Google's Rumored Console Could be Revealed March 19

[Scaff]

Hardware is not a reduced factor

It's the very reason why PSN is dominating the gaming space: PS4 has a purchased base nearing 100 million.

You nee a minimum of two data point to be able to make a comparison to show if something has increased/decreased or remained stable. As such you chart shows nothing at all, now why not do the same but add in data from those same areas for the PS, PS2 and PS3.

PSN makes so money because it's selling so much software.

Revenue or Profit?

Thats a lie
Google themselves know they need 1st party exclusives.

Then you will have no issue at all proving proof for that.

What a non answer

I'm not repeating myself because your too lazy to read.

It doesn't matter if its finished. These things should be known well before launch, usually revealed at the initial reveal to show confidence. Google's lack of a proper list shows just that: not much confidence.

It certainly does matter if its finished or not.

What? Reread the post. I'm saying the statement of it being only launch games is false. A publisher list shows all pubs that support the platform. Simple.

Again here's the PS4 one, shown at a reveal:

So the PS4 was the first console that Sony Launched? If your going to half-arse a comparison at least do it in vaguely similar situations, less you come across as absurdly biased (oh wait).

Hardly. The notion that third parties would choose SEGA over Nintendo is hilarious. The biggest pubs at the time, Square, Enix, Capcom, Bandai, Konami were all supporting Nintendo far more, and SNES dominated hardware sales.

You've replied to the wrong point, that was in regard to adoption of CD-ROM as a format, do try and keep up.

Wouldn't be hard to deduce I was referring to the Saturn, its a well known statement.

Actually it would be bloody impossible, as you made a blanket statement without mentioning a platform, so no wat was given as a blanket statement was taken as exactly that.

You moved the goal posts and don't want to acknowledge that.

Says the guy who tried to say that the PS1 Saturn difference is similar to PS4 PC

Except no one did, you moved the goal-posts and then claimed people did. Which is a utterly dishonest approach to take.

I'm the only one in this thread that is even posting actual business data disproving a lot of the incorrect perceptions you guys have.

Except that's not what you have done at all. What little you have posted has been out of context and/or misunderstood by yourself.

Keep in mind that the only one making absolutist statement here is you, literally everyone else in the thread has been balanced in this regard.

Sure, though even having botched the product, PS3 still went on to sell 90 million or so and near 1 billion pieces of software.

Who said they didn't?

However in balance you should also mention (wonder why you didn't) that was in part down to a rather massive hardware issue that badly damaged the public perception of the 360. While Sony did have the YLoD it wasn't as big a factor or as well known as the RLoD issue for the 360.

Now how about those Sony products that failed, you still owe me them, why do you keep avoiding that topic?

 

[Tornado]

Hardly. The notion that third parties would choose SEGA over Nintendo is hilarious.

The problem being, of course, that anyone who was actually around when these consoles were on sale (especially if they only had an N64) would know full well that third parties did literally exactly that even as both consoles walked away from the Saturn on the market and even as Sega was actively sabotaging the system's library outside of Japan. The Saturn had nearly three times as many games released than the N64 despite selling less than a third as many consoles. The Saturn very frequently had the same games (worse versions, usually, but still existing) as the Playstation had up until Sega gave up on it completely in early 1998. The N64 in comparison alienated almost every publisher in the industry immediately to the extent that there were literal months where there would be no new games being released. There were entire genres of games that the Saturn shared with the PSX that were virtually nonexistent on the N64, even while all three were on the market. The idea that the publishers would have sat around with their thumbs up their asses for two years after the Saturn launched to support the N64 instead when they didn't even do that in real life "is hilarious."


Do you simply not have any idea about anything that happened in the industry, Sony or otherwise, before the PS4 launched?

