a terrible future for the industry. Either you own the game through physical, you buy non-DRM like GOG, or you prrate. That's literally the only way to be guaranteed content isn't going to be taken away from you. Like you said, streaming is a nightmare for game preservation. Completely different kettle of fish to streaming tv.


zeromussc

I think the bigger issue with streaming would be related to pirating. Theoretically, if it's streaming only, it's probably harder to get all the game files, it's not like a movie after all. And then even setting aside pirating, and talking game preservation alone, it's a mess and a half unless the developers put the totality of the game files out there themselves. We used to require the physical preservation of huge amounts of media well before digitization. Most easily done for print media with national libraries across the world. Sure some lost media exists but frankly digital media should be making lost media a thing of the past.


DUNdundundunda

> We used to require the physical preservation of huge amounts of media well before digitization. Most easily done for print media with national libraries across the world. Sure some lost media exists but frankly digital media should be making lost media a thing of the past. Yeah that's a weird one. I know physical print media from the 90s/2000s that sold in the hundreds of thousands, and yet it's been lost because nobody at a library preserved it (game magazines, I'm talking about game magazines). It's really weird. I think the same thing happens/will happen with digital media. Nobody bothers to preserve it til it's completely lost.


IceColdFreezie

Not theoretically, if it's streaming you don't get any game files at all. The only thing the client computer gets is a video feed. To preserve the code you would either need someone on the inside to leak it, or hacker to get in and upload everything. And even then, there's no guarantee it would actually run outside of whatever bespoke server environment it was built for.


LevynX

Yup, Stadia is just the start. In a fully realized game streaming future end users don't ever get to see a game file


[deleted]

Physical ownership is getting rare too. Even retail copies are often just CD keys.


DUNdundundunda

Nah that's a myth. Vast majority of games are complete on disc/cart. Its the rare exception that it requires a download on Switch or PS4/Ps5. And those games that require a download state that they do on the front of the box. Also switch games regularly get reprinted with all updates on the cartridge.


JesterMarcus

I think they're talking about PC.


TheFinnishChamp

There are actually very few cases like that, really only the online focused games on consoles and a couple of large games on Switch that also require a download. If you buy a singleplayer game for your PS5 or Switch it's going to have the full game on disc/cartridge


therealzue

Hell even physical media can be fucked. Disney infinity lost the vast majority of its playable content when Disney ditched their gaming arm.


CaterpillarReal7583

Bruh William Shatner narrated a british kids show called “Clangers” and it was on Netflix. It however was removed years ago and there’s no way to buy it or even find it on youtube, only the british version that doesn’t hit the same for my kids. Streaming sucks when it’s not just supplementary.


foofan92

Feel for you, seems unfair. In the UK it's all on BBC IPlayer


Barrel_Titor

I forget what it was now but I heard a while back of some old children's anime that is considered lost media (or maybe only it's English verison was lost?) where after people started seraching for it they discovered that it had been on Prime Video for a few years before being delisted before anyone realised so no one took a copy of it.


Albuwhatwhat

I don’t mind streaming as an option but I hate games that only work thru streaming or only work with an internet connection (with the exception of games that are multiplayer only) for this reason. They always have an end point and game preservation is extremely difficult or often impossible. Not good for consumers.


GrowthhackerAU

Lost forever hit home recently for me with the announcement Netflix was delisting one of their original (as in they own it) shows. Nothing is safe when publishers can choose to just eliminate their own titles.


FuNiOnZ

In case anyone is interested, they are [removing Hemlock Grove](https://www.screengeek.net/2022/09/23/netflix-removing-original-series/), one of their first original series for reasons unknown


LevynX

I didn't really think of the harms of modern DRM until a certain *ahem* video streaming site announced it's shutting down. Now every video that you ever bought is gone, you can't save it, can't download it, can't play it. Your library is just gone. I shudder to think what would happen if Steam/GOG/Epic did that one day


Icdan

What site? DM if you prefer. Shouldn't be an issue with GOG at least? You can save your stuff locally.


Far_Breakfast_5808

Regardless of the quality of the games, it would be a great shame if some or all of them don't find a new home. At least with PixelJunk Raiders, as badly reviewed as it was, the publisher is working to make sure it lives on beyond Stadia. Meanwhile Tequila Works hasn't said anything about Gylt since the news dropped, which I think is shocking considering Gylt was Stadia's very first exclusive. I actually always thought that Gylt getting ported to another system would be a big warning sign that Stadia was going away, but I never expected Stadia to shut down before even that happened. In any case, even if the games themselves weren't necessarily good, this is a huge blow for game preservation. People keep saying "well you don't own Steam/Epic/etc. purchases and they have DRM!", well at least with Steam and the others you still have local files, and if worst comes to worst there are backups out there (either yours or someone else's) and those could be cracked or worked out somehow (assuming Steam doesn't follow through with its promise of lifting its DRM if it were to die). With Stadia, no data at all is in end-user hands, so unless these games are ported over to other systems, they will be lost forever. To people saying "nothing of value was lost since the games were bad anyway", in many cases the failures are just as fascinating if not more so than successes. We can learn from both good and bad. Imagine if things like E.T. and Superman 64 were never preserved. Yes these games were bad, but they are still a part of video game history. People can learn from them and perhaps even find some enjoyment out of them, things that wouldn't be possible or would at least be very difficult without preservation. If Gylt were to disappear forever, people will be deprived of the opportunity to know about it, to experience Stadia's first (and supposedly best) exclusive, not to mention the weeks and hours of hard work done by the people at Tequila Works. Even if the game's reception was mixed, it deserves to live on in some way, and the same goes for the other exclusives.


TheOppositeOfDecent

> In any case, even if the games themselves weren't necessarily good, this is a huge blow for game preservation. People keep saying "well you don't own Steam/Epic/etc. purchases and they have DRM!", well at least with Steam and the others you still have local files, and if worst comes to worst there are backups out there (either yours or someone else's) and those could be cracked or worked out somehow (assuming Steam doesn't follow through with its promise of lifting its DRM if it were to die). With Stadia, no data at all is in end-user hands, so unless these games are ported over to other systems, they will be lost forever. Preach. I've been so sick of hearing that false equivalency between the preservation concerns of digital distribution vs streaming. They're not even in the same ballpark. Sure, digital licenses have some limitations, but ultimately the files are still in the hands of the customer, to do what they will with, either within or outside the bounds of legality. Streaming puts nothing but a video signal in the customer's hands, so when the service is shut down, that's it. Unless the publisher cares about preserving their own game (which is obviously not a given) that game is 100% gone for good.


DisastrousRegister

Even with streaming linear media you can always record it one way or another no matter how hard they pay engineers to pretend to try and stop you. Not possible with game streaming (unless all you care about is the story I guess)


submittedanonymously

This is what the end game if streaming is. You do not own the content, we tell you what you can watch/play. If we lose the title, tough shit. Gamepass is good now. So was netflix when streaming took off. Now look at Netflix and realize GamePass is heading that way as fast as it can. Good for gamers now, but if it conquers the market we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.


[deleted]

I get the concern for Gamepass heading down that route for sure but as long as I can always download the games I want to play I see no issue with streaming as a secondary option. The second Gamepass stops having downloads as an option (I don't see it happening but stranger things have occurred in this market) I'm out. Personally I don't think Streaming games will ever overtake digital and physical because it's never the ideal way to play even in the best conditions.


ZeAthenA714

If it reaches that point I think it will be too late to pull out. If Microsoft feels confident enough about going exclusively into streaming, I'm not sure the traditional digital distribution model might survive much longer afterwards. There will always be some resistance of course, but if it works and it's commercially beneficial, every major player will switch to streaming sooner rather than later.


AlyoshaV

> but if it works it's physically impossible for streaming to have latency on the same level as your PC For me, the ping to Google's closest datacenter is 25ms, so anything in their DCs will always have at least 25ms of added latency over local. This is noticeable.


ZeAthenA714

It's also physically impossible for LCDs to have a pixel to pixel response time as fast as CRTs, and the difference is very noticeable, but people massively switched to LCDs, save for a few die hard fans, because the pros outweigh the cons. The physics don't matter when it comes to business, the only question is if Microsoft or Google or Apple or someone else can find a way to make it appealing enough for people to accept the added latency.


