![Google.jpg](https://images.nintendolife.com/d69a27c75a17a/google.900x.jpg)
While the Switch is still relatively new to the gaming scene, the PS4 and Xbox One have both been around since 2013; if recent console generation trends are anything to go by, this means we could be seeing replacements for those consoles within the next couple of years. Interestingly, though, Sony and Microsoft aren't the ones lapping up the console rumour hype at the moment - that prestigious honour is currently being held by Google.
According to Kotaku, who claim to have heard from sources who "have either been briefed on Google’s plans or heard about them secondhand", Google currently has a "three-pronged" strategy in place for a new gaming system to rival those currently on the market. These three angles are reportedly as follows:
"1) Some sort of streaming platform, 2) some sort of hardware, and 3) an attempt to bring game developers under the Google umbrella, whether through aggressive recruiting or even major acquisitions."
The first two points would suggest that Google is hoping to create a piece of hardware that could well be similar to those we already know and love, but potentially with an emphasis on streaming games rather than any form of physical media being present. That final point is also interesting, as Google's frankly ridiculous amount of moolah could help it to acquire any number of development studios, securing them as Google-exclusive developers.
Of course, Google has been interested in the video game market for some time now, and was reportedly set to acquire streaming site Twitch before Amazon nabbed it instead, but It seems the company is really starting to put the pedal to the metal this year. In February, The Information were the first to report on the existence of Google's new gaming venture, informing the world of its codename, 'Yeti'.
So how will this 'Yeti' streaming platform work? It's too early to know for sure, but Kotaku's sources suggest that it will "offload the work of rendering graphics to beefy computers elsewhere, allowing even the cheapest PCs to play high-end games".
It's certainly an interesting one, and we'll keep an eye out for any more information in the coming months. Until then, remember that none of this is officially confirmed just yet - we'll have to wait and see if Google announces anything a little further down the line.
Would you like to see a new gaming option from Google? Do you think a service such as this could have a huge impact on gaming as we know it? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.
[source kotaku.com]
Comments 132
Oh god please no.
Mobile: Hey Guys, I'm here to destroy gaming!
Google: Hold my data collecting...
Streaming? No thanks!
This will go the same way as their Chrome laptops, their Google+ social media networking site and their video service which was scrapped in favour of the acquired YouTube. Only now they will be taking down purchased studios with them.
Look at how well Amazon faired when they tried their hand at this.
If Google started splashing cash to buy up talented development studios, that would be a terrible thing for gaming.
What the.... ?!
Oh, btw Streaming games ?
No thanks.
But will it have Blackjack Nights FREE EDITION and Thursday Night at Freida's?
@FragRed, Amazon released a game console?
This will be interesting to follow.
It was just a matter of time before Google or Apple got involved and if they're serious about making a platform that will rival the big 3 then for sure they will become a major competitor. Is there room for 4 or more though? I don't think there is,one of them will fall.
@Kirby-in-Kirkby I can't remember much about it as it was about four years ago but I remember there being a big thing about the fact they had purchased the developers behind the Xbox One remake of Killer Instinct to create games specifically for it.
I believe the name of the machine will be..... V-Cube. According to Fairly Odd Parents.
![Untitled](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRF1iH6_qzkDlQYbGEXkH8WtyubzrlJLpAOT0K4EmsQ99Yx2OBYoR79n-Qw)
I would love to see a new hardware that matches Dreamcast. Loves the VMU memory cards. Would love to see a hardware that outmatches both ps4 pro and xbox x. just like back in the day psx and N64 were released and then a much stronger hardware Dreamcast was released. My attention went fully to Dreamcast because they offered a lot more. If they could create something like this I will buy it right away! Go for it Google!
"The Ouya 2"
A direct flop.
@FragRed Given the choice if this is going to happen anyway, I'd rather Amazon was behind it. Prime has some quality control over its catalogue and Twitch is entertaining enough.
If Google loves burning money, go ahead!
Okay, if Google has their own console, would be interesting if their color represent YELLOW, because :
1. Nintendo = Red
2. Google = Yellow
3. Microsoft = Green
4. Sony = Blue
So, who wants to bet on the first studio to be ruined by this?
Good luck to them. They've never been really good with their 1st generation of anything.
I think 3 major console makers are enough so if this happens to be true, I hope they'll can the project soon enough.
I'd be surprised if this would be a direct competitor to the big three with actual AAA titles, major exclusives, third party support etc.
However, it would be interesting to see a fourth competitor in the console market.
@Equinox Why would you boycott Microsoft and Google? Because they're americans?
Maybe all the PlayStation gamers can abandon Sony and rush out and buy it because it will be advertised as cool and trendy. Kind of like how "gamers" abandoned SEGA to buy a PlayStation because it was advertised as being cool and trendy.
It's not going to be a console to rival current ones. It's just going to be a streaming device to stream games.
If it's going to be a streaming device... Who says it won't be an oversized tablet with a detachable controller, so you can "take your AAA experience anywhere"? 🤔
Gaming is cramped already, not enough cash or hours in the fudging day.