The biggest pubs at the time, Square, Enix, Capcom, Bandai, Konami were all supporting Nintendo far more,

Even ignoring the fact that you couldn't even come up with a legitimate list of "the biggest pubs at the time", they all ran screaming as soon as the N64 was announced to have cartridges, since it seems you forgot the point you brought up yourself. None of them were ever going to support the Nintendo 64 as much as any competing console that used CDs. Whether it was the PSX or the Saturn would not have mattered, just like it didn't actually matter in how the industry actually played out.
Publishers on PC had already been rapidly moving to CDs even by the time the 3DO was out and were looking to expand into the console market that they had largely been shut out of as soon as multiple floppy disks became the norm. For that matter, many of the big third parties in the videogame industry by the time of the PSX's Japanese launch (meaning the actual ones of the time like Electronic Arts, Acclaim and *gasp* Sony Imagesoft; and not your absurd list that includes companies that primarily released anime games in Japan before merging with bigger company a decade later) had already thrown a fair amount of support behind the Sega CD, of all things. Why do you think they wouldn't have bothered to do so with a dedicated CD console unless it was the PSX? Why do you think all of those publishers would have boycotted the Saturn to instead throw their weight behind a console that they refused to support in real life even as it was blowing the Saturn out of the water in sales?




Not only were CDs the future of the industry by 1994, but CDs were needed by the industry. Everyone knew it. Whether it was Sony or Sega that carried the mantle at that point would have been irrelevant to their adoption.

and SNES dominated hardware sales.

No it didn't. The two systems were pretty well paced with each other until Sega started imploding on itself following the release of the 32X.


Get a clue.

 

[Scaff]

The problem being, of course, that anyone who was actually around when these consoles were on sale (especially if they only had an N64) would know full well that third parties did literally exactly that even as both consoles walked away from the Saturn on the market and even as Sega was actively sabotaging the system's library outside of Japan. The Saturn had nearly three times as many games released than the N64 despite selling less than a third as many consoles. The Saturn very frequently had the same games (worse versions, usually, but still existing) as the Playstation had up until Sega gave up on it completely in early 1998. The N64 in comparison alienated almost every publisher in the industry immediately to the extent that there were literal months where there would be no new games being released. There were entire genres of games that the Saturn shared with the PSX that were virtually nonexistent on the N64, even while all three were on the market. The idea that the publishers would have sat around with their thumbs up their asses for two years after the Saturn launched to support the N64 instead when they didn't even do that in real life "is hilarious."


Do you simply not have any idea about anything that happened in the industry, Sony or otherwise, before the PS4 launched?


Even ignoring the fact that you couldn't even come up with a legitimate list of "the biggest pubs at the time", they all ran screaming as soon as the N64 was announced to have cartridges, since it seems you forgot the point you brought up yourself. None of them were ever going to support the Nintendo 64 as much as any competing console that used CDs. Whether it was the PSX or the Saturn would not have mattered, just like it didn't actually matter in how the industry actually played out.
Publishers on PC had already been rapidly moving to CDs even by the time the 3DO was out and were looking to expand into the console market that they had largely been shut out of as soon as multiple floppy disks became the norm. For that matter, many of the big third parties in the videogame industry by the time of the PSX's Japanese launch (meaning the actual ones of the time like Electronic Arts, Acclaim and *gasp* Sony Imagesoft; and not your absurd list that includes companies that primarily released anime games in Japan before merging with bigger company a decade later) had already thrown a fair amount of support behind the Sega CD, of all things. Why do you think they wouldn't have bothered to do so with a dedicated CD console unless it was the PSX? Why do you think all of those publishers would have boycotted the Saturn to instead throw their weight behind a console that they refused to support in real life even as it was blowing the Saturn out of the water in sales?




Not only were CDs the future of the industry by 1994, but CDs were needed by the industry. Everyone knew it. Whether it was Sony or Sega that carried the mantle at that point would have been irrelevant to their adoption.


No it didn't. The two systems were pretty well paced with each other until Sega started imploding on itself following the release of the 32X.


Get a clue.

I've just had a look at the numbers and on the N64 370 3rd party titles were developed - 61.6 a year, while on the Saturn it was 996 3rd party titles - 249 a year.

Looking at Acclaim and EA (who as you rightly say were the big guns of this era for 3rd party dev and publishing) in both cases they released more titles on the Saturn than they did on the N64, despite the Saturn being on the market for four years in comparison to the N64's 6 year run. Looking at it on a per annum basis, Acclaim was 9.5pa for the Saturn vs. 5.8pa for the N64 and EA was 7pa on the Saturn and 4.2pa on the N64. Once again showing the Saturn to be the favored platform of the two

As you rightly say 3rd party devs released more title on the Saturn in four years than they did on the N64 in six years by a factor of 3.

