I totally agree that the technology is impressive. Everything you are saying about the technology is 100% correct. I also want to add that online multiplayer games are going to perform much better on this system. I remember how impressive Ultima Online and other MMOs were when they were first released in 1997, just because the games were running on dedicated servers. This technology has the potential to have the same effect, but with all online multiplayer games.
Having said all of that, I still think there are two even more important factors that we don't know about yet. 1) Game library and 2) business model. I need to know more about these two things before I make a final call on this. If they don't get enough good games, or if their business model is bad, then it won't matter how good the tech is.
1) The game library is in my opinion something Google has covered. In my opinion it is pretty telling, that their first public pitch is not to gamers, but to game developers. And they bend over backwards to explain, that dev can develop games faster with lower investments, reach a bigger userbase, are less restricted by hardware while they actually can access additional ways to implement their artististic vision. This says to me Google is aware of the importance to have devs on board for a diverse library. They also have secured Ubisoft, id software and smaller studios like the Rime people. They also said they develop first party. While they didn't detailed that it also shows Google is aware of the importance of a first-party setup.
2) The business model is more of a variable here. But two things make me optimistic here. First Google has shown in the past they are the master in finding business models that are satisfying for the users, third-parties and themselfs. I don't see a reason why they fail this time. Secondly it seems Google is all in and willing to play the long game. They have money to burn, so they can secure a model that is good for gamers and devs while taking a loss themselfes for some time.