The point of what I said is that MS did give billions away in hopes of probable future returns in investments. AT no point am I saying the future cant be all digital, or even streaming, which I would hate. WHat Im saying is that no company will give a product for almost free and take a huge loss just to increase the intallbase. That is just crazy. Investors would not allow that.

Yeh but sometimes a company has to offer huge incentives initially for capturing a market, even if it will be at loss initially.  Happens quite a bit with start up initiatives and business adventures. Google may be in a position to incur such losses if it fits in with their overall online strategies.

Yeah you really can't criticize internet issues before people stampede in telling me to "appreciate what I have" and to appreciate cause fuckin africans or something don't got internet. You shouldn't pay that much for your Netflix assume (which I assume is reasonable).

At this point we really shouldn't see such ridiculous limitations from internet companies in developed countries. Unless someone is streaming 8k hentai while uploading fifteen youtube videos 24/7, we shouldn't see data caps for the average person. 

Since it's made by Google, it's definitely going to fail. But I think it's a matter of time until a small company come up with a sucessful streaming service.

Google threw its hat into the pig pen and not the console ring. If it can't play physical copies of console games, gamers will treat it like it's covered in pig droppings.

Yeah, I agree on that. And although Google is a software company, gaming is kind of a different beast. Microsoft as a software company also struggled to get own content created, they bought studios to achieve that.

Not everyone pays for a service on ps4/xb1, alot of them dont actually. Id be surrpised if even 1/3rd do, I think its less than that.
I also think the vast majoiry of people that buy games, dont just resell them after beating them.

So basically point 1) and 2) are moot.

Also the price of a streaming video game service is :
lag (if your net isnt fast, if someone in your house is downloading, if servers are stressed ect ect) (vs physical = it just works)
+ input delay(when you push button to action happends ingame)
+ tons of bandwitch used (which is pricy if you pay for usage)
+ compression quality (you wont get same picture quality as with physical hardware).

its "alot" of negatives to put up with, just to not have physical hardware able to do gameing.
Why? the hardware costs are put on the service perviders, but its still there. Maybe its slighly less than avg it out and makeing consumers pay for it, but these services will find other ways to recoupe that, so I doubt in the long run it ll be any cheaper for a consumer.

There are really no upsides to streaming video games as a service.
apart from the first time investment, but that ll be nickle and dimed back by the pervider over time.

I think its a sad future.

well I'm just saying that it hasn't been 16 years since someone entered the console industry, Ouya tried and a lot of people (idiots) thought they had something with a horrific underpowered mobile phone with no screen and a controller which looked like it was from poundland.

Always know a company is on the way to success when they insult their primary audience, I mean, has that strategy ever failed?

Rendering the game on a server and sending it over the internet? Pass. Big fat pass.
Latency and all that. Latency from me to Googles' local servers are a good 40-60ms, I just don't see that as being a good time.

But if they stream the data for it to be rendered locally in real time? I'm keen. Provided there is an option to download the complete dataset for offline playing.
But that also tends to mean a greater initial hardware investment by the consumer, unless you have Ouya type ARM hardware, but then image quality will be shit.

aye, I mean that's the same as playing a game constantly around the 55fps mark which should be rendered at 60fps, I mean it doesn't sound like a lot but for a 60fps game you need a frame ever 16/17ms so with ever a minimal amount of lag you are hitting 3-5frames between when it was rendered and when you see it not to mention that it is a 2 way thing, so 6-10 frames between you inputting a command and it having a visible impact in the game? No thanks for now until technology comes a long way further it will be very hard for cloud gaming to really come close to what is offered from a powerful GPU at home.