Ka-pi96 said: ewww. Subcription streaming services for gaming are such a terrible idea. I hope it crashes and burns and bankrupts the whole company (hey, a bear can dream )!

Im with you there.

This would work if we assumed the average US citizen didn’t pay extraordinary amounts for shitty internet which caps at 30 mbps but rarely reaches that.

A shame really, cause if we had something like Fiber or decent internet I’d enjoy such services

Ka-pi96 said: ewww. Subcription streaming services for gaming are such a terrible idea. I hope it crashes and burns and bankrupts the whole company (hey, a bear can dream )!

Both Sony and Microsoft are pushing for this too so, unless you have another hobby in mind, you'd better get use to it because it's going to happen.

That's a good thing. You have to stay competent to not get driven out. Sega made huge mistakes during late 90's that cost them their console business. Dream cast was huge step in the right direction, but it was too late by then.

With no competition, Sony could've gotten away with the bullshit they pulled at PS3 launch. Same with Xbox one in 2013.

Game streaming services are, whether we like it or not, future of industry - vast majority of places in the world still don't have internet infrastructure for that, but baby steps.

Google (and MS) have shit-ton of money, I expect them to be front runners on this one.

No company can have a successful console unless they can make good exclusives for it. It doesn't matter if this is Google or Apple or all of the oil companies working together. If Google can make some really good exclusive games, then the service might take off, and if it can't or won't, then the service won't take off. It's as simple as that.

Inaccurate title of the day,,

I dont think thats the case,companies can push whatever product they like but if consumers don't want it then it will not take off. There will always be a company offering a more traditional offering. Something like steam that probably wont change anytime soon will always stay strong. 

Why?

1. All of us already pay a fee to use a console. (well Nintendo's fee will be soon)

2. How many people use Gamestop's (or other retailers) resell offers as they buy and finish games quickly?

The way I see it, IF

1. Fee is a nominal amount.

2. You get full access to all past and new games at same time. Games = all the normal console AAA and other games, not just the current mobile-esque titles. i.e. there has to be near parity with current consoles as far as selection goes.

3. Video and gameplay quality is stable.

THEN, I don't see why it wouldn't appeal to a large group of gamers.

I don't see the problem. A relatively cheap set top box with decent controller that allows me to play my play store games at very high quality settings and also stream high quality pc games relatively cheaply.

Maybe the hardware will be stronger than we think so can actually deliver more performance than the Switch in a set top box for low money. $100 or so. They throw in a 100hrs of game access. It's also fully integrated with your android phone you can share game saves between both devices so can play the same games at home or on the go.

Lots of ways they can make it into a compelling package. What if its $8 a month for a low cost package with older movies and tv and some games and tiered levels offering better movies and games at higher prices.

Whatever it will be interesting to see what they come up with. Their problem is more likely to be compelling content rather than the hardware.