Competition is good. Power to the people
Google are not content makers. They are not really even content disturbers, but more platform makers.
I think a new console would need both solid content creation, management and distribution and hardware is nearly secondary to that. It's not impossible (see Microsoft), but they'll have to come a long way.
And just buying existing dev studios is only a step towards that. Without the know-how of everything else, I don't see that as any great sign.
I fear Google's plan is: "if we build it, they will come"... which gaming history has shown to be disastrous. They need to sell the experience to the gamer first and then sell the platform to the other studios... Having some hardware will only sell to google fans. Good luck to them. I'll be curious to see what they do.
Not interested if this is an online based console. I don't like subscriptions and streaming isn't for me.
I'm not against seeing new consoles on the market, but if their plan is to force players to buy their console by simply buying out studios to make their series exclusive... That would suck. Give me a Switch competitor with new AAA IPs and maybe I'd be interested.
Nice. Another platform to play Tetris on....
I've been wondering for a few years now when google would get into gaming like this, but you completely lost me at "streaming".
Well, I don't know. On the other hand, I'm worried by this, but on the other, Google usually knows what they're doing. This could work, but only time will tell.
It just sucks that most people are like "ew, please no, leave me alone!", even though they haven't actually seen what the product is like (or if it even exists).
I’ll not judge until there’s more actual information. But more choice = better for gamers. At least it can’t be as bad as Apple’s attempt with Apple TV gaming...
If it harms Sony’s or MS’s revenue then I’m all for it hehe
Streaming WILL kill the gaming industry!
A new chapter in console gaming history? Welp, with enough money just maybe, who knows?
This sounds like it's more likely to disrupt Microsoft than anyone else. It feels like Xbox is already becoming the 3rd party streaming box. With PS Now, especially since it's allowing downloads, Sony is dabbling with a Spotify-like service for streaming games, but I think if they really want to push that it'll need to be a stronger feature of PS5 and it'll need to be cheaper. Nintendo isn't even in this arena yet.
I can see a Google console going the way of Dreamcast - ahead of its time, but streaming services are the future and it's a shame as far as I'm concerned.
I would never purchase this.
No interest whatsoever. And I'll be plenty upset with Google if they forcefully acquire anybody worthwhile to have them make stream-only games.
Google would likely focus on “free” gaming to collect data and send advertisements.
@bitleman
I'm Amerikan and I boycott most Microsoft (once I finish building my own custom OS, I'll drop Microsoft completely) and all Google.
Yeah, that's not going to work. With Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft selling dozens of millions of consoles right now, there's no room for a fourth big console. There's niche stuff like the Nvidia Shield (and the failed Ouya), but four major consoles? Not going to happen.
Also, what you need more than anything is a gatekeeper when it comes to console gaming. Granted, it's been slipping the last few years (Life of Black Tiger, anyone?), but at least Nintendo, Sony and MS know how to keep most of the shovelware off of their systems.
Google? Just look at the Play Store. Look at the Chrome add-ons and plugins. Look at the huge list of Chromecast-compatible software. Hell, look at the complete and utter chaos over on YouTube. In order to ensure a healthy gaming ecosystem, you need quality control and that's something Google has no experience in whatsoever.
IDK. I'd like to see someone knock Microsoft out of the industry, but I'm not sure Google is the one to do it. It's probably not going to be worth it to compete in the console market unless they can create their own AAA games.
@Akropolon
Well, if Google want to be a Next Dreamcast, just let them do it and Failed miserably.
Not sure why everyone is so negative on this. I'm optimistic, I think that if Google can do streaming right then they'll be bringing something unique to the industry. A fourth major console player would be good for competition, too - especially if it's going up against PS4 and XB1, because Nintendo probably wouldn't be affected.
Plus, I doubt it'll be an Android console or anything like that, since Google has tried and failed before to get that off the ground, not to mention they're talking to large publishers about this project - who aren't likely to make mobile level ports of their big franchises.
I suppose we'll see, but nevertheless it'll be an interesting next console generation.
@Bolt_Strike
I just wonder what 1st party games from Google will they release ?
Will it as good as Mario ?
@FragRed The Amazon Fire TV was a success wasn't it? As were Chromebooks.
@Bolt_Strike Why would you like to see Microsoft "knocked out of the industry"?
Is it their dedication to backwards compatibility? The cross-buy between all Xbox One/Windows 10 games? The 150+ games in Game Pass for 10,- per month? Their efforts regarding cross-play? The in-house development of a controller for people with disabilities? The free upgrades to higher frame rates, 4K resolution and more stable performance in general when playing Xbox or Xbox 360 games you already own?
Yeah, no, you're right. Sod 'em.
Cool. More competition is good.
@Dayshader #23 this, this and THIS!
Google has a terrible history of aggressively buying talented companies with very promising products, and then ruining them and smothering them into oblivion.
If they are starting to go after game studios too, we are all doomed.
@Akropolon Not to mention offering that accessible controller to other game companies to release for their own platforms, and their development of games on other platforms through Minecraft.
I'd rather see Sony knocked out if anyone.
