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

Mnementh said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
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.

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.

You basically just said it all.  If Microsoft needed to buy studios, then Google would have to as well.  I don't really consider this or any news about Google going into console gaming to be significant until I hear they are buying studios or doing something very games oriented like that.  In gaming, the most important thing is games.



Around the Network
Ganoncrotch said:
Xen said:

 

Out with the old memes, in with the new!

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?

That wonderful video makes me wanna share this gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTqhyHuKVKA (I have no memory of how to embed videos over here).

...I don't think we will see any serious new entries into the market until one console maker retires, anyway. 



In google we trust. Internet is still such a huge problem in lots of country's but hey its getting there and no harm in starting early when you got the money to spare.



The_Liquid_Laser said:
Mnementh said:

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.

You basically just said it all.  If Microsoft needed to buy studios, then Google would have to as well.  I don't really consider this or any news about Google going into console gaming to be significant until I hear they are buying studios or doing something very games oriented like that.  In gaming, the most important thing is games.

Yeah. A option that might work, is if an hardware company and a gaming company cooperate. Say Samsung and Bandai. But I really don't see that happening.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Xen said:

...I don't think we will see any serious new entries into the market until one console maker retires, anyway. 

Yeah, the market could be too small for another player. Except they find a completely new customer group that can be turned into gamers.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network

Streaming is more likely.

Coming in with a console is risky. The market can hardly support 3 systems. If a 4th were to come by, someone is gonna be pushed out.



Sounds DOA to me



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

Anything other than video streaming is a no go for me out of the gate. Game streaming, is why I dont use psnow. I just keep my ps3 connected to a tv in the back.



 

Well, Google, keep out of my hobby.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

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.

Anti-monopoly laws prohibit you from selling at loss as strategy (one thing is to sell HW at break or loss to recover on SW) to close and break competitors.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994