Just as yourself I clearly remember this generation and one of the reasons I never went near an N64 (despite enjoying games on it around friends houses) was the utter dearth of titles both 1st and 3rd party.

 

[baldgye]

Revenue or Profit?

I'm gona say profit, because they sure as **** aren't spending that income on servers

 

[Novalee]

This remark from phil harrison on a google blog leads me to think they already have deals set up with game devs .





Stadia makes many of those games playable with the press of a button.

https://www.blog.google/products/stadia/stadia-a-new-way-to-play/


That is potential of around 200 million viewers daily who watch game related videos on youtube who with the click of a mouse will be playing any number of games they might be interested in.


In a month that is 200 million times 30 which is what ?60 billion?


In a world where there are more than 200 million people watching game-related content daily on YouTube

 

[baldgye]

This remark from phil harrison on a google blog leads me to think they already have deals set up with game devs .





Stadia makes many of those games playable with the press of a button.

https://www.blog.google/products/stadia/stadia-a-new-way-to-play/


That is potential of around 200 million viewers daily who watch game related videos on youtube who with the click of a mouse will be playing any number of games they might be interested in.


In a month that is 200 million times 30 which is what ?60 billion?


In a world where there are more than 200 million people watching game-related content daily on YouTube

I think the issue is going to be titles and getting the big publishers on board. How many (for example) of those games are Nintendo properties?

Do people who watch 'lets plays' really want to actually play those games rather than watch people they like playing them?

 

[Novalee]

Do people who watch 'lets plays' really want to actually play those games rather than watch people they like playing them?

That is a good question that can not be answered yet . The potential is there though to hit big numbers .


Speaking for myself if they solve the lag , ps4 will be my last console .

 

[baldgye]

That is a good question that can not be answered yet . The potential is there though to hit big numbers .


Speaking for myself if they solve the lag , ps4 will be my last console .

I can see the appeal, but given how horrifically Google has managed YouTube and how bombarded Steam is with crap... I can see this being more of Steam on Demand, rather than a console on demand (if that makes sense?).

 

[Scaff]

I can see the appeal, but given how horrifically Google has managed YouTube and how bombarded Steam is with crap... I can see this being more of Steam on Demand, rather than a console on demand (if that makes sense?).

A fate that has occurred on just about every console in the last few generations as well.

The PS2, PS3 and now PS4 libraries also have huge amount of utter crap on them as well.

For me the question is how well it will handle sim racing kit, if it does it well enough and gets the sim racing titles on board its a no brainer for me (my 350mb connection does help with that as well).

 

[Novalee]

• Investors are reacting to Google's announcement overnight that it would push into the $135B gaming industry with a cloud-based offering, bypassing the need for traditional hardware.
• Shares in Japanese console makers dropped, with Nintendo (OTCPK:NTDOY) falling 3.2% and Sony (NYSE:SNE) sinking 3.4% in Tokyo.
• Google CEO Sundar Pichai said "Stadia" will be launched this year in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and "most of Europe."

https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/SNE/analysis-and-news

 

[PzR Slim]

• Investors are reacting to Google's announcement overnight that it would push into the $135B gaming industry with a cloud-based offering, bypassing the need for traditional hardware.
• Shares in Japanese console makers dropped, with Nintendo (OTCPK:NTDOY) falling 3.2% and Sony (NYSE:SNE) sinking 3.4% in Tokyo.
• Google CEO Sundar Pichai said "Stadia" will be launched this year in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and "most of Europe."

https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/SNE/analysis-and-news

Does someone want to send a link to this thread to the stock markets to calm their fears....

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I find it a bit strange that people think this is the future of gaming. "Cloud" game streaming is just a more expensive way to game long term and will always deliver a much more inferior gaming performance. I just see it as more of a companion gaming thing if you are desperate to try out / play a game and it is your only way you can.

I think this might help more people become gamers, biggest loser in all this seem to be Google though. They seem to have managed to top the Mad Box for madness entering the market the way they are doing. Investing heavily in last generation tech at probably high costs and also having to probably offer developers incentives to port old games to Linux seems quite odd thing to do so late in this generation. It will be interesting to see their pricing strategy, even if they do two year minimum contract at $50 a month they might still be taking a financial hit. A lot of gamers tend to be price conscious and given how competitive priced everything in gaming is, even if they price it at quarter of how much it costs them to provide the service, they might be considered still too expensive and struggle to have any real uptake. They could have instead used the potentially wasted billions on being competitive in the console market instead like Mad Box but with the resources to compete.