Hahahahahaha....... Serieus! Please no... Imagine if they use google talk + translate for their games. Sounding like robots.
no but serieus totally not interested. Just switch and PC gaming for me. Already lost interest in playstation and Xbox. So for me Google home console is already ment to fail.
"STREAMING"
That's a big NOPE from me.
Streaming. No, no, no
IP, HA HA HA!
Streaming games sucks. Every time I've tried it, always with a wired connection, it has sucked. Maybe it works okay in Korea, but in the UK... it sucks.
Greedy warios
I'm sure this will be as great a success as Google Glass.
It'll be interesting to see what they have in mind (if it's true) and if the games are of reasonable quality but in my head I'm kind of expecting a Glorified Android box that will simply play games I can play on my Phone
It's going to stream all its content?!
Yeah, I can see this thing succeeding. [/s]
Google would be better off buying or partnering with one of the big 3. Trying to jump into the field now is a terrible idea. But any of the big 3 companies, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft would probably fight tooth and nail to partner with Google and it's limitless resources.
This is crossing two modern "improvements" I highly dislike:
Mmmmh.
Risky business.
The console will be exactly what you are looking for because they've already tapped into our souls...
Streaming games? Yeh, that won`t work in the majority of places in the world.. There are days even Netflix doesn`t work around here...
Anyone else smell a video game crash?
Streaming videogames will never work because of input lag. Bandwith requirements are very high.
Anything Google touches turns out to be great, so I'm really looking forward to this.
Hey Google. Remember On Live? That was a great idea, wasn’t it? 😂
@FragRed all the same thoughts I had when I read this.
Competition is good for the consumers so I hope this turns out true.
I guess if anyone could make streaming work a bit better, it would be them, with Google servers being so widespread around the world, that could ensure as little latency as possible, no matter where you are in the world (since the distance between you and the server would be vastly reduced as opposed to stream a game that's being run on a server half a world away from you). Well, at least no matter where you are in the "industrialised" world anyway.
Still doesn't mean I'd be down for it though. If I can't own what I play, then I'm not OK.
Google's track record of bringing ANY actual product to fruition is disastrous at best. They're good at luring people with free services and then selling those people down the river while lying through their teeth to them. But actual products.....other than the google home speaker, is there actually a single one that's ever gone anywhere? And even when they come up with a software productp eople actually like, they abandon it faster than Sony abandoned Vita, and it languishes and dies. Then they tried their hand at being a fiber ISP....disrupted the market....and then vanished.
So I don't have high hopes for their success on this....though I fear what they start will devastate many aspects of the business, devolve it ever faster into F2P across the board (people only use Google services because everything is "free". Nobody would actually PAY to use Google services. The people that would rather pay use Microsoft and Apple products.) But I do fear of an all no ever more invasive data mining through video gaming. Maybe they'll build full personality profiles out of our playing habits and we'll get blacklisted from normal society. You know, that pesky thing China wants to do but such things "could never happen" in our hemisphere..... even though Google and the rest of big data out-China's China every day.
As a Subscriber to YouTube TV (from the old cheaper prices)....I remember the day they had a different city's station on my feed. Or the several times they broke the app and I had to press the button individually every moment to scroll for a month and a half. Then fixed it and deleted nearly all my DVR recordings, even though they were clearly still on the service, I couldn't access them (and the interface still offers no way to actually scroll your recordings by date, you just scroll through an endless list of tiles)....yeah...paying for Google's services is typically not a wise idea.
I don't think they'd have any success at toppling Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft here (Apple would have a chance, not Google.) And if it's streaming they want, is this the same company that abandoned it's own rollout of fiber because it was just too hard and expensive to get high end internet everywhere?) But I do fear the poison they sew in the industry would last a long, long time and break some things forever, and ultimately make life worse for gamers.
"Some sort of..."
Sounds like something Google "leaked" so they could be in the news, like a late April Fool's joke.
@Ralizah Good thing they'll have impressive market reach for the service having just rolled out Google Fiber everywhere....oh....wait.....
Schmidt should stick to sexbot AIs....that's more his area of expertise.
@Heavyarms55 Limitless resources, and even more unlimited control. How do you play poker with someone who writes down what cards you were dealt as you're dealt them?
@GrailUK Yeah, somehow it went from niche to industry fad that everyone wants in on (admittedly it's mostly mobile money they want.) Heck if something like this happens you may see the impossible unholy alliance of Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft to thwart it with "big quality experiences." I don't think I want to see a game run by Google's project management ideals. It might make RMCDAIX or whatever it was look great by contrast.
@shani "Google" and "Great" are not words I would closely associate. You do realize their entire business model is in creating mediocre services to offer for "free" as a means of collecting infinite data on every user and selling it to the highest bidder? They sell no products. They sell you. Like a pig at a trough.
I'll never understand the technophile obsession with this image of "benevolent" Google. That mirage was exposed back in the 90s. And pretty much every service they've ever offered other than maybe free DNS is generally inferior to a paid version from a variety of other sources, while their paid services are also generally inferior to other (admittedly often more expensive) services from others.
