Video Gaming Industry

[Castanza]

Discuss the video game industry as a whole. Consumer/company trends.

 

 

Free to play.....meaning loot boxes and other in-game purchases.....further meaning consumers will hate it. Hopefully they think of a solution to this as $EA has been ripped to shreds over this. Not to mention the lawsuits they are incurring. LOTRO already exists and has a good following. Shadow of Middle Earth failed massively this past year. The Lord of the Rings series has been covered extensively across all gaming platforms. I wonder why they still think there is a market for this specific game? Player base seems highly fractured.

 

Gaming in general is an industry I'm staying out of. Seems highly fractured and consumers are constantly disappointing with AAA releases. Reminds me a bit of 1983 video game crisis where everyone is putting out the next best game. You know there are issues when game makers are struggling to develop new themes and are instead preying on a now slightly older generations nostalgia from the early to mid 2000's for some quick sales. Until there is something truly new in the market I'll park my money elsewhere. But it's Amazon so who knows!

 

Castanza

 

Lots of stuff you got wrong in this reply...

 

Free to play means consumers will hate it? 4 of the top 5 MOST PLAYED games in the US are free-to-play. In fact, only 3 of the top 10 are paid games at all. I see the statement all over this forum that F2P means loot boxes. It doesn't. League of Legends, Fortnite, CS GO, Dota 2 - all F2P and all monetized via cosmetic purchases, not loot boxes. And gamers love that stuff.

 

Gaming industry seems highly fractured? Over the past ten years it's becoming increasingly consolidated, and likely will continue to consolidate as the gravity of the large publishers sucks in smaller publishers and dev teams. The top 10 publishers have almost 50% of the market share and that number is only increasing.

 

Consumers are constantly disappointed with AAA releases? Red Dead Redemption 2 sold 24 million copies in like 6 months. God of War sold 10 million copies last year. There are some extremely highly anticipated games, some with new IP, coming in the next year or two (Cyberpunk, Death Stranding, Last of Us 2, etc).

 

Frankly, sounds like you're just shooting from the hip on this response and haven't really done any work in the space.

 

Fallout 76

Anthem

The Division 2

Apex (dwindling)

Watchdogs

Starwars Battlefront 2

Destiny 2

Diablo Immortal

Battlefield V

Sea of Thieves

Far Cry: New Dawn

Assasins Creed whatever its called

 

 

These games were also highly anticipated. EA has been developing Anthem since 2013 and it was pretty much dead in the water a month after release. EA earnings have been flat for 4 years. You named one or two successful games. You're also completely negating the relationship aspect between companies and consumers and dev teams. How many CEO's of gaming companies have we seen come out in opposition to their consumers the past two years? How many have we seen come out and admit their games were flops etc. How many issues have we seen between internal dev teams (acquired from elsewhere) and the company heads?

 

Consumers are sick of the cash over quality mindset of the publishers. Releasing games before they are finished and then charging for DLC content that should have been included in the first place. Go On Twitch, YT, Reddit and all you will hear and see is negative sentiment (a bit anecdotal but still important). These platforms are quite important for advertising and generating interest. Yes there are successful games out there. Overwatch, LoL, Dota, etc. But I think you're missing the overall sentiment of the industry (and that's what I'm focusing on). Red Dead 2 launch was great and they sold 24 million copies but how did the stock do? It dropped like 11% on good news. Publishers seem like they are resting on hype of the old standby title names (FIFA is 40% rev for EA 2016). COD sales were pretty good and broke the downward trend we have been seeing since 2011. But that's most likely due to the battle royal approach (how long will that last?). If video game companies are doing so good why are they listing AAA games 50% off months after release? Franchise fatigue is real.

 

Look at the stocks of these companies. They have been in free fall for awhile now. The question is are you comfortable buying at this level? I'm not.

 

"Free to play.....meaning loot boxes and other in-game purchases"

[glorysk87]

You seem to be unable to distinguish between the gaming industry (which has never been better) and the equity prices (which are obviously doing poorly). Just because the stock prices are down doesn't mean the gaming industry is dying, as you heavily allude to.

 

With that fundamental bias, there's no point in continuing this conversation further.

[Foreign Tuffett]

You seem to be unable to distinguish between the gaming industry (which has never been better) and the equity prices (which are obviously doing poorly). Just because the stock prices are down doesn't mean the gaming industry is dying, as you heavily allude to.

