By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Update: Jade Raymond joins Google as Vice President | Rumor: Google's gaming console details leaked, possible controller design revealed via patent

DonFerrari said:
JEMC said:

I have to disagree there. If Google's console is in the same ballpark of the PS5/X2 in terms of power and price, and features the same multiplats, then consumers will choose based on brand and exclusivities. And in that scenario, Sony and MSoft have a clear advantage over them.

Unless they are dumb they will sell for cheaper at similar performance.

Because even if they have a lot of exclusives they are creating, they don't have recognition so "no one" would chose their exclusives.

And then we're coming to the "how cheap can they sell it" point of all this venture. How much are they willing to lose with the hardware to break in the market with as many units as possible while trying to recoup some of those loses with the software? I mean, Sony and Msoft have the Live and PSN subscriptions to help them lowe their price if they find it necessary, but Google doesn't have any of that either... at least yet.

In any case, time will tell.



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Around the Network

If better be a full fledged 9th gen console with REAL big budget AAA, AA, and A exclusives, or else its just a joke. Better not be a shitty android console with fake mobile games.



I think google will be working whit 2 products.
1. Google stream box: just for streaming, connects whit google services and whit the "real hardware" that is produced for "google gaming" and is similar to consoles like xbox and playstation.
2. Google "Real hardware": don't want to stream games? Then why not buy google machine and play games local, just like a normal console? Google will produce these for streaming and will be more than happy to sell some of these machine for more "traditional users" that want the hardware at hands.



JEMC said:
DonFerrari said:

Unless they are dumb they will sell for cheaper at similar performance.

Because even if they have a lot of exclusives they are creating, they don't have recognition so "no one" would chose their exclusives.

And then we're coming to the "how cheap can they sell it" point of all this venture. How much are they willing to lose with the hardware to break in the market with as many units as possible while trying to recoup some of those loses with the software? I mean, Sony and Msoft have the Live and PSN subscriptions to help them lowe their price if they find it necessary, but Google doesn't have any of that either... at least yet.

In any case, time will tell.

Shall we pray for it to crash and burn or that they bring even more good games? I chose the second knowing the first will happen.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

JEMC said:
DonFerrari said:

Unless they are dumb they will sell for cheaper at similar performance.

Because even if they have a lot of exclusives they are creating, they don't have recognition so "no one" would chose their exclusives.

And then we're coming to the "how cheap can they sell it" point of all this venture. How much are they willing to lose with the hardware to break in the market with as many units as possible while trying to recoup some of those loses with the software? I mean, Sony and Msoft have the Live and PSN subscriptions to help them lowe their price if they find it necessary, but Google doesn't have any of that either... at least yet.

In any case, time will tell.

I don't think because a company is super huge that they'll necessarily use their economic power to subsidize their products. MS didn't do that with the Xbox for instance. In fact, quite the oposite. These companies are their size exactly because their margins of profits are so massive, and shareholders would find it somewhat strange to join a market where there isn't the chance to do so.

So I welcome the competition, and hope for good things in the future (though failure is the most likely scenario).



 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network

- GDC
- Google is primarily a software company
- Teaser Video

Guys, it's not a console. It's a game engine optimized for cloud/streams. Similar to Amazon Lumberyard.



Google has its foot in everything these days. Them and Amazon are the ones to watch out for.



Not long to wait anyways, still think it is just a streaming box, hope I am wrong though. Need a company to replace MS and their GAAS crap.



shikamaru317 said:
ThatDreamcastTho said:

It will take 10 years at least before game streaming really takes off.

Agreed. And that is exactly why they are releasing this console now. If they wait 10 years, they will be at a huge disadvantage against Microsoft's xCloud and Sony's PS Now in the streaming service war. But, if they release the console and the streaming service now, integrated together with all of their games releasing on both just like MS is planning to do with xCloud, they can potentially start to win over a dedicated fanbase like Sony and MS have, people who will switch over to the streaming service as it become a viable option for them due to the improving internet in their area over the next 10 years. 

One factor not being talked about here that may put a big damper on potential players like Google in the future game streaming market, that is facing the same  situation  that the big three face with major content providers like Square, EA ,Activision etc seeing a very tempting future with streaming giving them a direct link  to the consumer, but one not without its own set of challenges and questions to be answered by them like do you go it alone, or do you combat potential over fragmentation of the market by combining with other content providers to have enough scale.

So what the big three especially Sony and MS need to look at is things might start out great,but with the services maturing, just like netflix is starting to see future headwinds in the form of Disney moving content onto their own service, so they can't be complacent,maybe opportunity will arise in the form of the increased in value of content that streaming brings  being enough to justify the cost of buying a controlling interest in some of these companies or at least changing the way present day publishing on psn/live works entering into long term partnership deals, no matter it looks like a future of disruption.

Last edited by mjk45 - on 13 March 2019

Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

^ Oh damn.