Good luck, call me old school but I think that the market won't comfortably support more than 3 hardware manufacturers.
@GrailUK
"Anyone else smell a video game crash?"
Oho, yes. Beeeep !
"Your game was Disconnected from Online Service. Please Recconect your device with WiFi signal."
@NEStalgia Mediocre services? You must be joking, right? Here are a few examples of their leading products in the respective market:
Google Search - it's by far the best search algorithm there is
Google Maps/Google Places - by far the best map service, it's a great help when you are in a new city or on vacation
Street View - it's really unparalleled and let's you visit places from your home as if you're there
Youtube (yes, I know they acquired it) - the leading video platform
Google Docs/Spreadsheets etc - way better and reliable than MS or Libre/Open Office
GDrive - better and more reliable than Dropbox
Android - way better than iOS
Gmail - by far the best free mail service
Chrome/Chromium - the best browser/browser engine on the market (and I'm a long-time Opera user)
Google translate - the best or one of the best translation interfaces and it's still improving
Chromecast - unparalleled
I'm certain I forgot some of the other products.
You're also underestimating the value of products costing no money (yes, they accumulate user data, but so does every other company - at least Google also uses the data for useful features). Not everyone can afford buying premium products - especially in third world countries, which make up the majority of the world.
Updated from my post #22:
1. Nintendo = Red
2. Google = Yellow
3. Microsoft = Green
4. Sony = Blue
5. Steam = Black
And then we have 5 members of Video Games Sentai Ranger.
@NEStalgia
It reminds me of N-Gage during year 2000's. N-Gage vs GBA and other Handheld devices before NDS Lite take over the world.
And speaking of being a 1st Party, Does Google have at least 1 or 2 games from them that Ready to launch at Soft Release day ?
Will their games can compete with 1st party Nintendo games ?
In my opinion, i don't think they will have Killer games that can Change the world, just like Nintendo did.
god no, they cant even make a phone that doesnt force you to force quit apps everynow and then just cause they stop working. also this would suck it would mean if they bought companies and made them google exclusive its just another piece of hardware you would have to own.
@shani Search and maps are indeed their core services. Search, of course, is only half great. The other half they stack the deck with what they want you to see. But those I can at least give a pass on as their core services.
Youtube was acquired (and butchered in many ways by Google, but we're stuck with it because like Walmart there's no room for competition.)
Google Docs? Errr, just no. MS Office, Libre Office, Open Office....those are full featured. Google Docs is a very streamlined product in comparison with reduced features. It's not horrible at what it does, but it's just silly to compare it to a full featured suite. Additionally like with gmail blow...it's watching what you write.
GDrive. It's....remote data storage. There's tons of remote data storage options out there, and there's nothing particularly special about GDrive. IF you want to include it because it's not broken fine, but that's kind of a hard one to get wrong.
Android....Android is not Google. Android is an open source OS. Android has contributions from many companies. Android is part owned by Microsoft (the royalties from Android are what they funneled into XBox to make it look solvent for the past 15 years.) The Google branch of Android that is forced on phones is just Android by contract to get Google's popular digital store and telephony services. After it's loaded to the hilt with their kernel level spyware of course. All of which is absent from stock Android.
Chromium again is not Google. It' is an open source project that features contributions from Google and many other sources. Chrome on the other hand is a security disaster in addition to being a bloated memory hogging mess. If you value security at all (let alone Google's spyware, actual security) you avoid Chrome like the plague.
Gmail is the "best" free mail service because it used market dominance to force out nearly all others. However, you do realize it's scanning your emails and mining everything it can out of them, do you not? It's right in the TOS you agreed to. So yes, they offer you fine email service, in exchange for reading your emails and indexing them to build a total profile on you and everyone you've ever communicated with using everything you and your conversation partners have ever said. Sometimes free is way, way too expensive to be acceptable.
Translate works fine for European languages. It's a joke for Eastern languages. Granted some of that is because by large degree many of those languages just can't be machine translated, they're too contextual, but even Mandarin, which isn't, it misses pretty hard on. Not exactly a niche language.
Chromecast is part of Chromium, not totally a Google product, however they've locked it down behind their logins in any commercial implementation.
Google and Facebook are easily the most sinister companies at least in the Western world, though Amazon is joining them rapidly, and everything they offer is a Faustian bargain like a pedophile with an ice cream truck. It's just a lure to get your consent to do bad things to you. Even knowing all that I still use their product to some measure, because of their scale and scope, it's very difficult not to, but I'm never not aware of precisely what I'm doing, and just how low I'm sinking by doing so.
I don't underestimate the "value" of free products to a public unaware the real currency they're paying. But you're also underestimating the actual cost of these products, despite not paid in reserve currency. Drug dealers also give you some product for "free"....at first.... a great deal, even if it will ruin your life later. Given your locale, the irony shouldn't be lost on you: Imagine an alternate timeline where Goebbels' programs were successful and he lasted into the dawn of the information age (presuming he lived peculiarly long.) What would the organization for digital information and communication he would have built look like? There's more than a fair chance it would look quite a bit like Google and Facebook..... At times I wonder if his programs, weren't actually successful after all.....just moved quietly elsewhere and in the shadows. That kind of control of the public was the heart of what they were after all along, and in the 21'st century the public has voluntarily given it to another group of very similar goals, without the overtly objectionable behavior.