 

With that fundamental bias, there's no point in continuing this conversation further.

 

Yeah, I agree with you that Castanza's post is all over the place. It conflates all sorts of different issues and games (Diablo Immortal hasn't even been released yet!) in ways that are not productive.

 

The ATVI thread has lots of clear thinking on the video game industry in general. If it were up to me (and it's not) I would confine all video game related posts exclusively to that thread.

[LC]

I would look at the e-sports area as well.

 

There was a blog post a few years back on the favorable economics of businesses which run industry conferences. I think it was in relation to Nielson or Reed Elsevier (now RELX). I forget the exact company.

 

But the jist was, organizing these trade conferences was a good business as you get paid up front by vendors and attendees, and it's a recurring item.

 

To that end, if I were to invest here I would invest in the growth of these e-sports event organizers.

 

The thing with gaming is, it's a lot like VC investing. Every year get tons of trash games but a few massive hits. It's difficult to know which will be the hits beforehand. But event organizers are getting paid after-the-fact, once these hit games have been established. Takes the speculation out of it.

[Castanza]

You seem to be unable to distinguish between the gaming industry (which has never been better) and the equity prices (which are obviously doing poorly). Just because the stock prices are down doesn't mean the gaming industry is dying, as you heavily allude to.

 

With that fundamental bias, there's no point in continuing this conversation further.

 

You're quite unnecessarily snarky when discussing game publishers on this forum.

 

Ok buddy, you're right and I'm wrong. Good talk.

 

I haven't claimed to be an authority in the gaming industry. Nor did I say the industry is dying...I said it's in a lull (sentiment and innovation wise).  I think at some point $EA, $TTWO, $ATVI become attractive. But as with most entertainment industries, consumer sentiment does play a big role. I personally don't like investing in companies whos share price is heavily influenced by consumer sentiment. Most of the gaming stocks have been trading at pie in the sky valuations. They are only now approaching proper valuations (IMO) as their share price approaches what fundamentals might indicate. The "hype" is gone and the sentiment is absolutely affecting share price.

 

 

[Castanza]

You seem to be unable to distinguish between the gaming industry (which has never been better) and the equity prices (which are obviously doing poorly). Just because the stock prices are down doesn't mean the gaming industry is dying, as you heavily allude to.

 

With that fundamental bias, there's no point in continuing this conversation further.

 

Yeah, I agree with you that Castanza's post is all over the place. It conflates all sorts of different issues and games (Diablo Immortal hasn't even been released yet!) in ways that are not productive.

 

The ATVI thread has lots of clear thinking on the video game industry in general. If it were up to me (and it's not) I would confine all video game related posts exclusively to that thread.

 

Diablo Immortal is a huge disappointment before launch. They went against their entire player base by choosing to only launch it on mobile. That was my point. I recommend watching the Q&A.

 

But if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. That's how I view the gaming industry and it's enough to keep me out of it.

[Foreign Tuffett]

You seem to be unable to distinguish between the gaming industry (which has never been better) and the equity prices (which are obviously doing poorly). Just because the stock prices are down doesn't mean the gaming industry is dying, as you heavily allude to.

 

With that fundamental bias, there's no point in continuing this conversation further.

 

Yeah, I agree with you that Castanza's post is all over the place. It conflates all sorts of different issues and games (Diablo Immortal hasn't even been released yet!) in ways that are not productive.

 

The ATVI thread has lots of clear thinking on the video game industry in general. If it were up to me (and it's not) I would confine all video game related posts exclusively to that thread.

 

Diablo Immortal is a huge disappointment before launch. They went against their entire player base by choosing to only launch it on mobile. That was my point. I recommend watching the Q&A.

 

But if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. That's how I view the gaming industry and it's enough to keep me out of it.

 

It's not that your conclusion is necessary wrong, it's that some of what you're posting doesn't make any sense.

 

In your initial post you listed games that were "highly anticipated", but proved to be disappointing on release. I could quibble with a number of these, but only mentioned one in my earlier post: Diablo Immortal.

 

Not only was Diablo Immortal not highly anticipated, Blizzard's core fan base didn't even want the game at all. They wanted a Diablo 4 announcement. Also, Diablo Immortal may prove to be a highly successful mobile game. As I mentioned before, it hasn't even launched yet. You seem to recognize most of this on some level, yet you are doubling down on your contention that it was a "highly anticipated" game that disappointed on release.

