#feeling vindicated but not particularly uhh. schadenfreude'd cause a LOT of people worked there. and I still don't get it

[legionofpotatoes]

hate to I-told-you-so this topic but the moment, the second it was announced I was SURE that stadia would crash and burn. as did onlive before it and any other similar pipe dream. Today's global internet infrastructure paired with the ever-growing fidelity standards from competitors makes cloud gaming such a weirdly obvious dead-on-arrival concept yet still google of all companies puts hundreds of millions into pushing it? I swear it felt stupid even back then. especially with the backroom politicking for acquiring triple A ports and double-especially with the laughable attempts to subsume established studios into exclusivity deals. How was this ever going to work.

I'm sorry, to be clear like I know the theoretical tech exists; I realize there is a way for me to play a game that outputs a 4K 60hz signal that renders halfway across the globe in a server farm that blazes data so fast that I barely notice input lag, I know that's all possible; but how does it take millions of dollars' worth of R&D and countless false starts from a leading tech giant to realize that it is simply not scalable? At all?? Was there ever a version of this that was going to revolutionize and undercut the market, realistically? Was it simply a matter of unlucky business decisions that failed to jam this square peg into a round hole? Did it really technically work well in developing countries with limited bandwidth and booming console sales? Am I missing something?

How was this ever considered mass market feasible??