@NEStalgia I've been using Libre/Open Office for many years privately and also MS Office.
But they both have their faults (like OO is still screwing formatting after all those years and MS's UX is a nightmare).
I've only discovered their Google equivalents recently (1,5 years ago) through my work and they exceed MS and OO in every aspect. I wouldn't even dare to go back to those, professionally and privately.
Again, every tech company is 'watching what you write' and they have been for a long time. Without that data none of their products would work as well as they do. Why single out Google for something everyone does?
Also, it's very arrogant of you to essentially tell poor people they have a 'choice' (between paying with money or with their data) when actually they don't. It's like a slap in the face, you seem to be so privileged that you can't even comprehend their situation. Classic first world problem.
They will always have to choose paying with data because any money they have will be spent on food and shelter/rent.
Putting up a paywall in front of essential services/tools is exactly how you prevent people with limited resources (like poor people) or those with less chances (like black and arabic people in America, for example).
This phenomenon is called 'discrimination'. So effectively, you're calling for discrimination in the digital world?
And regarding Android and Chromium, you just delivered another big plus: Google pushes existing open source technologies and not only improves them for everyone, but also makes them relevant in the first place.
No one would even know Android if it wasn't for Google, everyone would essentially be an apple victim.
Similarly with Chromium - which in fact was started by Google, not by someone else. When Google first introduced Chrome (the Webkit version) 10 years ago, I was very sceptical.
But over the years, it proved to be the browser with the best perfomance. Just try to let a complex web app run in Firefox and you'll see what I mean.
And well of course there are comparable alternatives to some of the services, but not all of them are a real alternative. Take Dropbox for example: it's been known for a long time - way before Snowden - that they work with and report to the US government. Google does no such thing, because they're too big to give in.
People always complain about these big companies but the thing is: it also gives them the power to withstand or rebell.
I surely wouldn't upload any files to Dropbox, but I feel safe with GDrive. Also because Google is proven to know their stuff better - from the tech side of things - so I can be sure they won't mess up and have some unknown security hole in GDrive.
But seeing how biased you are, I can't even take what you wrote seriously.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about (Chrome a security disaster? Bloated memory hogging mess?) and obviously hold some kind of grudge against Google. I mean, seriously, comparing them to the Nazis? That's ridiculous. That comparison pretty much killed the discussion and made it painfully obvious that you're on some special agenda to paint Google - a company that has provided countless life-improving tools to the public for free and pushes new technologies like AI research - as the villain.
Yikes. Not a fan of google
I was so happy when the rumors that the Nintendo switch was based on google Android was false. I ain’t touching anything Android related and i don’t like Google as a company either.
""1) Some sort of streaming platform..."
It's already a failure.
Please please PLEASE be firmly in rumor territory....This would be so wrong on multiple levels. Especially the streaming part.
Sounds like something that will fail, i just hope no good game development studios will get damaged in the process.
However, the Xbox brand is REALLY weak right now, so in theory right now would be a good moment for any new competitor to join the industry and replace MS like MS replaced Sega.
@shani Eh, I wrote a big long reply, but scrapped it. You're clearly a very big Google fan, and somehow there's no telling a hardcore Google fan the serious danger Google represents on such a grand scale. The true fan will hear none of it and embrace their free stuff, real cost be darned, and will find no fault with iffy products and sketchy business practices, even beyond most others in the data business.
So I'll leave you with only the one: Chrome seriously is one of the worst security vulnerabilities around. it should not be used by anyone, ever, if you value security of any sort. Even aside from Google's egregious spying (which I assume is present in all browsers, since even Mozilla gets its funding from Google these days) but actual security. It's not permissible software in even medium security environments. Like it if you want, but I'd be remiss if I didn't at least caution you. That's all on that, but at least you've been told
*And to clarify before someone cites "Godwin's Law" it was not a comparison to Nazi's overall but specifically to Goebell's organization within it. His invention of mass media as a tool to control, manipulate, and direct information, public opinion, and public discourse, along with his surveillance efforts is essentially the founding work of the entire media/information/data age. He may be long gone, his flag may be long gone, but his legacy....we're still using it right this very moment. He did succeed in shaping communications and it's use forever, for better or worse. And nobody embodies his methods and aims better than Google and Facebook. They've really extended his ideas to a level I doubt even he imagined possible. His superiors were interested in whatever goals they were interested in, but his was squarely on manipulation and control of the public through mass media and "data" gathering.
Imagine his delight at learning most of the public would voluntarily install listening devices in their own homes, and agree to terms that allows listening and recording at any time...voluntarily(!)....and it would require no random armed home inspections but simply the promise of button free convenience? Even he wasn't quite that cynical of society's intelligence and had enough faith in their intelligence to believe force was necessary to achieve his goals. Yet here we are.
