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

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.

Streaming is the future?Probably for media that are shorter in its purpose, like movies.But games are something that requires time and dedication, and thus have a different type of client.I would say digital will be the future, with streaming having a small but significant hold of the market.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Around the Network

What if this is Google [Nvidia] Shield TV?



bonzobanana said:
eva01beserk said:

 

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.

Just like it wrked so well for MS.

I don't know where this notion that if  a company has money is willing to just give billions away. Especially not if profits are maybe 5-10 years away.



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

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.

Ain't that exactly the concept of Nvidia Shield and Grip?

 

Didn't take the world by storm...



flashfire926 said:
It's been 16 years since anyone entered/exited the console industry.

It would be refreshing to have a fourth player in the console space. After all, competition drives innovation.

no



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Around the Network
Ganoncrotch said:
flashfire926 said:
It's been 16 years since anyone entered/exited the console industry.

It would be refreshing to have a fourth player in the console space. After all, competition drives innovation.

no

Out with the old memes, in with the new!



Which games would they even have? Just games on the Play Store? They'd surely need more than that.



eva01beserk said:
bonzobanana said:

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.

Just like it wrked so well for MS.

I don't know where this notion that if  a company has money is willing to just give billions away. Especially not if profits are maybe 5-10 years away.

How is it not working well for them?  Last quarter earnings for MS indicate increased gaming and subscription based revenue. And certainly moving forward as internet speeds ramp up across the world streaming based gaming will become mainstream with servers (cloud based) doing all the heavy lifting. Google would be smart to ready themselves for the future. - as should all savvy companies.



Xbox 360 and Xbox One

Gamertag:  GamertagOz70

3sexty said:
eva01beserk said:

Just like it wrked so well for MS.

I don't know where this notion that if  a company has money is willing to just give billions away. Especially not if profits are maybe 5-10 years away.

How is it not working well for them?  Last quarter earnings for MS indicate increased gaming and subscription based revenue. And certainly moving forward as internet speeds ramp up across the world streaming based gaming will become mainstream with servers (cloud based) doing all the heavy lifting. Google would be smart to ready themselves for the future. - as should all savvy companies.

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.



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

eva01beserk said:
3sexty said:

How is it not working well for them?  Last quarter earnings for MS indicate increased gaming and subscription based revenue. And certainly moving forward as internet speeds ramp up across the world streaming based gaming will become mainstream with servers (cloud based) doing all the heavy lifting. Google would be smart to ready themselves for the future. - as should all savvy companies.

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.



Xbox 360 and Xbox One

Gamertag:  GamertagOz70