They haven't shown anything compelling why this would be a game changer for end users.
The games are not more fun or unique than on any other platforms.
Any of the cloud arguments also hold for consoles or PCs on internet connected games.
I think the site may be a bit optimistic.
Don't mistake the fact that you don't want cloud gaming for nobody wanting cloud gaming
So clearly there are plenty of people who want this and are even willing to risk it being total crap at $130 each.
Also don't mistake half a dozen people on a tech forum as being indicative of a mass audience that's commercially sustainable for something.
Especially given HN is rather prone to imagine a product as turning out in a utopian perfect way rather than the more realistic "compromised by the requirement to be economically plausible" one.
Why?
I don't play video games that often. Usually, when I play a newer game, it's because I happen to have new hardware that's capable of playing the game. Otherwise, I just sit on the sidelines when there's new games that come out because I don't want to shell out $BIG_BUCKS for some shiny new console or new PC that I'll only use for 20-40 hours total.
But, assuming I could stream a game with hardware I already have, or very inexpensive hardware, I'd probably play more games. Not nearly as much as active gamers willing to play $BIG_BUCKS for a shiny new console, but probably 1-4 hours a month.
And, yes, I understand that the speed of light introduces fundamental latency problems with streaming. It means that these systems only really work well in dense population centers. It's not like I live out in the boonies where this won't work for me.
I think the point of game streaming is to remove the high cost of entry of a console or PC. At some point, these services can be integrated into smart TVs, and all you need to play a game is a generic USB or bluetooth controller. Everyone wins, especially in a market where consoles were historically sold at a loss.
For me, I prefer something like Apple Arcade because it downloads the game to my system. I'm not sending commands over a network connection that might flake out at a critical moment. I also don't care about playing with others, usually, though.
Some games lock players in and absorb their time continuously (e.g. Overwatch, PUBG, WoW, etc), while others package a digestible block of content that can be consumed in 10, 20, 50 hours, and then it's done. Subscription payouts based on proportional screen time would drastically favor the former over the latter, while lump-sum compensation flips the tables since it doesn't consider ongoing server and infrastructure costs needed to make multiplayer work.
I think this "Buy your games, and subscribe to them too" model that Stadia is using is how they're trying to split that baby, but given that nearly every other service is either subscription or one-time purchase, I have a hard time seeing it stick around long-term. Then again, some console systems also function that way, so I might be wrong.
I don't get this view. They really did show compelling, game-changing features for the end-user, if you watched their talks and demos. They showed lots of potentially game-changing features for developers too, which impact the products, which impact the users.
Most of it is vaporware at this point though, and what we have in Stadia today is basically an early MVP.
For now. I think it‘s a good solution for certain people. I have gigabit fiber, but no interest to buy a gaming pc atm. So what if I quickly want to look into a game without spending thousands? Could be an OK solution.