I think the team over there are proud of what they built, was a lot of new ground so I don't blame them.

For sure, I've back the money for my Chromecast+stadia controller a month ago, whit this update both will still be useful, after the shutdown.

It makes me wonder if the higherups are using this to counteract the worries that google will shut things down. I'd be less hesitant to invest in their services for fear of them shutting down if I thought I'd get my money back if they did.

I suspect they’re trying to avoid a class-action lawsuit. sunsetting software is one thing: it’s not so tangible and software licenses are legally slippery. but when hardware’s involved, you’re on much shakier ground

this idea that its to encourage future investment is predicated on Google thinking that the masses are paying attention to their refund policies. yes this kind of thing may be a big deal for people on HN or certain subreddits, but I doubt it’s a large % of the target market

There are lots of examples of support for hardware being dropped, the IoT space is full of it, likewise with non IoT devices, and I can't think of any examples of a company getting heat for it.

And google is very aware that their reputation for killing products hurts adoption of new launches.

https://www.itpro.com/software/360376/google-cloud-seeks-to-... (just one of many results, just happened to be the top result for "google kills things reputation")

perhaps I am underestimating how much Google takes that reputation into account, but I do still doubt there are many examples of a company with as many bags of cash as Google deprecating $50+ hardware that can only be used with its software, without offering a replacement product or service

Agreed.

a lot of product sun-setting from Google and other corp in this tech winter. Stadia is definitely handled in the best way one could hope for, IMHO it should be a text book example:

- refund the purchase

- listen to the user community, and act on it to avoid creating e-waste

- respect the employees and give them an opportunity to express their love of their work openly and officially

The current handling is what I’d like to call a Selbstverständlichkeit.

So much. It's almost unbelievable. I never thought they eould have dedicated the resources to getting Bluetooth working (and possibly dealing with licensing/testing, since Bluetooth was never enabled in the first place—just BKE for initial setup)

> Google deserves credit for how they have been handling the Stadia shut down IMHO

If Google had been as good at marketing Stadia as managing its shutdown, they never would have had to manage its shutdown.

Honestly, I think if they had been really smart, they would’ve made the game streaming a Youtube feature (including rolling the subscription benefits into YT Red. It would have been consistent with the way they’ve converged what used to be Google Play Music, and the way they’ve soft-converged Google Play Music and TV with Youtube.) It’s

In my opinion it's not a marketing failure. The combination of paying full price for games that require the service combined with Google's reputation for killing services left it pretty stillborn.

I think Google may have realised this which is why they're carefully managing the shutdown. It was too late for Stadia, but they don't want consumers feeling the next service is risky too by showing an intent to make it right when the shutdown happens

“It’s not a marketing failure” and blaming it on perceived vulnerability to cancelation of the service are mutually contradictory claims.

On some level maybe, but at this point no amount of marketing is going to change Google's reputation.

I disagree. Everyone that I know who has even the slightest interest in video games has heard about Stadia. They can't market their way out of the public perception around Google's long term commitments, nor can they change the laws of physics to eliminate input lag, nor can their marketing change the perception that paying full sticker price for games only accessible through their walled garden streaming service was a terrible deal.

They likely would have gained more popularity had they promised to refund all purchases in case the project shut down in less than a decade - in a legally binding way. This would have given customers a lot of confidence to invest time and money into their platform.

Additionally, they could have pulled in a portion of the existing PC gaming market if they allowed users to bring their own games. Having a service that would allow you to play your existing library while you're traveling or over at a friend's house would be enticing to many.

I wouldn't call this a marketing failure, however.

It's not a perceived vulnerability, it was a real, fundamentally unavoidable vulnerability, which is why we're here talking about the aftermath. This is why I disagree that marketing could have solved it.