I just struggle to see gamers being enticed by this as their main gaming platform. Rise of competitive gaming and the kind of games that are largely popular would be avoided on such a platform IMO. Also given the rise of ever more powerful and efficient hardware, you could have budget gaming tablet with local processing 1080p gaming for a fraction of the price in the next year or two. Mobile games are really popular nowadays so I think people would game on one that runs on their phone directly or get something like a Switch.

Even on Google fibre connection, it seems a bad experience so it is unlikely to be a great on the go experience. I don't see why gamers will pay potentially more to shun Microsoft or Sony or lower latency PC gaming alternatives all which have vast game libraries and userbase. Also availability of gaming might be a big issue as not many places have super fast connections with unlimited data usage and also imagine if they give out free demo runs and on a big release, all servers are full nearby...

The people who have a super fast internet connection and have the money to pay a lot for a service would I think logically get a next-generation gaming platform like a PS5 instead or expensive gaming laptop to take with them or play on their phone or do something else instead.

Without knowing too many details I would think both MS and Google would have quite a head start in terms of network and server infrastructure compared to Sony.

So Sony with biggest cloud gaming network, big brand identity and users, large library of games and cloud gaming patents are on the back-foot against Google who are just starting to release a current gen cloud gaming platform with a small number of old games on eve of next-gen launches and Microsoft who are just implementing what Sony did ages ago?

This looks like it will end up being quite expensive for Google but then again they are not exactly short of money. Apple shows again they are good at making money with Arcade.

Lastly we have the issue of bandwidth and streaming, it being a poor way to access content was the argument used by a very large global company when Netflix turned up. Now when was the last time you saw a Blockbuster? Compare that to how much music, TV and film is accessed across Sony TV, Apple TV, Hula, Netflix, BBC iPlayer, Amazon Prime, etc, etc. That was once an impossible distribution route, only a few years later its now the norm.

One thing that the last example also shows (and this also has parallels to Sony's first PlayStation) is that the company that invests entirely in the new medium for distribution and has the money to weather to initial challenges, will often end up in a dominant position.

Gaming is very different to music, TV and film as it is latency sensitive hence why such things as game modes on TV. Google's cloud gaming doesn't seem to offer any advantage over PS Now for latency and they don't offer a local console so no way to enjoy VR or steering wheels or low latency competitive gaming.

Sony being leaders in cloud gaming, I think will be interesting to see how long it will be before they offer PS5 on PS Now. I wonder if they will wait for 5nm or even 3nm so they can bring it to gamers at lower cost or go in straightaway at lower levels. If they could emulate PS3 games on PS5, they could get rid of PS3 and PS4 servers in the future too.

 

[Scaff]

Gaming is very different to music, TV and film as it is latency sensitive hence why such things as game modes on TV.

Which is to miss the point entirely, music, TV and film are all mediums that it was claimed would also not work on a streaming service yet that is now the default option for the majority. All faced challenges as to why it would not work and all overcame them.

Google's cloud gaming doesn't seem to offer any advantage over PS Now for latency

Then you clearly haven't been paying attention, as it certainly does and independent testing backs that up even in the trial versions, with it being able to match a physical.

Do you also really believe that Sony has an equal number of server farms and locations available to it, or anything close to the economy of scale in that regard that Google has?

and they don't offer a local console so no way to enjoy VR or steering wheels or low latency competitive gaming.

The last one see above, for the first two you are talking about rather small audiences and we also don't know if it's not possible yet.

Sony being leaders in cloud gaming, I think will be interesting to see how long it will be before they offer PS5 on PS Now. I wonder if they will wait for 5nm or even 3nm so they can bring it to gamers at lower cost or go in straightaway at lower levels. If they could emulate PS3 games on PS5, they could get rid of PS3 and PS4 servers in the future too.

Sony has never really supported PS Now in any meaningful way, and have never given it or the tech behind it the push or investment it needed.

As for emulation of PS3 titles on PS5, unlikely to happen at all, for the exact same reason wy it never happened on the PS4.