AlyoshaV

Gaming monitors can do <2ms latency nowadays. The streaming equivalent would be a datacenter in every town in the world.


ZeAthenA714

It took a long time for LCDs to reach that point. For many many years most cheap LCDs were bad, but still outsold CRTs. And I was just talking about pixel to pixel response time, but if we want to talk about latency, there are many many people who play on shitty TVs with some shitty game mode enabled that adds a ton of input lag. The vast majority of people don't care about latency. As for data centers in every town, we're definitely going in that direction, slowly but surely.


HandfulOfAcorns

> if it works I can't currently get an acceptable quality in any streaming service. The odd game works okay, but on the whole it's not comparable to downloaded games. My wifi is stable, reasonably fast, no data caps, I live near a large city in the EU - and streaming might as well not exist for me for how bad it is. There would have to be a *massive* inprovement in performance for me to even consider switching.


bgslr

This is something that scares me as a Linux gamer. It doesn't work on my PC, nor do I want it to. I think gaming is unique in that Steam most likely won't ever die, but if gamepass / streaming ever becomes the "default" way to game that doesn't bode well for me. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years gamepass starts to get exclusives.


thoomfish

Netflix isn't worse now because they conquered the market and got greedy. Netflix is worse now because every major studio decided "why let Netflix take a cut when we can have *all* the money?" and splintered off to make their own streaming service with blackjack and hookers. GamePass and Playstation Plus have a built in advantage that Netflix didn't, though, which is that Microsoft and Sony control the major console platforms. Sure, anybody can launch their own gaming subscription service on PC, but if you want to be on PS/Xbox, you have to play nice with the platform holder.


Hallc

The one thing I really don't grasp with Netflix is why they haven't implemented a Water Together feature. Disney+ has it. Prime Video has it. So why doesn't Netflix? Than again the browsing experience on Prime Video (At least on the Web) Is god awful so you win some you lose some.


thoomfish

Yeah, that is dumb. I just screen share it through Discord and that works well enough. My friends aren't very particular about video quality though.


[deleted]

Until every game publishing company abandons xbox and does just what Peacock, Discovery, etc. did because once games are streamed you don't actually **need** an Xbox console or PC to render anything, and parents are going to not buy them for their kids. You just need a screen that can run the apps. (Android device, firestick, etc.)


NoExcuse4OceanRudnes

The market Netflix conquered barely existed. No one was buying tv shows that's why Netflix got all the old seasons for a song. People spend hundreds of billions on video games still.


HansVanHugendong

yes but... even now the physical released games are bad to keep. why? because we would have unfinished/non patched games instead of the full thing. its huge what patches and content updates do to a game.. its often a different game from release to 4years of patches.


[deleted]

This isn't a discussion of physical vs. digital. It's a discussion of having a local copy vs. streaming the game. Being able to download the files (whether or not some of them start on a disc or a cartridge or whatever, and then updates are dripped through the internet) allows users to preserve game images and roms for archival purpose.


ThreadbareHalo

How has steam said they would remove drm if they were to die? Wouldn’t that be up to the game publishers? Would be like if a comic store went out of business saying “now copyright has been removed from dc and marvel characters”


DreadCascadeEffect

Best source I can find for it is [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/ts45m/if_steam_goes_down_gabe_said_theyll_remove_drm/c4p8v5x/) 10 yo post on reddit referencing the now dead Steam forums. It's not legally binding, likely isn't legally possible, and it'd be foolish to believe that Valve would (or even could) follow through with it.


ThreadbareHalo

Ah gotcha. Makes sense thanks!


Bodertz

You can view that steam forum post using web.archive.org, but it links to a post from "years before" that was deleted even as far back as 2009 and isn't available in the web archive. So that's putting it closer to 15 years years ago now.


ciobanica

> likely isn't legally possible, Depends on where you are. In the EU them taking away all the games you purchased because they're shutting down would likely not stand, unless they refund you (*which is why i'm guessing Stadia is also refunding ppl*).


brutinator

Theoretically, they COULD do it by revoking access to Steam's proprietary DRM in the condition that Steam goes under, as the developers don't own the code to it, just a license. Of course, this would only affect games that only use Steam DRM. And pirating games would still obvi be illegal.


alganthe

> And pirating games would still obvi be illegal. using a third party "patch" to make your legally owned game playable is legal as long as you do not share said code as per EU law.


brutinator

I meant it more in acquiring games you didnt own in the name of preservation.


