That’s a good question. In my view Google was selling remote compute, remote graphics rendering, and charging a subscription fee for that. Just like GeForce now. Remember GeForce now and shadow, we’re both remote game streaming platforms that existed before stadia.
So Google comes along and says hey for a little bit more money than GeForce now, we’re going to let you render and stream games from our data centers. Just like GeForce now just like shadow.
Unlike those other platforms, you can’t bring your own library, you have to also buy the games from us, at full retail price. Even if the game is cheaper on steam.
So it was both a subscription service, and a wall garden with higher than normal prices.
It’s like subscribing to Netflix, and also having to buy the movies to watch. Pick your lane Google
Anyway I understand your position, I’m just trying to articulate as a cloud gamer at the time stadia came out, I was enthusiastic, but disappointed with their pricing model which didn’t seem competitive.
I think their options were to a, charge a monthly subscription, and allow people to bring their own libraries, like the steam library.
Or b. Charge for games, and then stream for free.
Doing both puts them in a significant market disadvantage, and I didn’t want to own games that were tied to a Google platform, because Google has a long storied history of shutting down platforms after a few years. I didn’t want to own games on a platform that would disappear. 100% Google’s reputation prevented me from trying out their platform because I didn’t trust them to be around for more than a few years
You didn’t need the premium subscription to stream your games. You could stream at 720p for free if you purchased the game. Blame Google’s marketing for making it seem like you did though