 

[Novalee]

If they can solve the latency why would i continue to pay 80 dollars a game when i can pay 80 a year possibly ? I have 100 games on ps4 which equals 80 times 100. 8 grand
Plus the amount of people that could use google stadia will be more than xbox and playstation combined .

This is a possible situation , i start a game at home on my laptop , go to my daughters to babysit for her ,continue game on my phone or her tab , then after go to my moms and play same game off her tv
All seemless , plus invite any my gaming buddys to play instantly in same game


Heres a hint at dev plans

https://wccftech.com/google-stadia-vp-phenomenal-support-devs/


Heres a taste of the possibility of google buying devs and publishers . Wouldnt it be cool if google bought sony ?
https://wccftech.com/analyst-google-stadia-need-exclusives-studio-acquisitions/

 

[Silver Arrows]

If they can solve the latency why would i continue to pay 80 dollars a game when i can pay 80 a year possibly ? I have 100 games on ps4 which equals 80 times 100. 8 grand

If. Otherwise, like PS Now, it's simply just a paper weight that isn't worth the cost of admission, especially for those with anything but a stable connection.

 

[sesselpupser]

This is quite an interesting read. As invested as I am in Google's platforms and the amount of privacy I've given up in exchange for the convenience, I think opening up the entire gaming part of me (which is a substantial part of who I am) to their analysis is where I think I'll draw the line.

Then again maybe they'd be the first people to finally recognise me for the genius that I am by watching me play Kerbal Space Program, so I guess it's six of one and half a dozen of the other?

 

[PocketZeven]

Another thing I like about buying my games is the risk of microtransactions in games flooding the market. I am not sure how streaming is going to influence indiedevelopment, Triple AAA and especially mircotransactions.

 

[ImaRobot]

Another thing I like about buying my games is the risk of microtransactions in games flooding the market. I am not sure how streaming is going to influence indiedevelopment, Triple AAA and especially mircotransactions.

What exactly would be making it any different than how things are with hard copy/digitally downloaded games right now?

 

[PocketZeven]

What exactly would be making it any different than how things are with hard copy/digitally downloaded games right now?

You are not paying for individual games anymore, but a monthly fee for service. For developers this model might increase or reduce revenue. To the customers there wont be a price difference between Triple AAA, free to play and indie games.

 

[ImaRobot]

You are not paying for individual games anymore, but a monthly fee for service.

So my next question is how has the Xbox Game Pass and PS Now changed anything in that regard?

 

[TJ13]

So my next question is how has the Xbox Game Pass and PS Now changed anything in that regard?

It doesn't
Basically this "console" is called Google Game Now.
So monthly/yearly subscription to play games on a console that isn't a console.

 

[ImaRobot]

It doesn't
Basically this "console" is called Google Game Now.
So monthly/yearly subscription to play games on a console that isn't a console.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic of microtransactions.

 

[TJ13]

I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic of microtransactions.

You pay for services to get games.
That's what Google is doing.
They want more money.

Then you use google "Drive" to save those games and then you find out you need to buy their services more to keep playing. (From the "so called" latest rumor before Google I/O happening)

That it's just like Game Pass/PS Now, but with an added service that you need to have "saves" in the "cloud" and that will eat up your "free" space.
Making it more likely to wanting to buy "space"

 

[ImaRobot]

You pay for services to get games.
That's what Google is doing.
They want more money.

Then you use google "Drive" to save those games and then you find out you need to buy their services more to keep playing.

So nothing? It has nothing to do with the development of games possibly leading towards microtransactions, which the discussion was about?

 

[TJ13]

So nothing? It has nothing to do with the development of games possibly leading towards microtransactions, which the discussion was about?

It's basically like the "Epic" store.
Google gives them a cut in profit from the sales of "Stadia"
What % that is, is unknown.

"Harrison says Google will provide more details of Stadia's business plan "in the summer," talking "about how gamers will be able to buy and get access to games" at the same time "we talk about the games themselves" that will be available on the platform."

So it's basically Netflix meets Gamestop.

 

[ImaRobot]

It's basically like the "Epic" store.
Google gives them a cut in profit from the sales of "Stadia"
What % that is, is unknown.

"Harrison says Google will provide more details of Stadia's business plan "in the summer," talking "about how gamers will be able to buy and get access to games" at the same time "we talk about the games themselves" that will be available on the platform."