@Anti-Matter I remember the N-Gage! I forgot about it, but those were kind of interesting.
Who knows what companies/exclusives Google would buy for this. They certainly have no in house development on that scale. And no IPs. So they'd have to acquire someone to do it.
In my opinion, there is only room for Nintendo, Sony, and PC. Microsoft needs to bow out of the industry, and Google should not show up at all.
Reading comments and game streaming is a terrible idea. I’m against digital as well. With physical you actually own, they can’t take it away. With digital you just have licensing rights, they can lock that down. Now streaming you pay premium price for just playing, they can shut it down. I know it’s more convenient but you’re sacrificing ownership of the title. Why pay 60 or more for something you can’t touch???
Video games should not be streamed.
Don't trust them. I'd be happy to play some little low-budget titles on my chromecast but that's about it. The brand is all it takes to scare me away.
Google has never been great at marketing many of their stuff, which i find ironic considering all their massive resources. This, in my opinion, will be just another product that hardly anyone will notice.
While it might not succeed, the developer thing is worrying. Some of our fav developers could be trapped making games for this system and if it really bombs, their ips could be doomed for an eternity of mobile games.
Anyone else remember the 90s when there were many Brands at one time. Atari, Panasonic, NEC, Nintendo, Sega, Philips, SNK.
If they could pull off streaming with a good package deal and get good contracts with devs, why not?
Game streaming would be a huge deal breaker for me. I don’t have WiFi at home so the system would just collect dust.
No thanks.
@Akropolon Microsoft's never really been serious about gaming content. Beyond Halo they haven't really had a lot of prominent IPs, and they put much more emphasis on services and multimedia features than their game library. Really not much point in them remaining in the console market when they don't care that much about actual gaming. They can easily take that approach to mobile and PC where it matters more in those markets.
So much negativity which as a gamer since the dawn of gaming I understand the skepticism. I have been saying for a while that Apple would be the best suited to enter the arena but even they would have their issues.
First off lets understand how difficult it has really been to succeed in gaming. We already had a cash rich Western mega company take the approach of throwing a lot of resources at getting into gaming. Add to that M$ had a lot more pros in their makeup to get into gaming back then, than either G or A do today. Even with all that, M$ success has been mixed and their profitability has been crap and would not have been sustainable if not for their ahead of the pack, paid online service. The only other reasonably successful American console company in history was Atari who burned bright and crashed hard. Sony was not a healthy company before the sucess of PS4 and N was coming of their worst home console gen ever before the sucess of Switch. Xbox is really only viable in NA as they can’t give them away in Jap and rhe Switch is already outpacing it in the EU. So its just not that easy as I could detail many, many failed attempts.
Any more acquiring studios is not such a big deal, the commitment comes from funding the development of large or what we call AAA projects. They cost an unreal amount of money to dev. Just watch the credits and realize all those 100s of people have to get paid and paid for in some cases years to creat a single modern game. This is only increasing with 4k and VR level assets. The game has to be good and has to be a success or lots of money is lost. TR2013 was GOTY material IMO, it sold a little over 4mil in yhe launch window and square deemed it a fincial failure.
At this point loyal fanbases matter a lot as do brands like PS,XB, and N as well as the major publishers. The question is what could Google bring? N is going to continue to dominate portable and offline, as well as family and local multiplayer gaming. Every major pub is interested in x86.
Streaming is a joke, and honestly portable streaming is even more laughable. For some game types it can work but honestly will you ever have low enough latency to play twitch reflex gsmes? How about pushing 4k content?
So yeah good luck but even if the spend a wad they likely won’t be a serious player as the market doesn’t need them.
@Anti-Matter nag it'll obviously be called the Googly Box
Sure Google, I will gladly use your streaming console the day you give me insanely fast internet with zero restrictions for free.
That’s a huge no from me; Google is evil and it needs to be destroyed.
Depending on how they handle it I think it could be very successful , look at the endless amount of games, movies and books on the Google store now. Personally I like them on my smart phone but I wouldn't rule them out .
@Bolt_Strike I can't agree with that assessment, sorry. Microsoft's made FPS big on consoles with Halo, is responsible for online console gaming being as huge as it is, has given us pretty much the best open world racers out there the last five years in the form of Forza Horizon, and worked with third party studios through the years on games as Gears of War, Ninja Gaiden, Mass Effect, Alan Wake, Lost Odyssey, Project Gotham Racing, Shadow Complex, Blue Dragon, Jade Empire, and so on.
And then there's their own franchises, such as the aforementioned Halo and Forza, but also Crackdown, Fable, Sea of Thieves, Ori and the Blind Forest, Crimson Skies, ReCore, et cetera.
Microsoft has gotten more new IP's out there (both their own and with other companies) in the last fifteen years than Nintendo could ever dream of.
They had one horrible show in '13. They completely slipped under the leadership of Mattrick. Their priorities at that time were completely wrong. There's no denying this. But to say "Microsoft has never been serious about gaming content" and is "more about services and multimedia features" is simply untrue.
