Admittedly, when I first read about Google Stadia head Phil Harrison admitting during a roundtable discussion that games for his platform would be just as expensive as any other, I didn't really think anything of it. Ostensibly, it makes perfect sense that games would be competitively priced regardless of platform. After all, it's the same game, isn't it? In response to the question of price, Harrison seemingly dismissed the idea of any price difference by stating "I don't know why it would be cheaper."
Then I got to thinking - while it may be the same game, the question of access is what really differentiates the value of a game on a cloud-based service such as Stadia versus a digital or hard-copy of a game on console or PC. Not that I would expect Stadia to offer games at a lower price, because much of that is decided by the game's publisher, but it does make me question whether Stadia has enough competitive advantage to become the average player's platform of choice. Gamers with a more dispensable income may not have to consider this, but the cost of admission for a new, AAA game is a little too high for many to have to think twice about which platform they are purchasing for. That is to say, Google Stadia may not be that platform if it is truly positioning itself as a 1 to 1 alternative to traditional hardware.
The future of cloud-based gaming is a highly ambitious one to say the least, and I do believe that we as a society will one day have the technological infrastructure necessary to provide it to everyone, but we are most definitely not there yet. Even though I live in the heart of Orange County, California - mere minutes away from the likes of Blizzard Entertainment, a company that makes its billions off of internet-based services - my internet isn't even able to consistently and reliably stream games at the quality I would like. While considering the plight of densely populated areas such as my own being so interconnected and cross-wired that we're lucky to have our own IP addresses, I must also consider the similarly frustrating shortcomings that gamers in more rural communities must contend with. All of which to suggest that internet quality is not distributed equally, and it doesn't appear that Google Stadia is prepared to compensate for that in their business model.
Harrison does make a compelling case for the value of a game on Stadia versus other platforms by pointing out that games on Stadia are available to play on-demand on a plethora of devices.
The value you get from the game on Stadia means you can play it on any screen in your life—TV, PC, laptop, tablet, phone," said Harrison. "I think that is going to be valuable to players.
On the surface, this sounds entirely valid. Why purchase a game for a single device when you could, for the same price, buy it for virtually every internet-enabled device? Again, the value proposition exists for those fortunate enough to have access to reliable internet, but for the many who do not, they are essentially suggesting that we pay the same price to be able to play our game sometimes, and always in a state of uncertainty of whether our frames will be reduced to the point of the game being rendered unplayable.
It's perhaps unrealistic to expect Google to make any concessions on cost, especially when you consider that they are not in complete control of how it is decided. However, Harrison being outright dismissive of the idea that players might expect some sort of incentive to take a gamble on Stadia feels just a little too tone-deaf for my liking. Stadia may be the superior platform for some, but it isn't going to be for the vast majority of players whom aren't able to get the internet speeds required to support it. Phil Harrison can be surprised players' desire for a lower cost of entry, but he certainly can't feel blindsided when they don't flock to his vision for gaming's future if their internet connection is still stuck in the past.