Gaming news outlet Kotaku has made a bold claim regarding the console gaming market. They state that they've heard from reputable sources that Google plans to get into the gaming industry. Though details are a bit fuzzy, Kotaku maintains that Google will be using a streaming platform as its focus, and there will be a specific hardware that'll be sold. They also plan to acquire some game developers in order to create games for the platform.

Buying out game developers isn't an uncommon occurrence--another large company, Microsoft, took 5 companies under its wings shortly before E3 without much of a deal, and Google itself is no stranger to buy-outs. It's definitely feasible. According to journalists in the industry, Google also had a large presence at this year's Game Developer's Conference, meeting with companies in order to discuss the potential for a streaming-based video game service, codenamed Yeti at the time.

In terms of streaming for video games, there's two major services out there that gamers might know of: GeForce Now and PlayStation Now. Both of these let players utilize any sort of supported hardware to play games. It also lets players experience titles that might not run normally on their computers, or running them without storing the download on a hard drive, and removing the need to buy discs or carts.

That, of course, brings in the long-fought debate of digital over physical, and the industry's recent push towards a potential all-digital future. Plus, Google is known for starting projects and then leaving them to rot on a whim. If any company could manage to pull off such a feat, it would be Google who could possibly make it work.

What are your thoughts? Would you want a digital-only streaming alternative to play your games on, or do you prefer having your own hardware and physical games? Do you think the infrastructure is there to support it? Will Google follow through?

Source

 

[Trademaster]

A part of me really wants them to release a portable just so Nintendo can add another notch on their handheld track record ^^;

 

[Deleted-355425]

Go for it google, more competition is always better.

 

[Volttekka]

Outsider rumors claim that any attempt by Google to effectively compete in the gaming industry will be doomed to failure

 

[Deleted User]

I mean, they have the infrastructure for it in the form of Google Play Games. This move is a natural evolution of that system, I suppose. Hopefully they'll be able to put the system to better use than it has been on the mobile games market.

As for the streaming approach; I know that a lot of companies seem to be moving towards a more platform-agnostic model in general, but said model is really a double-edged sword. While, yes, it will get to the point where you can play games on pretty much any device without having to worry about compatibility or having the right/powerful enough hardware (a very good thing indeed), control over the games will be put solely in the hands of juggernauts like Microsoft, Sony, and, apparently, now Google. This will make for much less leeway in regards to things like game mods, customization, and personal cheats. In other words, developers would have total control over how their games are played, which may not sound like a big deal at first, but could potentially have serious implications with regards to game design.

Streaming only seems extremely dangerous for the future of the preservation of games. Digital-only, especially if not on PC, faces similar problems with having any kind of permanence for the games sold. Have to have access to our shared history a decade or ten from now, or what's the point.

Other than that major concern, as long as it plays well and people can play it, I guess.

Not so worried about digital-only games, as backups can always be made and games can usually be cracked, but streaming-only games are probably going to be a nightmare to preserve. IIRC, a lot of content that went up on Nintendo's Satellaview service is now classified as lost media, and that was just for a relatively obscure add-on. Imagine if practically an entire generation of games goes undocumented simply because they were only offered through streaming services.

 

[Xzi]

pay google to stream games.
pay google to give you fast enough internet connection for said purpose.
... they really want to enter this scene, dont they...

I don't think they're even allowed to continue expanding their fiber network, or I'd gladly use Google as an ISP over our one cable option here, