Stadia was an incredibly impressive technical product. It failed because of terrible product and business vision, not its engineering.

I'd hire whichever one did better on the interview. Stadia had excellent engineers working on it and the product itself was technically amazing.

Yes? I'm not sure how that's even a question. Passing on someone that seems like a good hire because they worked on a technically impressive thing which had some major non-technical problems would be really stupid. Both of those are things which would make me more interested in bringing them in for an interview, not less.

I suppose I should have worded it differently to follow up on the "unconscious bias of recruiters" angle