 

This will probably be my last response in this thread. I'd rather eat a bucket full of sand than continue this inane and largely pointless conversation.

[5xEBITDA]

Pricing model is changing, or at the very least the market is anticipating that. AAA titles may very well move to a point where they are structurally unprofitable and the publishers will need to start reinventing their business models.

[Patmo]

You seem to be unable to distinguish between the gaming industry (which has never been better) and the equity prices (which are obviously doing poorly). Just because the stock prices are down doesn't mean the gaming industry is dying, as you heavily allude to.

 

With that fundamental bias, there's no point in continuing this conversation further.

You're quite unnecessarily snarky when discussing game publishers on this forum.

 

He just spends his time trying to flex like a 19 year old university freshman, and comes across as a pompous autist instead of the slick videogame industry authority he's trying to position himself as. But I've heard he has 200 million Chinese followers on his twitter, that's pretty impressive.

 

 

[Patmo]

You seem to be unable to distinguish between the gaming industry (which has never been better) and the equity prices (which are obviously doing poorly). Just because the stock prices are down doesn't mean the gaming industry is dying, as you heavily allude to.

 

With that fundamental bias, there's no point in continuing this conversation further.

 

Yeah, I agree with you that Castanza's post is all over the place. It conflates all sorts of different issues and games (Diablo Immortal hasn't even been released yet!) in ways that are not productive.

 

The ATVI thread has lots of clear thinking on the video game industry in general. If it were up to me (and it's not) I would confine all video game related posts exclusively to that thread.

 

Diablo Immortal is a huge disappointment before launch. They went against their entire player base by choosing to only launch it on mobile. That was my point. I recommend watching the Q&A.

 

But if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. That's how I view the gaming industry and it's enough to keep me out of it.

 

It's not that your conclusion is necessary wrong, it's that some of what you're posting doesn't make any sense.

 

In your initial post you listed games that were "highly anticipated", but proved to be disappointing on release. I could quibble with a number of these, but only mentioned one in my earlier post: Diablo Immortal.

 

Not only was Diablo Immortal not highly anticipated, Blizzard's core fan base didn't even want the game at all. They wanted a Diablo 4 announcement. Also, Diablo Immortal may prove to be a highly successful mobile game. As I mentioned before, it hasn't even launched yet. You seem to recognize most of this on some level, yet you are doubling down on your contention that it was a "highly anticipated" game that disappointed on release.

 

This will probably be my last response in this thread. I'd rather eat a bucket full of sand than continue this inane and largely pointless conversation.

 

I think his main gripe is how massively the quality of the games is declining. The companies are doing better and better financially, yet the gaming experience is getting crappier and crappier. Everything is devolving into a masquerade for casinos purposefully designed to prey on children. This gripe is shared by virtually everyone who has been a gaming consumer since before that era.

 

It's great for short sighted investors and managers with annual bonuses, but one would not be a fool to question whether that is a sustainable practice long term. The zeitgeist has already started waking up to it a little. I think the gaming (and esports) industry still has a massive runway for growth, but when the whole casino thing eventually blows up, it's going to be a significant dink.

 

Personally, I find that even the bait product is becoming bland as hell. At the last E3, 90% of the game trailers looked like they were for the same damn game. No joke. I'm way too young to already be going "Back in my day..." about video games and esports.

 

But I don't know why I'm even rehashing this stuff that everybody already knows. My opinion is worthless to begin with, after all I've only been hopelessly addicted to, and involved with, competitive gaming for 25 years. That glory guy has done his research, he even googled how many people watched the LoL world championships (hint: as many as his twitter followers. same nationality too. Coincidence?).

 

He really knows his stuff, we should stop sharing our opinions and viewpoints on things that excite us as would normally happen on a website designed specifically for that purpose. Instead we should ingest everything we can from the Great Guru himself. I bet that Castanza guy, he never played a game in his life. He definitely didn't create this thread because he has an interest in the industry and something to say about it. I bet he purely created this thread hoping to market his name as an expert analyst in the space, like every smart guy such as glory the Great Guru does on cobf. But you see, Castanza DIDN'T EVEN GOOGLE TWITCH VIEWERSHIP NUMBERS! Let's throw him out too, we already have our resident expert on all things related to the gaming industry. Everybody SHUT UP, put glory the Great Guru on the mic. Who's he gonna diss next?