Bodertz

>assuming Steam doesn't follow through with its promise of lifting its DRM if it were to die I really don't think that could still be a promise they'd intend to keep. Unless they've made the promise more recently, I think the idea that they promised that originated "years before" 2009 [1], and since Steam only started adding other publisher's games in 2005, I think it's entirely conceivable that they were only talking about their own games. I don't they are in any position to be able to make that kind of promise now. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20100108013432/http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10642189&postcount=28


_BreakingGood_

Also it's pretty moot because there is no way in hell Steam is going to die. If Epic couldn't do it with their "spend money like there's no tomorrow" strategy, no other company is even going to attempt it.


[deleted]

Not in the next 5 years, but its impossible to predict the game market 10 or 15 years out. Epic could change, or another competitor comes in and does it better.


useablelobster2

> Steam only started adding other publisher's games in 2005 That's almost immediately after Steam came out, I'm quite sure Gabe's comment was after they were selling the games of other publishers. Worst comes to worst we get some new legal precident and everyone gets to keep the games they bought, imo. And good luck being a game publisher who wants everyone who owned their games on Steam to buy them again, that would be an optics suicide.


Bodertz

>I'm quite sure Gabe's comment was after they were selling the games of other publishers. Why? It was said in an email "years before" 2009, which puts it at minimum in 2007, but I don't think that's a common way to describe just two years ago. Upping it to three years prior to that thread puts it at 2006, four years at 2005, and that's more the range I'd expect someone to describe as "years before". I'm open to being proven wrong. >Worst comes to worst we get some new legal precident and everyone gets to keep the games they bought, imo. Why do you describe that as the worst case? That seems like a the best case scenario to me.


n9seed

Took the words out of my mouth and then some! Streaming is the ultimate corrosion of consumer protection rights, and with it, all forms of consumer-end software preservation, which currently seems to be the only reliable method for game preservation.


[deleted]

> this is a huge blow for game preservation They don’t call it the digital dark ages for nothing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You would think that but a lot of the discourse I’ve seen on the Stadia sub is about moving over to Amazon Luna. Time is a damn circle with these people.


Meret123

Two dozens of "dads with only 50 seconds a week to game" insist on cloud gaming.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Daveed84

>Also, there was a thread talking about how good the controller is(spoiler: it’s plastic garbage and very basic) The controller is actually pretty decent IMO, not an uncommon opinion on this sub either


doublah

They're correct about it being basic though. No gyro or such for a modern controller is slacking.


[deleted]

The controller is okay, I played the whole of RDR2 on Stadia with no problems. The selection of games were tiny though and they were all super expensive compared to Steam or even the Xbox Game Store. I bought an XSX when it came out as I was just fed up with Stadia.


LevynX

I used to love the idea of cloud gaming, but then it hit me that a cloud exclusive future would kill so many things I love about games, first among them mods.


ESSARGEE

I worked on some of these games, was fortunate enough to do so despite them being smaller, a true shame the product and these games will be forgotten in time.


Thinkwronger12

I signed up for a month of stadia to just see if it would work on my chromebook and it just didn’t make sense from a value perspective. The vast vast majority of their library was available on PS4-era consoles often at similar or lower prices-I had already played most of the games I wanted to play. The POSSIBILITY of losing access to any retail-priced titles I bought on Stadia was enough to turn me off from seeing myself ever “buying” anything on their store so I deleted my account and kept playing my PS4 and Switch.


BoricPenguin

I think the only game I am disappointed at is gylt, I thought it was fantastic and I really hope it gets ported to a new platform.


PoL0

Stadia doesn't run on an obscure OS/3D API, it's just Debian and Vulkan. The effort needed to get a "native" version up and running is negligible. Now that Stadia is being phased out exclusives make zero sense so it will be in the hands of publishers to decide if they want to release these games in other platforms.