I have, since the PS2/NGC/XB era, always had all three consoles and they all have had their strengths and weaknesses. But Microsoft has always been relevant and I'm incredibly glad they're a part of this industry.
Super excited for this, looking forward to see what Google brings to the industry - it has potential to create something big. I'm especially excited with the possibility of online streaming, you could basically run high-end games without buying new hardware ever again, which is great to consumers. Sad many people are acting Luddite-ish complaining about the exciting future and all the possibilities streaming could bring to everyday folks
I for one can't wait for the Google smart washing machine.
Smart timing. Microsoft has backpedaled a bit and has too few unique characteristics. If they pull this off, the gaming landscape will definitely change.
I hope at least this time I will be able to enjoy a portable media center with at least good retrogaming and with PHYSICAL BUTTONS. Physical buttons of at least DECENT quality I hope. I have always hated Android mostly for the touch screens and lack of real buttons. First party games for sure will not be as good as Nintendo ones, but I really like The Elder Scrolls too and a few others non Nintendo games, and overall this could be much better than Switch for me unfortunately, because Switch WOULD be great, but Nintendo is ruining it and making it a lot less good than it could be. It is quite sad for me that a device made by Google could be better for me than a Nintendo console, but right now I think it will likely will be. I hope Nintendo will change their behaviour with Switch and make it the console I hoped it was going to be when I first saw it. But right now I have nothing for them except HATE.
@Lameborghini
Never say never. Technology is gradually improving, the Switch can already stream games at half the bandwith that the PS4 can.
Difficult to say. The idea is good but Google is not near the talent and knowhow of Sony and Nintendo. Look the example of Microsoft. Nice console nice graphics... Noone Cares.
@Alucard83 dreamcast was the rival of ps2 Xbox and GameCube. Of course it was better than ps1 and n64. Those was from previous generation.
Why are people so much against streaming?
I mean, eventually this will be the future of gaming, no matter what you guys are saying about it now.
How many of you do still buy physical media's for movies or music? Do most of you not use streaming services like Netflix, YouTube or Spotify etc.?
Ok, so many of you are living in backward countries like United States with poor internet infrastructure. But even you will have much better internet connections in 10 years!
And for places like Scandinavia, South Korea or Japan, the Internet infrastructure is already good and ready enough for a game streaming service.
It makes a lot of sense for big companies as Google to already start investing in such a streaming service now, if they want to be the Gaming Netflix of the future. Or it could be to late for them?
And Google has the resources and cloud know-how to make such a streaming service. And I can also see the benefit in not having any connection to the current physical console business at all. Google can start from scratch and make it perfect from the start.
Sony does have all the necessary resources and game library to make a similar streaming service. But their PS-NOW is a disaster! Sony is a conservative hardware company, that just doesn't understand online services at all.
If PS-NOW is going to be a success, Sony needs to let it compete on equal terms with their physical consoles like PS4!
Why is PS-NOW so expensive, and why does it only offer old games?
Why can't I stream all my bought content on PS-Store through PS-NOW?
Why can't I use PS-NOW on all possible devices like smart-tv's and in browsers like I use Netflix? Who needs PS-NOW on their PS4?
Sony needs to do something about those problems, or PS-NOW will just fail. Just like all the other services they have tried with in the past.
The success of streaming services like Netflix or Spotify, has shown that you need to make it accessable on all possible devices, and you need to have premium content and good value for money. PS-NOW doesn't offer anything of this!
“Google buys EA”
two years later
“Google shuts down video game division”
@Akropolon Online console gaming falls more under the "services" category and other consoles offer that as well, so that's hard to really count it. Also, introducing new IPs doesn't necessarily mean much if they're not successful. And Microsoft's IPs haven't exactly turned heads and developed into long running series. Nintendo hasn't had a lot of new IPs lately, yes, but most of the ones they do introduce have been relatively successful. Most notable is Splatoon, which sold nearly 5 million copies on a console that only sold about 13 million and has easily risen to become a core part of Nintendo's lineup. Is there any Microsoft IP that can boast that? How many of Microsoft's IPs can you reliably count on showing up on the XBO's successor? The only IP Microsoft is really known for is Halo, and to a lesser degree Forza, Gears of War, and Fable. That's about it. Other than that they're just throwing crap to the walls and seeing if it sticks and buying exclusives for 3rd parties. That doesn't exactly speak to a company that cares a whole lot about games.
Finally the Atari VCS will have a competitor.
I like my physical media, so no thanks Google. Not interested in playing games I can't physically own.
@Anti-Matter Someone's being watching Power Rangers as of late. Now we just need a pink and black competitor.
@retro_player_22
"Now we just need a pink and black competitor."
Pink = Apple ?
Black = Steam
@dres People are against streaming games for many reasons, but mainly:
1. The super high-speed requirements when internet infrastructure is in dire need of an upgrade
2. The high data requirements of streaming high-end video games when most people need to deal with data caps these days
3. The terrible lag you get if you don't have top notch internet with a great connection to the server
4. The fact that most people want to actually own their games and play them whenever they want to
5. The fact that most people don't want to be entirely dependent upon an online service in order play video games
As for PS Now, the thing that most people seems to have against that is the way it makes you wait around in a virtual line for your opportunity to play a game if it is even mildly popular, as well as the fact that most people don't have good enough internet to make it work well.