 

[Patmo]

I would look at the e-sports area as well.

 

There was a blog post a few years back on the favorable economics of businesses which run industry conferences. I think it was in relation to Nielson or Reed Elsevier (now RELX). I forget the exact company.

 

But the jist was, organizing these trade conferences was a good business as you get paid up front by vendors and attendees, and it's a recurring item.

 

To that end, if I were to invest here I would invest in the growth of these e-sports event organizers.

 

The thing with gaming is, it's a lot like VC investing. Every year get tons of trash games but a few massive hits. It's difficult to know which will be the hits beforehand. But event organizers are getting paid after-the-fact, once these hit games have been established. Takes the speculation out of it.

 

I'll lay off the sarcasm pipe here and add a bit of empirical/anecdoctal evidence (although I know that is useless and uninteresting, just ask the Great Guru about his research for real, tangible knowledge).

 

Angel Munoz did so well organizing the CPL (a biannual tournament) years ago that he had to hide where he lived, in fear of community backlash at how nice his (main) residence was compared to the tournament purses. Organizing 2 tournaments a year in some basement was his full time occupation at the time. There was a minor scandal around it when people found out. That was long ago though, other parties may have sharpened up and driven margins down.

 

Plenty of events go bust though. I wouldn't be surprised that it's one of those things that do really well or really poorly. Certainly no one I've ever talked to who organized tourneys has ever expressed regret, even 15-man doritofests crammed in a single office down in Podunk town, right by Nowhere City.

 

Anywhoo.

 

[Smile]

Longtime lurker here to tell you I gained almost no useful information but a lot of laughs from this thread. Stop pulling each other’s ties lads! The hall monitor is coming! He’ll grab you by your lapels, shake you round and hang you up on a coatrack!

 

So.. which companies are the reliable moneymakers in this industry? I don’t know enough to have an opinion.

[Jurgis]

writser wanted a riot on CoBF.

 

HE GOT IT!

 

Stop pulling the punches guys. Get your BFGs, grenade launchers, fireballs and nuke each other into smithereens. Preferably live on Twitch. With smack talking.

 

We want to see your rigs! We want to watch your skillz!

 

We'll pay some good (in-game) money for that!

 

Let's Ruuumble! #letsRUMBL

[Spekulatius]

I am not an expert of gaming, but it seem to me that the industry has a lot of tailwinds. The move to digital distribution and having the game essentially in the cloud saves costs, makes them more platform independent and probably over the long haul cheaper to develop. It also increases the game longevity by keeping users engaged with small updates etc. The ubiquity of smartphones allows for more gaming time. EA for example looks like a decent value. They have the FIFA franchise, which has been a money maker forever and probably will continue to be.

 

I am also curious how GOOG stadia platform works out. This could become a nice subscription based business and also be beneficial to game producers.

[cameronfen]

Just spitballing, but I wonder if what Netflix and the like is currently doing to media especially in the area of lowering ARPUs, Stadia and other subscription cloud gaming services will do to these big title video game titles.  I have been somewhat negative on video game companies for some time (and wrong although not short), I don't see why something like Stadia doesn't become the default way to play video games and how big titles escape being goods on a platform.  As far as Netflix goes, it was the content companies that lost out allowing Netflix to do what they did, and even when they entered in the SVOD players, the ARPU that business generates is significantly less (although for many TV companies they have the benefit of globally exporting the content with SVOD, something that video game makers already do).  Games with monthly subscriptions like MMOs probably escape this as you can't access with another platform (but how many games other than WoW is that?), as do freemium model games.  However big titles like Starcraft or COD don't.  I think this takes 5+ years to happen at least, but you look at all the media companies and they trading at 5x FCF because of SVOD.  I don't plan on being long or short so I don't really care investment-wise, but the thought occurred to me so I thought I'd bring it up. 

