With more evidence that the Google game console is real, Craig looks at the impact it might make on the industry
I doubt that.
The only way this console has a chance if it doesn’t rely on streaming.
Streaming is dependent on a fast reliable internet connection between the content provider (aka Google) and the gamer, however, you also need to have some buffering such as a hard or solid state disk to reduce loading times of the actual game. So far most of the world does not have a fast reliable internet connection which is dependent on the service provider, not the content provider. Now if you are talking about digital downloads which will require the console to have a storage device (ie. HDD or SSD) then this is a more viable option unless the gamer has a really bad internet connection (ie. takes a considerable amount of time to download - annoying but doable) or none at all. Of course, even if the gamer has an excellent internet connection and they have data caps (remember some games can be over 50GB in size) or bandwidth throttling then there still is a problem. Personally, I can't see game media vanishing anytime soon.
Well if Microsoft is any indication, a deep enough pocket can buy into this industry. Personally I think 3 players is enough, especially because I think any more major players would force the exit of one of the 3 current players.
i would like to see a 4th player get in the competition (no matter if i will never get a google console )...we might see unexpected things to happen like Japanese gaming giants (Sony nintendo ) to unite like in Car industry where German automobile companies united in a common lobby
I could support a Google console, but ONLY if they took a serious approach with REAL game studios and REAL exclusives. Ouya-level garbage just won't cut it, let's be real.
i completely disagree with you. People are a little lost to what is coming with video gaming in the coming years. It will be main stream ran all off cloud streaming exactly how movies and music are. Its coming man regardless if you want to deny it. And the tech will be good enough for it once Xbox launches its flagship version from its team and google is very much able to make something like that work . 5 years from now everyone will be mostly using streaming services and so the race will be about content and what platform people prefer to buy 3rd party games on. But the biggest selling point of this concept is who will have the best structure and service for it. I think MS will as they have the most amount of servers around the world or close.
@StormSnooper: MS may have bought into the industry, but they didn't buy the industry. By example of the OG Xbox, not by a longshot.
@Battlegrog There's no way to get around that latency though. Have you seen how long it takes to load a Youtube video? Even changing DNS it's pretty slow. Now you're talking about 4K60 gaming? The latency is going to be incredible, even if you have the best internet connection around. No amount of dedicated servers or tech in the box is going to remove that within the next 10-20 years. Google is trying to pick up casuals, nothing more, nothing less. If it's a success it will be in the vein of Wii, a flash in the pan. Nobody says PSNow is their favorite platform from Sony.
So many of you provide hope for the few. It's amazing that no matter how many times you see things work you still don't get it. Most people said Xbox live wouldn't work because most people didn't have reliable internet. And even as we're a year, maybe a year and a half, away from gigabit service on phones people still think the internet will always be an issue. Enjoy your caves caveman. Technology will evolve anyway.
nitus10, from what you posted, I don't think you understand what streaming is. Think Netflix with a controller. All you get is a movie of the action in the game, a (hopefully very) short time after it happens on the gaming system running at the service provider. Your controller inputs get sent there, the game generates a frame based on your inputs, that frame gets compressed and sent to you as part of a video stream. You don't need any kind of massive storage at your end. The game isn't at your end. And if you need a lot of buffering, the game is lagging too far behind to be playable.
People are sceptical because it doesn't make sense for Google to come into the industry as a AAA Gam maker. What makes sense is for them to creat a dedicated home entertainment unit like their Google Home devices that uses the platform they already have, Google Play. Not many of us feel an attraction to that platform now so the prospect of these mobile games being on our big ass TVs isn't very appealing. That doesn't mean they can't come out here and blow us away, we're gamers and we'll roll with whoever brings us great games.
@dcbronco I've literally never seen anyone claim XBL wouldn't work. Are you talking about when people said always online consoles wouldn't work? Also you seem to not understand why this wouldn't work. It isn't a lack of technology. It is the trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure that needs to be built that no one in their right mind would waste money on. Also you are out of your mind if you think we are getting gigabit wireless anytime soon.
This is google we're talking about, so it's either gaming to be a casual box, or a streaming box, so no, it's not going to catch rivals, even the xbox, off guard at all. Not even a little bit.
I totally agree but we cant underestimate them until what they have in store.
