People who developed for Stadia mainly did so because Google paid them outrageous amounts of money for ports, not because users they were making a lot of money buying games.

If there were no users buying games, shutting it down would not have had any meaningful impact on the developers.

How do you think they should have done it instead? What would have changed for those developers when done your way?

> How do you think they should have done it instead?

Launched it as a start-up with unfair access to Google's resources. There was no way for it to work under Google's aegis.

I mean the shutdown.

Obviously it was not a well launched product, but that's what you get when you hire Phil Harrison.

> it was not a well launched product

I'm broadly criticizing Google's ability to launch and maintain products. Launching fucked products falls under this umbrella. The point is betting on Google with your own resources is a bad idea.

Ok. When you replied to a message about whether the product shutdowns were handled well, quoted specifically the"were shut down reasonably well" text, and offered Stadia as a counter-example, I thought you were in fact claiming that Stadia was not shut down well.

My apologies, I should have realized you were not actually replying to that point in any way and just making another generic "Google cancel everything lol" argument.