I totally agree that the technology is impressive. Everything you are saying about the technology is 100% correct. I also want to add that online multiplayer games are going to perform much better on this system. I remember how impressive Ultima Online and other MMOs were when they were first released in 1997, just because the games were running on dedicated servers. This technology has the potential to have the same effect, but with all online multiplayer games.
Having said all of that, I still think there are two even more important factors that we don't know about yet. 1) Game library and 2) business model. I need to know more about these two things before I make a final call on this. If they don't get enough good games, or if their business model is bad, then it won't matter how good the tech is.
1) The game library is in my opinion something Google has covered. In my opinion it is pretty telling, that their first public pitch is not to gamers, but to game developers. And they bend over backwards to explain, that dev can develop games faster with lower investments, reach a bigger userbase, are less restricted by hardware while they actually can access additional ways to implement their artististic vision. This says to me Google is aware of the importance to have devs on board for a diverse library. They also have secured Ubisoft, id software and smaller studios like the Rime people. They also said they develop first party. While they didn't detailed that it also shows Google is aware of the importance of a first-party setup.
2) The business model is more of a variable here. But two things make me optimistic here. First Google has shown in the past they are the master in finding business models that are satisfying for the users, third-parties and themselfs. I don't see a reason why they fail this time. Secondly it seems Google is all in and willing to play the long game. They have money to burn, so they can secure a model that is good for gamers and devs while taking a loss themselfes for some time.
1) You may be right about this. I feel I actually need to see more games before I can make a judgement on it, but I don't discount that you could end up being exactly right. The business model can also affect how excited devs are to put their games on the platform. That leads to
Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 19 March 2019
2) This is the part that has me worried. Google tends to rely on ad based revenue. That is their model for both their search engine and Youtube. Ad based revenue is terrible for any entertainment industry. For example, movies sell tickets while TV uses ad revenue. It should be obvious that the budget for any Marvel movie blows away even the most expensive TV show. By the same token AAA games are not sustainable on ad revenue. They require actual sales. Or I suppose a subscription model for older AAA games would be fine too. But ad revenue for AAA games does not work, neither does a subscription model for the day 1 AAA third party games.
But another reason why I need to know more details is that I need to figure out who they are competing with. They may end up competing with Valve even more than the big 3. Valve keeps their data fairly secret, but one thing I have gathered is that Steam is a lot more popular in areas where a console is hard to get. I am pretty sure Steam is the main platform in a country like Russia, while North America, Japan and Western Europe prefer consoles. A lot of people play on Steam, because it is really the only choice. So even if this service does not appeal at all to console gamers it might attract most of the Steam community away.
So, having said that, I don't think 50m by 2024 is an unreasonable prediction. I still want to know more details, but that is more so I know if this will eventually replace consoles or if it will more be competing with Steam. And all of this assumes they don't mess up a key detail, which is possible for a company that is new to this type of gaming.