In a sense everybody here is Zeus from God of War.

I see this as an expansion for the Mobile/PC market . They seem to blindly follow trends when talking about games and creators. I can't imagine they having exclusives anywhere close to the quality of Sony and Nintendo.

That's why physical gaming will always be the safest system around. And even with traditional digital-only, you download the game once and it's in your hard drive forever. Everytime you want to play with streaming, you have to charge it on your internet data cap. In the long run it depends more on it.

My takeaway from the keynote was that this is going to be subscription only. Also, does anyone here actually think Google's first party exclusives will be able to even remotely compete with Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft first party exclusives? The only market that is going to be disrupted is the PC gaming market.

Fear of what? Being satisfied with how gaming works now is a bad thing? You go full Google, I don't care. Im sure youre a huge fan and supporter of PSNow.

Imagine while playing Stadia and you playing Dark Souls 4 against a boss, Suddenly an Ads shows up just ruining your games. But of course a you will not have ads if you pay more or probably less ads , but then you pay more.

Another thing to consider is the loot box will be hell crazy just like in google store.

My initial thoughts:

1.  The technology is extremely impressive.  There are two other factors that are even more important than technology though: game library and business model (discussed below).  Still, the tech is extremely impressive.  It could be a game changer depending on how the other two things play out.

2.  Game library is the most important thing.  They did announce that they have a first party development studio.  That at least shows they know a little bit about the gaming business.  However if you look at what territories they plan to launch it is basically North America and most of Europe.  To me it says that they currently have Western studios as most of their partners and have few Japanese partners.  Already it seems like their game library will be weak, but admittedly I am going off of little information here.

3.  Business model is the second most important thing and it has a unique roll given the new approach Google is taking.  I mean their business model could be terrible like the Ouya's business model and that will sink the platform.  But that is not even the worst case scenario.  The worst case scenario is that their platform becomes dominant but their business model kills off the gaming industry.  There is a big difference between being the "Netflix of gaming" and being the "Spotify of gaming". 

Netflix peacefully co-exists with movie studios and network TV.  It mostly got it's market from DVD sales and cable TV.  This is important, because Netflix did not attack content creation at it's source.  On the other hand Spotify crippled the Music industry.  Given the Music industry already took a few blows from other content sources before Spotify came along: Napster, iTunes, Pandora, etc....  But the crippling blow came from Spotify and the Music industry has never recovered.  Annual revenue is now just a fraction of what it was during the 20th century.  The quantity and quality of new music has measurably decreased.

So, basically what I am saying is: the business model matters a lot.  I would prefer that they have an account system like iTunes, where you actually buy and own your games.  That is a healthy, sustainable system.  The worst system they could use is one based entirely on ad revenue.  That is how Youtube works and Google does not make profits from Youtube and the vast majority of their content is made by amateurs on top of that.  Microtransactions...well if they go this route, they may find they attract a different type of gamer than the typical Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft gamer.  Business model can seriously affect how this whole thing turns out.

Final thought: the technology is very impressive but it is too early to tell how things will play out at this point.

There's no reason you couldn't play this on your TV.

The potential for this is near limitless. The convenience is obviously one thing. The other is that hardware upgrades aren't forced on the consumer. In the same way that Youtube's resolution increased in time without needing to buy a new computer, within reason you'll have that same constant upgrade in power without needing to buy new hardware.

Even if you're someone who likes playing at home, unless you're someone who literally never leaves your house, just the convenience of being able to play on another TV in your home or in a friend's house or in a hotel room instantly with just a controller is convenient on a level even beyond what the Switch provides.

Like what I have seen so far. Looking forward to Games and Pricing. Hopefully, they will be talking these topics at E3.

This is definitely something that will strike a cord with the large majority of the gaming market, much more than the small core gaming market. For people around here, having Physical Hardware and Physical games is a big deal. Most people could care less about hardware and ownership, they just want the content, when they want it, and where they want it. Games are close to being as accessible as Pictures, Music, Movies, and TV. This is a great time to be a gamer. The more people that have access to AAA games, the better it is for all of us.

Now Google, how about a Pixel G in the same form factor as Vita and Switch. Make it happen!

The seamless playing between multiple devices (phone, tablet, computer, TV) is very impressive. At the end of the day though, games (specifically exclusives) will be what matters. Not to mention the price of this service. I'm still not very sold on the "gaming as a service" alone.