[Castanza]

Just spitballing, but I wonder if what Netflix and the like is currently doing to media especially in the area of lowering ARPUs, Stadia and other subscription cloud gaming services will do to these big title video game titles.  I have been somewhat negative on video game companies for some time (and wrong although not short), I don't see why something like Stadia doesn't become the default way to play video games and how big titles escape being goods on a platform.  As far as Netflix goes, it was the content companies that lost out allowing Netflix to do what they did, and even when they entered in the SVOD players, the ARPU that business generates is significantly less (although for many TV companies they have the benefit of globally exporting the content with SVOD, something that video game makers already do).  Games with monthly subscriptions like MMOs probably escape this as you can't access with another platform (but how many games other than WoW is that?), as do freemium model games.  However big titles like Starcraft or COD don't.  I think this takes 5+ years to happen at least, but you look at all the media companies and they trading at 5x FCF because of SVOD.  I don't plan on being long or short so I don't really care investment-wise, but the thought occurred to me so I thought I'd bring it up.

 

Input latency is a big issue that has not been solved yet. Anything over 60ms basically renders any competitive game useless. Not saying they wont figure it out, but you're going to have a hard time getting people to switch from physical local hardware allowing them to play games in 4k to a cloud based system when you're hearing things like "Stadia works better on a smaller screen."

 

edit: This is especially important to streamers. In competitive gaming you have to have basically zero latency to be "good." Well being good affects your social status. Ninja would not be Ninja if he was playing it on Stadia (not actually available on Stadia).

[kab60]

Keyworks Studios is a decent way to bet on gaming. Works for all major studios, outsourcing provider. Sells shovels instead of digging for gold. Great numbers, high valuation, other might copy their playbook.

[cameronfen]

Just spitballing, but I wonder if what Netflix and the like is currently doing to media especially in the area of lowering ARPUs, Stadia and other subscription cloud gaming services will do to these big title video game titles.  I have been somewhat negative on video game companies for some time (and wrong although not short), I don't see why something like Stadia doesn't become the default way to play video games and how big titles escape being goods on a platform.  As far as Netflix goes, it was the content companies that lost out allowing Netflix to do what they did, and even when they entered in the SVOD players, the ARPU that business generates is significantly less (although for many TV companies they have the benefit of globally exporting the content with SVOD, something that video game makers already do).  Games with monthly subscriptions like MMOs probably escape this as you can't access with another platform (but how many games other than WoW is that?), as do freemium model games.  However big titles like Starcraft or COD don't.  I think this takes 5+ years to happen at least, but you look at all the media companies and they trading at 5x FCF because of SVOD.  I don't plan on being long or short so I don't really care investment-wise, but the thought occurred to me so I thought I'd bring it up.

 

Input latency is a big issue that has not been solved yet. Anything over 60ms basically renders any competitive game useless. Not saying they wont figure it out, but you're going to have a hard time getting people to switch from physical local hardware allowing them to play games in 4k to a cloud based system when you're hearing things like "Stadia works better on a smaller screen."

 

edit: This is especially important to streamers. In competitive gaming you have to have basically zero latency to be "good." Well being good affects your social status. Ninja would not be Ninja if he was playing it on Stadia (not actually available on Stadia).

 

Thanks ya that’s something I didn’t know. 

[RVP]

Matt Ball, a media exec/ analyst offers some good (at least as far as I can tell) perspectives on the video game industry.

 

Regarding cloud gaming and distribution:

https://redef.com/original/how-cloud-gaming-will-and-wont-disrupt

 

He argues that cloud gaming is less about frictionless/ low-cost distribution than opening up the market to "spectator-participants".

 

Regarding gaming production:

https://www.matthewball.vc/all/videogameblindspot?curator=MediaREDEF

 

He makes the case that traditional studios (TV, movies) may want to get into the game of video game publication directly in order to capture more upside in a larger and growing market. 

[cameronfen]

Matt Ball, a media exec/ analyst offers some good (at least as far as I can tell) perspectives on the video game industry.

 

Regarding cloud gaming and distribution:

https://redef.com/original/how-cloud-gaming-will-and-wont-disrupt

 

He argues that cloud gaming is less about frictionless/ low-cost distribution than opening up the market to "spectator-participants".

 

Regarding gaming production:

https://www.matthewball.vc/all/videogameblindspot?curator=MediaREDEF

 

He makes the case that traditional studios (TV, movies) may want to get into the game of video game publication directly in order to capture more upside in a larger and growing market.