Same, a google platform has HUGE potential, but you know it will be a P2W slightly better than mobile platform, and they will try to integrate it all into their google play platform, which is fine, but is just going to entice people to make their games also support phone. Will be pointless in the end, google would have to be willing to make a whole different ecosystem if they wanted to make a real competitive console, and I highly doubt they would ever do that.
Im just concerned with googles money to throw around and potentially lock up exclusives or outright buy developers.
If it’s as powerful as the X1X, has access to Steam and Google Play, and offers the ability to play games on a mobile device, it may make some noise.
if it's cloud/stream based it's going to flop fast and hard
Agreed. Analysts may think that streaming is "the future", but gamers want ACTUAL games made by ACTUAL studios.
this will be ouya 2.0
Its ooh yaah
Yeah I don't see Google as a big player but then again I never saw android as a big player back when the 1st phone came out. I do think it will be hard for anyone to get there foot in the door now even if Microsoft are struggling a little with the Xbox one in terms of sales the wiiu shows how hard it is to push even with big name like mario on the system. When Microsoft came it is was as sega came out and the original Xbox still had low sales comported to the others but the Xbox live service and the 360 helped them hit the ground running last gen and games like Forza, halo and gears became big ips. If Google were to do this they would need there own big names to take on the big names like halo, mario & uncharted. Be great to see google try but I just don't see them doing well in it but as I said at the start I said the same about Android.
“is now the perfect time for a new challenger? After all, we’ve had the same competing platform holders for the past twenty years.” Because producing gaming hardware is a very expensive endeavor and not something a newcomer can simply succeed at entering without having earthshattering success(Sony) or spending billions of dollars in trying to get their foot in the door(Microsoft). Not even Valve with its successful Steam service could make it big with their Steam Machines. “With PlayStation and Xbox slowly transitioning to an online streaming service and Nintendo more than happy to do their own thing with the Switch, perhaps the time is right for a fourth platform holder.” Yet majority of gamers will still opt for physical games, so if a console doesn’t support it it’ll fail in a massive way. PSP Go & the initial Xbox One message shows that gamers will never be ready for a platform that’s primarily digitally oriented.
When's the last time you bought a physical PC game?
Whats your point? We are talking about a consoles.
I bought a physical pc game about 4 days ago.
I havent bought a physical pc game in 10 years or so.
Steam machines were doomed form the start. The controller was grabage and the machines were too expensive.
"Yet majority of gamers will still opt for physical games, so if a console doesn’t support it it’ll fail in a massive way." How many people play MMO games? It is a myth to think physical games is what holds gaming into relevance. The pc has shown you cans till move forward without the need for physical copies. Console gamers will adapt just like everyone else if they had to.
We dont want all digital stream BS.
I agree. The issue is not how the games end up in our systems, as long as they actually get installed in our systems. The concept of streaming just makes me shudder. From what I've been reading, it seems many people don't understand the huge difference between downloading their games and having their gameplay streamed to them from afar.
Scared money don’t make no money 🤔 MS has been crit by Sony why not jump in
@ Not PC and consoles gamers are different demographics. Google isn’t talking about releasing a PC device, they’re talking about consoles, so idk why you felt the need to bring up PC. @ Kok Even so the point still stands that even software companies with a long standing history in gaming can’t make a console and hope it finds big success. Not even Apple would dare make another console. @ Muddy How much does MMO games make up monthly software sales? Trying to bring up one genre of game over every other genre of games is ridiculous. Did you not see why PSP Go failed and Xbox One got bashed with its initial message? Do you realize that it’s absurd to compare an open platform like PCs that have multiple distribution storefronts to closed platforms like consoles and handhelds that have only one distribution storefront?
One reason digital works for PC and not the existing consoles is due to pricing. There's a good portion of Switch games that cost more than their PS4/Xbox one counterparts. If the digital Google version is able to come in at less than the PS4/X1 versions, along with frequent Steam quality sales, then that will certainly help the adaptation. Add in some consumer friendly digital policies (like the ones Steam has and PS4/X1 lack), and suddenly digital looks a lot more appealing to your average consumer. Everyone used to buy music CDs until it became easier and more economical to purchase songs digitally. That's not to say that physical will ever completely disappear, because that audience will always exist, but there's no reason a digital only console can't succeed if it's able to beat the physical consoles in prices and policies.
