Forums - Gaming Discussion - Google throws their hat in the console ring

Ka-pi96 said:
ewww

/thread



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
RJ_Sizzle said:

Well, the thing that's got people eyebrows raised is that they hired Phil Harrison and the code name itself refers to being a "beast of a [streaming] service". Which makes people think they could be shooting for something higher than a mere Play store device that comes with a controller. It's all speculation for now, but they have enough in the bank to cause a real disruption to the current market. Is a Netflix-type console the beginning of the end? Because I figure Google is going to sell it... hard.

That would only work well if they were still pursuing their Google Fiber initiative.  Since they have backed off on that, I don't see them trying a console grade streaming service but more in line with their current game offerings.

Google started to enable app streaming via the search interface on their phones not too long ago.  This could be the next logical step.

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.



HoloDust said:
SpokenTruth said:

That would only work well if they were still pursuing their Google Fiber initiative.  Since they have backed off on that, I don't see them trying a console grade streaming service but more in line with their current game offerings.

Google started to enable app streaming via the search interface on their phones not too long ago.  This could be the next logical step.

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.

The future?  Certainly.  But that's a future we aren't in yet. 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Inaccurate title of the day,,



Around the Network
HoloDust said:
SpokenTruth said:

That would only work well if they were still pursuing their Google Fiber initiative.  Since they have backed off on that, I don't see them trying a console grade streaming service but more in line with their current game offerings.

Google started to enable app streaming via the search interface on their phones not too long ago.  This could be the next logical step.

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.

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. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Ka-pi96 said:
Subcription streaming services for gaming are such a terrible idea.

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.



superchunk said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Subcription streaming services for gaming are such a terrible idea.

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.

 

bonzobanana said:
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.

Both of you share the same problem. If MS lackluster lineup is on offer for $10 a month + online cost, How much do you guys think adding the rest of all multiplats and probably original content and as one of you said movies and music? This kind of service will be costing like $50 a month for a bunch of things most people wont even want all of it. it will be the same issue that cable had and why is going down the drain.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk said:
superchunk said:

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.

 

bonzobanana said:
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.

Both of you share the same problem. If MS lackluster lineup is on offer for $10 a month + online cost, How much do you guys think adding the rest of all multiplats and probably original content and as one of you said movies and music? This kind of service will be costing like $50 a month for a bunch of things most people wont even want all of it. it will be the same issue that cable had and why is going down the drain.

Google are rich and may play the long game, subsidised hardware and service costs at the beginning so that they are the major player left in 5-10 years when they can truly profit from that monopoly. Again without knowing the full details we can only speculate but I would not at this point count them out of the race but compelling content is still their biggest challenge. People really need to want a google box  under their tv and that needs compelling content that works flawlessly. It might be like cable boxes where only large cities with fast broadband connections will have reason enough to buy. If your out in the stix with rubbish broadband you might as well forget it. Those people may have to wait years before they can benefit from a google gaming box.