 

I saw the second one on his blog, but not the first.  Thanks.  Reading the first article intrigued me because he sees so much potential in cloud based gaming, but he doesn’t discuss any of the threat’s even if to just debunk them.  He does make a good case that video gaming hasn’t saturated the market.  But thinking about the downside, after you include hardware costs I think it’s easy to make an argument that margins will likely be lower at 20 a month, versus your own computer and 60 dollars a game for people that play enough to sign up for stadia etc.  On AWS, a single GPUs costs 75 to 90 cents an hour.  Not hard to see most gamers playing 20 to 30 hours a month with Stadia, which doesn’t leave any margin even for the content producers.  But as Castanza pointed out the latency issue is also still a problem. Regardless it was interesting analysis as to be expected from Ball.  Thanks for posting this! 

[Jurgis]

I don't see what Stadia brings to the business side of things that Steam has not done ages ago.

 

Stadia is completely different technical solution, but business-side wise, it's not there there.

[cameronfen]

I don't see what Stadia brings to the business side of things that Steam has not done ages ago.

 

Stadia is completely different technical solution, but business-side wise, it's not there there.

 

AFAIK, the cloud gaming is not only about computing, but is also has a different revenue model.  You pay $20 a month for example and can play any game on their servers. 

[Jurgis]

I don't see what Stadia brings to the business side of things that Steam has not done ages ago.

 

Stadia is completely different technical solution, but business-side wise, it's not there there.

 

AFAIK, the cloud gaming is not only about computing, but is also has a different revenue model.  You pay $20 a month for example and can play any game on their servers.

 

This revenue model has been around for ages.

Stadia Pro does not allow to play "any game on their servers". It allows you to play a selection of games.

Xbox Games With Gold, Xbox Game Pass, Playstation Now, EA Access all offer the same. With differing selection of games of course.

[cameronfen]

I don't see what Stadia brings to the business side of things that Steam has not done ages ago.

 

Stadia is completely different technical solution, but business-side wise, it's not there there.

 

AFAIK, the cloud gaming is not only about computing, but is also has a different revenue model.  You pay $20 a month for example and can play any game on their servers.

 

This revenue model has been around for ages.

Stadia Pro does not allow to play "any game on their servers". It allows you to play a selection of games.

Xbox Games With Gold, Xbox Game Pass, Playstation Now, EA Access all offer the same. With differing selection of games of course.

 

I’ve never used Stadia or any of these, but I assumed any game they have a license for you can play.  Can you also install games you own on the cloud? It would make sense.  Idk maybe this won’t take off I’m mainly thinking out loud on this thread, but at some point if these becomes the dominant way to play video games, it seems to me to be a way to eat into margins.  I don’t think stadia stealing share is my main issue as I assume all the video game makers see what Netflix is doing to traditional media companies, but being forced to adopt this buffet style subscription model, would be problematic. 

[wachtwoord]

I don't see what Stadia brings to the business side of things that Steam has not done ages ago.

 

Stadia is completely different technical solution, but business-side wise, it's not there there.

 

AFAIK, the cloud gaming is not only about computing, but is also has a different revenue model.  You pay $20 a month for example and can play any game on their servers.

 

This revenue model has been around for ages.

Stadia Pro does not allow to play "any game on their servers". It allows you to play a selection of games.

Xbox Games With Gold, Xbox Game Pass, Playstation Now, EA Access all offer the same. With differing selection of games of course.

 

I’ve never used Stadia or any of these, but I assumed any game they have a license for you can play.  Can you also install games you own on the cloud? It would make sense.  Idk maybe this won’t take off I’m mainly thinking out loud on this thread, but at some point if these becomes the dominant way to play video games, it seems to me to be a way to eat into margins.  I don’t think stadia stealing share is my main issue as I assume all the video game makers see what Netflix is doing to traditional media companies, but being forced to adopt this buffet style subscription model, would be problematic.

 

Stadia forces you to buy games at retail on top of the $20 monthly fee to be able to play games. They have announced a free model (so no $20 a month, but you still need to buy games at retail) at the cost of degraded performance.

 

There's a Stadia competitor (forgot the name) with only a monthly fee but their game selection is small and appearently they are technically inferior (I watched a review a month or so ago, the above is the opinion of the reviewer).

 

Until this all goes to a Netflix model (can that be done profitably?) I don't see Stadia and competitors taking huge market share (and of course latency problems must be solved or at least improved upon).