I ask you again, why dafuq are you talking about PC in an article about Google releasing a new console? A console and a PC are two different devices, so you should be looking at this purely from a console perspective. There’s no way that this Google console or any console in general can even come close to succeeding if it doesn’t adhere to physical gaming sensibilities. There’s a reason this continues to be a very popular video https://m.youtube.com/watch... Retail stores will not stock consoles that have digital games that are cheaper than their retail counterpart. This much should be obvious. It’s the reason why some NS multiplat games are more expensive than PS4 & XO counterparts. NS games come on carts and that media is more expensive to produce than Blu-Ray discs of the same size, hence the alleged “Switch tax.” Nintendo can’t undercut the very retailers that sell their hardware by having the digital versions of games cost cheaper than their physical version as a standard. The Google console will have to sell games that cost the same price as PS4 & XO versions though since unlike on PC, there’s only one way to buy a game digitally on a console so there’s no need for the distributor to have competitive pricing with every game day one. Thus if you have a digital only device with no physical drive with games that cost the same as on other platforms, you basically have no selling point. Again like I stated earlier PSP Go is already a blatant symbol of how consoles and handhelds shouldn’t opt to be digital only devices.
@notorious Music takes most people seconds to download, games on the other hand weighing in at over 50 gigs is a completely different story.
They'd have to get support first of all. Then bring something that can attract the customers. There is a money investment of course, but there is money to be made if they are successful. It's a risk, and a big one. Nothing wrong if they want to try. If they can manage to do something good, then more power to us, and better for all of us.
I can’t imagine Google getting a lot of third party support. Even longtime veteran Nintendo isn’t getting as much third party support as their competition and NS is selling well, so you can only imagine the sort of resistance third parties will have in supporting Google’s new console in a massive way. Not to mention how Google would also need to build its first party lineup. Getting consumers away from PlayStation, Xbox, & Nintendo ecosystems will be a monumentous task for any newcomer. If they want to try and make it in this industry I say go on ahead. People were skeptical of Nintendo, Sony & Microsoft entering when they did after all. However it’ll be far more difficult now than it was in 1983, 1994, & 2001 respectively
Nintendo doesnt get a lot of support because they generally choose a some dumbass property tech for there games to try and avoid piracy kind of back fired with Wii U and Switch already. Devs and publishers arent going to risk taking the time to make a special version to fit on a flash card and the Switch for little return because generally people own Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games not third party.
"Support us or we bury your titles when people Google for them...." Ohh, I can see pleny of ways how they can get plenty of support! :)
It isn't just about money either. To launch a successful game system, you need to establish enough trust with most of the worthwhile developers and you need to establish a dedicated gaming user base. These things took decades for the current console makers. There isn't enough money in the world to buy that overnight. It takes time, persistence, and the right moves. Is Google in on this for the long haul?
Poor Xbox. Enough already
Why poor xbox? All we'll get with a google console is phone games.
Since Google has the Android operating system (Linux kernel) they could easily and cheaply bring out a console that could play pretty much all Android games of which there are tens of thousands to choose from. Digital downloading would not be a problem although streaming in some (ie. most) areas could still be problematic. This would be especially true if you take into account data caps which most if not all wireless service providers have. Of course, it may be possible that Google would act as a content provider for Android games for people who have an internet connection, even then streaming games may still be a problem. Unfortunately, many Android games are either very simplistic which is great for mobiles where people don't really have the time for in-depth gameplay or there are so many variants of the same game ("Solitare" come to mind). At least most Android games are free, many with advertising or in-game purchases (cough! gambling) but then you do have to ask the question "You get what you pay for".
Phone games > xbox exclusives
@zen not true at all but funny as hell.
Poor Xbox? Is MS gonna stop making games and console due to Google?
MS makes games?
Yeah all the studios that MS has, they are making cartoons.
You funny. Like sony has the money to keep up with MS and google.
Sony clearly has enough money to completely STOMP Microsoft in console sales😂
@BROWN_KNIGHT considering MS is one of the richest company on earth, have they won a generation yet? they are even stingy in spending those money to make games. I'd say, if they are that stingy to make games, why not use all those money to buy your own consoles and pad the number up so that it won't look too embarrassing compared to the PS4.
Just enough money to keep making the superior games apparently.