@JayJ
You reason 1, 2 and 3 doesn't really apply in the country I live in. And certainly not for me.
What I heard about RE7 on Switch, it should actually run great, when you have a good connection. And in Japan many people has good and reliable internet connections.
Why can't we have the future now, when there is places like Scandinavia, South Korea or Japan, were the Internet infrastructure is already good and ready enough for a game streaming service?
Do we really need to wait for everyone, before we Kickstart this?
People who don't have any Internet doesn't have any Netflix or Spotify subscription either.
That some people can't use these services doesn't mean that it is wrong, or that it won't happen. The same goes for a Game streaming service.
As long as such a service is just a great alternative for the few with a good enough internet connections, then I can't see the problem.
And the market for physical consoles and games will not disappear over night, as long as there is enough demand for it.
About your reason 4 and 5, I know than many Nintendo gamers are typical traditionalist who likes to collect physical things, and old school stuff. I am one of those types as well. So it's no wonder that most users here on Nintendolife are against streaming of games.
But the new young generation of gamers, that is currently growing up with iPads, YouTube and Netflix couldn't care less about all this physical stuff.
As soon as a great game streaming service arrive, that can be accessed everywhere, and is stable and without latency, a lot of people will be interested. And I know a lot of casual PS4 and X1 players who would sign up for such a service.
@dres Okay well that is all fine and dandy if you happen to live in a highly developed part of Japan, but there is no shortage of people who don't live there. Anyways we aren't talking about what works specifically for you or just a small group of people, we are talking about what will work for the rest of the world and everyone else in it. When it comes to the vast majority of people who play video games, the fact remains that their internet is far from ideal. If you want to launch something as a gaming platform for everyone, these are the kind of things that matter.
...and comparing a gaming streaming service to a video streaming service is just ridiculous. You can easily get away with a much slower connection when it comes to streaming video compared to games, and issues like lag and buffering are far less annoying when you are simply trying to watch something as opposed to when you are trying to actively interact with something.
Comparing video streaming service requirements to gaming steaming service requirements is a real apples and oranges kind of thing, and I should know. I was one of the people who had an On-Live streaming console back when that was still a thing. It was kinda neat but the connection would occasionally mess up on me and certain types of games would be hard to play due to a small amount of noticeable lag. It really sucked when the service shut down because I lost everything I had with the service when that happened, and it is not like my Wii where I still have everything I downloaded, with streaming services once the servers go down that is it, everything you paid for no longer exists.
You mean how Google+ was Facebook's ultimate rival?
What is it with all this talk about streaming games all of a sudden?
98% of the worldwide network isn't yet capable of handling that stuff. Why can't they see that?
I don't want to stream games on Pixelboy Color
sigh
"Hey, what should we do now?"
"Oh, I know, let's make a video game console!"
"Why would we do that? Isn't it almost impossible to compete against the three giant of the industry: Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft?
"Because even after throwing away a bunch of cash on the whole google glass thing we did a couple of years ago, we still have a ton of spare cash laying around and I thought we might as well throw that away too!"
"That does sound appealing."
"And we can also contribute and help usher in the next big crash! Wouldn't that be swell? "
Oh, God. It's like Google was actually developing the Ouya, except without the Kickstarter.
I'll give Google the benefit of the doubt here. A big company like that can spend big on development for games. Either it becomes a solid system on its own merits, even with streaming, or it becomes another failed attempt to try to do what other big companies are doing, like Google+.
I just hope you dont have to sift through bad game after bad game just to find something decent to play. If it uses the current Google store. Im afraid it will be frustrating to know end.
Lost me at "streaming". No thanks.
The reactions from the gaming's current titans, as put forth by yours truly:
PlayStation: BRING IT ON, BOOOOIIIII! (downs beer bottle while wildly firing an AK-47)
Xbox: Oh Jesus NO! Code red! CODE RED! (cue mass panic)
Publishers: Oh great, another platform to serve. And it's streaming to boot. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay…
Nintendo: (eats popcorn)
How about:
The hardware is a controller that syncs or clips into any modern Android phone.
The service is a YouTube red subscription.
Servers run PC games like NVIDIA shield.
Makes all available PC games available to all Android users with a minor subscription, or an additional subscription.
People need to look at the motive... Why would Google do this?
1/ attack Microsoft and windows
2/ make Android and Google an active option for high end gaming
3/ defence and attack against Apple - Google can leverage server / provider skills
4/ boost YouTube or other subscribers, and more revenue
5/ if successful, they can own the streaming market - and even own the platform for other providers
6/ the more people online, the more ad revenue for other divisions
I doubt they would spend a lot of $$$ on original content - be just a few games for promotional and exclusive purposes
...
I've always been strongly against cloud gaming - as hardware gets better and cheaper over time, it's even less useful. But if it opens up a new market - i.e 1000s of quality games to a billion (Android) users... It could be scary.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...