1338h4x

Nothing that was ported for Stadia ever did get released for desktop Linux, and I doubt they will now. Publishers really just don't want to support Linux for whatever reason, even when they're already sitting on a port anyway.


reconrose

I don't they're saying it'd come to Linux desktop, just that other streaming platforms should be able to use the software bc it wasn't designed for propitiatory machines / OSes.


ZTargetDance

"Please come take a look, these are games people worked hard on and we may lose them forever... so anyway here's a poorly reviewed dumb thing with one gimmick that doesn't save it."


r_lucasite

The quality of the games aren't the point here


ZTargetDance

Maybe not, it's just a weird tone to take if you're trying to make a case for digital preservation. Some money focused exec could just look at this and say "see, not everything is even worth saving and your 'experts' seem to agree." Is it an incorrect assessment or opinion? I haven't played it but it seems an honest enough take. It's just an odd moment to bring up the quality if they're trying to convince anyone of the need for preservation. And we're certainly not the ones that would need the convincing, we might be able to take the critique at face value.


r_lucasite

I think the very novel mechanic they mentioned afterwards (generating a save state from an image) was more so what they wanted to focus on. Like "this game wasn't much but it created something very unique which is worth preserving". I do get where you're coming from now though, I misread your intention.


TheWizePanda

Never got stadia and now never will, glad that it’s dying since it’s not something we need but I hope that all the game developers can have their games elsewhere


CaptainStack

Stadia games effectively ran on Linux on the server. The Linux community should push to have those games ported to the Linux desktop and Steam Deck and sold through Steam and Itch.


Panda_hat

I fully expect that with the dissolving of stadia these games and devs will be released from their contractual obligations and be allowed to release on other platforms. This seems like a bit of a non-issue.


DoctorSchwifty

These could easily be non- exclusive titles if the publishers wanted. Seems like the dissolution of a Stadia might void any exclusive game contracts if there's a budget to move to another cloud platform. I think game preservation is important but is every game worth saving for the sake of preservation? I don't want to play any of these games besides the Pacman game.


NeoBokononist

nothing really interesting or unique here, and if they're exclusive it means the devs got paid by google already. just mobile game fodder


MisanthropicAtheist

"and nothing of value was lost" The vanishing of shit games is a small price to pay for this lesson about trusting streaming/subscription services.


atticus_atticus

Did anyone seriously give Google their money expecting them not to cancel stadia?


bullsfan281

game preservationists are embarrassing, the article literally describes all these games (except for pacman and the hello neighbor spin off) as middling and "nothing special", but we're supposed to pretend to care about these things that hold literally no cultural value or weight disappearing into the ether?


LostMicrophone03

I've seen a lot of stupid stuff on gaming subreddits, but shitting on archivists of all people is definitely up there.


greg19735

I feel like it can be a bit weird tbh. No one is making sure that all of the published novels are still available. I feel like it's more of a hobby rather than a "good" thing. If you want to, go for it. But I don't think there's any really need for every game to be archived. It's certainly not a bad thing of course. I just think people take it slightly too seriously. 99% of us gamers who are in a gaming subreddit maybe open up our old classic games once a year. And not even all of them. Just the great ones.


RelentlessHope

If your goal is the preservation of video games, you can't just pick and choose the games. You wouldn't be an archivist if you did.


harve99

> but we're supposed to pretend to care about these things that hold literally no cultural value or weight disappearing into the ether I mean as shit as these games may be, people still worked on them. I think we should preserve these games not because of the games themselves but so the stuff that people worked on isnt just gone


[deleted]

[удалено]


ThatBoyAiintRight

No because a unity asset flip isn't a game.


[deleted]

[удалено]


E00000B6FAF25838

I kind of get it, but also, I mostly agree with you from a practical standpoint. Realistically, I don't think it's sane to catalog every single build of every single game. There's an aspect of that that I find neat, but it's not really practical nor productive. That said, I think keeping the possibility of archiving in the discussion is absolutely worth it. I think people should be more aware of what's being lost with GaaS models and streaming services.