This tired BS again Sony is in the black have been for some time and they are making bank off PS4. The former President of Sony did an amazing job and the company is in a good financial situation now.
MS has more money than Sony, BUT xbox doesn't have access to all of that money. MS could ditch xbox tomorrow and do just fine. Sony would hurt like crazy without Playstation as it's a huge money maker. Now you might take that as "MS has more money! MS WINS!" but what that really means is MS doesn't have to put that much effort into xbox as it's just a side thing for them. windows, xbox is not. But for Sony it's a big money maker so they put all kinds of care and attention into the playstation brand. That's why MS offered you features and an "all in one" to try and take over the living room while Sony offered a gaming console. And guess what, gamers wanted the gaming console.
it's not about having money, its how willing are you to spend it on your console division? microsoft for the past several years was not willing enough
Remember Ouya and that Steam machine? Yeah, I remember vaguely. If true, another console I'll sit back and watch.
ms might be out of the console business in the next 10 yrs so Sony will need the competition. sorry Nintendo
10 years is a long time. Any one of them could go.
Sony is golden. when a company invests in developers the way sony does it almost guarantees success for the future.
I love PS fanboys they get drunk with that delusional juice and it becomes fun to watch their stupidity. The console as we know it today will not exist by 2029. It will transform from the old idea of a single specialized box. We have at best maybe two generations left of what we now consider a gaming console. The future is cloud-based, you can whine and scream that when that day comes you will be done with consoles but, it doesn't stop the fact it will happen. That is why Google is possibly making its move now; it will take a while to establish that base of studios and catalog. They are not aiming to compete with Sony PS or Microsoft Xbox console today but, to compete with the growth plans of Microsoft's gaming cloud and what the landscape of gaming world will be tomorrow. Microsoft is the one company that is already spending $12+ billion a year on building in its cloud infrastructure worldwide (averaging 2 new data centers a month for the past several years). Microsoft is #1 in worldwide cloud infrastructure and a close #2 behind Amazon in cloud sales (closing what was a very large gap in only a few years). Nadella has already said that gaming will be one of the pillars of the company. Nadella has already made moves to prop up the gaming for the future. As such under the recent company reorganization, he moved Xbox/Gaming away from the crushing weight of the special interests of the Windows group into its own division and promoted Spencer to VP and made him directly part of his small inner circle and has given them a much larger budget to do what is necessary. A budget that Myerson (former boss of Phil under Windows) would never allow. People are right that streaming is not fully feasible worldwide at this time but, it will be in the near future (especially with the push for 5G) by the early part of the next decade the developed countries will be well situated. The infrastructure to provide what is coming next is clearly held by three companies Microsoft, Amazon, and Google. So that push into streaming and backend gaming services will only get stronger and stronger and at the very least it will be Microsoft and maybe Google (and possibly Amazon) that will be ready to compete fully with that change. Sony isn't even in the ballpark of the ability to have what will be necessary to provide the needed infrastructure and will have to piggyback on one of these three to be competitive worldwide (maybe even get swallowed up by Google or Amazon) . Microsoft is building the companies newly rejuvenated (under Nadella) gaming aspirations for the long game. Any plans Google has is for that same long game not to come in and magically takeover.
I love MS fanboys, they write big long delusional comments no one actually bothers to read.
Dude, no one is reading that article of a comment. Keep it plain and simple in comments, or just go and write an actual article lol.
You realize people where saying this about records when I was kid and CDs came out. CDs were going to change every thing and get rid of cassket tapes and records. They still make record players and records. 2029 the world as we know it could be over get off your soap box and join the conversation about now not decades from now when we could all be dead.
One or two gens left in consoles. 3rd will be a streaming service to your smart TV
So Sony will reign up till 2029 nice!
I also believe that before we go full streaming console we will see a hybrid form. Think of something very Unix-y, XWindows, those GUI applications can run remotely, the code is executed on the server, but any and all GUI calls are sent to the client and executed there so you have a local performing UI. If the APIs MS and Sony (and Google perhaps) create and use are made in such a way that they allow for such things rather transparently then the games are still run on servers but the graphics are handled on the devices we have in our home... I think that sorta thing is going to be the future for some time and only a couple decades later will it be replaced by fully streaming devices...
Go look at that ps9 commercial again!