So it's basically Netflix meets Gamestop.

I'm not asking how streaming services go about that. No one was. The discussion was about the fact that because you're paying for a monthly/yearly subscription for a multitude of games, @PocketZeven feels that the income generated from that wouldn't be as great as the old method of selling individual hardcopies/digital downloads. In turn, making him wonder if there's going to be a push towards microtransactions in future development to bridge that gap, if there is one.

It was not about how Google and the developers generate income.

 

[TJ13]

I'm not asking how streaming services go about that. No one was. The discussion was about the fact that because you're paying for a monthly/yearly subscription for a multitude of games, @PocketZeven feels that the income generated from that wouldn't be as great as the old method of selling individual hardcopies/digital downloads. In turn, making him wonder if there's going to be a push towards microtransactions in future development to bridge that gap, if there is one.

It was not about how Google and the developers generate income.

Again, What I said that gives access to the games and the games themselves on the platform.
Meaning you pay for the "Services" to play the actual game (Like PS+/Gold) and then you have to buy the game itself.
So it's like you pay "Google" for their "Services" and then you buy the game.

It's what I clipped is basically that.

Edit:
At the time, the Stadia partner said customers will be able to “buy full price and you play; or you will be able to also register, possibly, to play either one hour or two hours a day.”

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not asking how streaming services go about that. No one was. The discussion was about the fact that because you're paying for a monthly/yearly subscription for a multitude of games, @PocketZeven feels that the income generated from that wouldn't be as great as the old method of selling individual hardcopies/digital downloads. In turn, making him wonder if there's going to be a push towards microtransactions in future development to bridge that gap, if there is one.

It was not about how Google and the developers generate income.

Worded perfectly. Thanks!

Again, What I said that gives access to the games and the games themselves on the platform.
Meaning you pay for the "Services" to play the actual game (Like PS+/Gold) and then you have to buy the game itself.
So it's like you pay "Google" for their "Services" and then you buy the game.

It's what I clipped is basically that.

Edit:
At the time, the Stadia partner said customers will be able to “buy full price and you play; or you will be able to also register, possibly, to play either one hour or two hours a day.”

Do you have a source? I presumed it would be a subscription based model similar to Netflix. In the end it will probably end up being paying maybe € 50 a month and acces to maybe 1000+ games vs actually buying a game every month you own and spend 10+ hours minimum on. I have this feeling this model will force developers to make more short attention spanned games (similar to mobile games) then RPG or storydriven games. I dont see people paying for such a service only playing 1-3 games at a time.

 

[TJ13]

Do you have a source? I presumed it would be a subscription based model similar to Netflix. In the end it will probably end up being paying maybe € 50 a month and acces to maybe 1000+ games vs actually buying a game every month you own and spend 10+ hours minimum on. I have this feeling this model will force developers to make more short attention spanned games (similar to mobile games) then RPG or storydriven games. I dont see people paying for such a service only playing 1-3 games at a time.

https://www.inverse.com/article/54194-google-stadia-price-launch-date-features-games-hints

A monthly subscription might be ideal for avid gamers that have time to play multiple times a week. But Ubisoft’s Guillemot suggested that Stadia will take both video game fanatics and more casual gamers into consideration with its pricing.

“I think we will have a multitude of ways,” Guillemot told GameSpot in March. “Either you buy full price and you play; or you will be able to also register, possibly, to play either one hour or two hours a day. There will be plenty of ways.”

The final price might also be impacted by the cost of the Stadia’s controller that is currently awaiting approval by the Federal Communications Commission to begin selling the controller in the US, according to a company blog post. The piece of hardware will be crucial fro playing multiplayer games and could make the total cost of the service slightly more expensive.

From above it would be like a "Gamestop" plan where you buy the game and play.
Then a "Netflix" version where you buy an subscription at a lesser amount but then will be soft locked per day?

A "YouTuber" has mentioned that the service could be "free" but have to buy the game and the "controller" which one said to possibly increase price to "offset" that "service"

But while nothing is fully set yet as Google I/O happens on Tuesday should know more.

 

[Novalee]

https://mspoweruser.com/google-stadia-price-and-launch-information-coming-soon/

Earlier today, the official Google Stadia Twitter account confirmed that the service’s price, game announcements, and launch information will be coming this summer.