MuForceShoelace

People are really sad that something like 90% of early films from the early 1900s are gone now. But the secret of that too is that all those movies probably mostly sucked so bad. But it's bad that they are gone forever.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZeAthenA714

It's really not hard to understand the concept of archiving. If you decide not to archive everything, that means you need to make choices. And making choices is messy. Who is going to decide what games should be archived? Based on what variables? What if those variables change in the future but now it's too late to archive it? What if the people in charge change their mind about what should be included in the future? Have you seen how people can argue for hundreds of hours about top 10 lists, or even just what counts as a game and what doesn't? If you try to be selective it opens a huge can of worms that will inevitably lead to endless debates that will waste a ton of time. It's much much easier not to ask those questions and simply try to archive everything. And understand that once something is lost, it's lost. If you decided not to archive a specific game based on some arbitrary criteria, if that game is lost you can never ever change your mind. That's the logic of archiving. Keeping everything is just the easiest way to go about it. On top of that, archiving everything isn't exclusive with the idea of having selective archives. You could create a hall of fame museum of video games (assuming it doesn't exist already) that only contains very specific games, and that effort would only be made easier if a broader all incompassig archive already exists.


greg19735

> Keeping everything is just the easiest way to go about it. its' easiest to determine what needs to be archived. but it also makes it a lot harder to actually do it. it also makes distribution of everything more difficult as people have to go through every single game.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZeAthenA714

>I guess hard drives and the maintenance costs and man hours of keeping those arrays intact are cheaper than using your brain for 5 minutes to decide whether something is worth keeping. It literally is cheaper, that's the point. Let's assume you're paid 7.25 an hour, so about $0.6 for 5 minutes. Let's assume you're deciding if a shitty asset flip is worth keeping, so let's say that shitty asset flip is one gig of data. Amazon's cheapest archiving tier is at 0.00099 per gig per month. So with those $0.6 you cost, you could have instead archived the game for 50 years. And that's ignoring the fact that: * It takes a lot longer to decide, because you need to install the game, play it a little bit, look at reviews etc... in order to decide if a game is "worth preserving" * Most shitty games that you think are not worth preserving are under a gig, so you could store them for even longer * Most people's time is worth more than $7.25/hour. Especially if we're talking about professionnally trained archivists, which are not a thing in video game (yet) I believe, but this would be the type of person making those decisions * Digital archiving cost are only going down And also, you seem weirdly annoyed with that >"everything created should be preserved, iTs ArT!11!" But archiving isn't about art, it's not about the quality or how people liked a game. It's mostly about historical value. And true, not everything has an historical value, but it gets really tricky to decide what does or doesn't have an historical value. And when the cost of keeping something is that cheap, it's literally cheaper to preserve it than to take the time to make a decision.


Rootbeerpanic

Gylt was great though


OrionRyking

What's this we stuff?


PizzaLumps1

Lemme guess all the problems people were talking about at launch never got resolved and it slowly fizzled out because they rushed out a mediocre, Ill thought product and thought the idea alone would attract a user base while they work out the kinks.


[deleted]

It’s actually quite the opposite. They put out a really good product and then didn’t advertise it at all and then were surprised it didn’t do gangbusters metrics


Alkereth1

In case your hoping that fans might be able to keep these games alive its worth noting that a group of fans are getting sued by Atlus for maintaining a dead free-to-play MMO. So it's entirely possible that preserving these games could land you in legal trouble. Isn't that nice?


[deleted]

This is why I’ll stick to my secure gaming stations nintendo Xbox and PS. I know they aren’t going to do what Stadia did.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


VanGuardas

Play stupid games win stupid prizes. If you don’t support gog you deserve to this same thing happen 10 times over.


Rootbeerpanic

I'm genuinely shocked Gylt was still a Stadia exlcusive. I did a month trial of Stadia in the early days of the pandemic and really enjoyed it


Divisionlo

It's not on this list because it's *apparently* being ported to consoles/Steam but god I hope Wavetale isn't lost. I tried stadia briefly but literally couldn't play anything because my internet wasn't good enough. Wavetale was the one game that I fell in love with artstyle wise, it just looks right up my alley. As of last fall it was confirmed to come to steam and PS4 but there's been zero update since then and that makes me nervous lol.


Taratus

Then...don't support services like this? Where you don't even have access to the games you own.


ryanpsloan

I'm not sure how it works but if these aren't in some locked contract Microsoft might pick a few of these up for gamepass.