Stadia Needs to Learn from Live Casino Gaming to Become a Success

Late last year, Google finally unleashed its foray into the global games market with its self-proclaimed industry game-changer, Stadia. In theory, it could have uprooted the industry or, at the very least, made gaming accessible to those who can’t afford to play video games at the current price points.

All of the hype around Stadia was that the service would finally offer a working form of video game streaming, with the biggest being playable in their best possible form on any device. However, in the months since its launch, Stadia has revealed itself to be little more than a gimmick that’s unable to appeal to a wide audience.

Some still see the untapped potential of streaming games, but with Stadia advancing in increments and Google’s track record of binning projects, the platform may go down as a flop from the mega-company, scaring off other platforms from going all-in on the idea. That said, casino gaming platforms are setting an example, continuing to extend how far streaming and live streaming can go.

Streaming being fully supported in iGaming

Source: Pixabay

The browser-based gaming world of casinos has become increasingly popular over the last decades, with platforms and developers willing to go big on new and potentially game-changing technologies. Brands were rapid to adopt mobile technology, any forms of game design, and most recently live streaming.

It started as just a few classic games, like roulette, being adapted into live-streamed games. People were more intrigued than anything else. But the live versions of these games breathed new life into the storied table games, offering a new way to play them online which felt quintessentially similar to that of playing at a land-based casino.

With a human dealer, real-time play, and the benefits of playing online – such as a running record of the most recent numbers – the new form of casino gaming became very popular. Now, even though there are many different ways to play the classic game, live is ranked as the best way to play roulette, with the many new variants that have emerged making it even more appealing.

When it was first introduced, live-streamed gaming was given its own section, unique bonuses for new players to try the new format, and was then continually bolstered by new games. Once all of the classic casino games were turned live, developers got even more creative, merging game franchises together into the live format and inventing new live games: this is where Stadia falters the most.

Stadia needs to support its own vision

Source: Pixabay

The most significant differences between iGaming’s adoption of streaming technology and Stadia’s efforts are that live casino gaming has been supported and promoted by brands and the format was deployed in a way that would appeal to the target audience. Stadia simply hasn’t supported its streaming efforts well enough, and their business model hasn’t appealed to any audience.

It underwent a rocky launch and is still lacking in many of its most highly-touted features, but the most detrimental aspect of the platform has been its lack of appealing games. As Stadia didn’t want to go down the route of being a Netflix-like subscription service to become a cheaper option to non-gamers, they had to make their library appealing to existing gamers.

As it stands, the platform has failed to achieve this: it launched with very few games, many of which were over a year old, and has neglected the library-bolstering power of indie games. As such, there’s little appeal to the wider gaming community, and almost zero appeal to non-gamers as games are sold at full price – but never owned – on the platform.

Stadia desperately needs to pivot and to become a success, it should learn some lessons from iGaming. Google must either change its business model to a low-cost, monthly subscription service – while also living up to the big promises made before launch – or add many more new and exclusive games to support its underlying technology.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or management of EconoTimes.