I don't know about the Google service. But, my understanding is that the MS service has evolved from basic, straight streaming. I think they're doing some of the work on your local device, thereby greatly reducing lag and improving overall performance without using unacceptably large amounts of data. It's a sort of hybrid of streaming and local processing. Sony's service is just streaming, where essentially everything is handled by a remote device. This is the technology that gives us intolerable lag and low fidelity.

So, to the extent that my understanding is correct, this would mean that the new services are substantially different, and (in theory, at least) substantially better than PS Now.

It's because PS Now is real and can't hide its limitations, while Google and MS look great on paper and promises to solve everything.

Server location has influence on your latency, however your isp stability is still more important. Better compression also asks more from the client and will add more lag. Higher quality visuals require more data which will add more lag and be more vulnerable to instabilities. Offering newer games at higher resolutions requires more and faster hardware, meaning less resources to serve more people at the same time. In the end it needs to be an affordable business. Lower quality, older games, or higher priced subscriptions.

Google and MS can promise a lot but will run into the same limits as any other service.

Do you have any information on that? Can't find anything that says that anywhere.

It seems MS is doing the exact same thing Sony has been doing:

We’ve enabled compatibility with existing and future Xbox games by building out custom hardware for our datacenters that leverages our years of console and platform experience. We’ve architected a new customizable blade that can host the component parts of multiple Xbox One consoles, as well as the associated infrastructure supporting it.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2018/10/08/project-xcloud-gaming-with-you-at-the-center/

Starting in 2019, by the time it's readily available it's last gen games again....

MS is looking into smarter ways to compress  game video accounting for static huds and other repeating elements to reduce bandwidth. Nothing to reduce latency though. I guess it would decrease latency a little bit by having less data to transmit. Don't expect wonders however, video compression is based on only transmitting differences while during the heat of battle a stable image matters most. It's nice when it can remember the map screen or other elements to switch quickly, yet when you're in a big fight all that goes out the window and you need all the bandwidth you can get.

It was more or less because that it is difficult to monetize backwards compatibility, rather than the Cell being difficult to emulate.
Playstation 3 emulation efforts have actually been developing at a brisk pace on the PC.

Um. What? The Playstation 3 made the Playstation 2 difficult to emulate? Am I reading this right?
Importing Playstation 2 purchase from the Playstation 3 wouldn't have been a hard task you know.

False. Microsoft multi-OS approach was perfect for backwards compatibility.
Microsoft also supported a few Xbox 360 hardware features in the Xbox One chip, meaning Microsoft had plans of going down this route from the very beginning before the Xbox One launched.

Disagree. Journalists belittled Microsofts Kinect, Higher Price and Reduced power relative to the Playstation 4... And for good reason.

Sony deserved the criticism it has gotten.
Microsoft also deserved criticism it has gotten.

The amount of people using a feature today has no bearing on Microsoft's plans pre-launch of the Xbox One console.
Do not accuse other posters of being backwards please.

But because you are denying it... Here is some evidence that the Xbox One has hardware support for a few Xbox 360 features.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-xbox-one-x-back-compat-how-does-it-actually-work

And I quote: "Xbox 360 hardware design are indeed built into the Xbox One processor - specifically, support for texture formats and audio. "It's what makes this sort of possible for us, because then we can take all of those shaders that we collect and we can package them and all the Enlightenments, and then we just go through and we do actual performance playthroughs to determine that the emulator is executing everything right.""

Evidence says you are wrong though.

All Journalists generally have a preference, perhaps you should try looking towards more unbiased sources of information that don't engage in console war rhetoric?

Most outlets have provided criticism where criticism has been due.
Most outlets are also a business, so they need to stylize a heading to draw clicks and thus money in.

Well. You are not wrong. - However... Hows about not paying attention to the media?

There is zero technical reason why they should be capped at 720P or 1080P on either system when games will happily run natively higher than that in most instances.

What the Xbox One runs games at has zero bearing on Streaming on the Playstation 4.

With that in mind... The Playstation 4 is also not guaranteed to run every game at 1080P 60fps either. - So going by your own logic, does that mean 1080P 60fps is also a marketing point/check box feature on the Playstation 4?

The laws of Physics literally comes into play.

Depends on the encoding algorithms in use and the hardware support to go with it.

Maybe Sony need to pay for websites to write positive articles on it? Ps now has mega potential.

To be fair, Playstation Now still feels like an experiment. It's been around, but it never caught wind like Sony's other products.

So when people talk about these other companies, they are probably sensationalizing the new initiatives they have without thinking too much of the past, because streaming games from the cloud has yet to take off in a meaninglful way.

I'm sure Sony will be part of that discussion if they can make their service newsworthy, but they have yet to do that. And that's coming from a fourth generation Playstation console owner. It's a similar case with Dreamcast and online gaming. They were too ahead of their time, and because of that they couldn't give a worthwhile experience to the early adapters.

I think it is because Microsoft and Google have some of the best server's in the industry, more experience and invested more into their cloud infrastructure. If google's Assassin's creed stream is legit, that is way more promising than anything psnow has done so far.

I remember for about 15 or so years Nintendo being left out of almost every gaming discussion and article. Welcome to the party.

Sonys Streaming service as well as Nintendos are not world wide, while Xbox is. Its really hard to bring up something majority dont have access to.
I am sure next gen they will offer it to more countries but as of right now, its sort of niche.

Western media doesn't care about Sony. I kid, idk why.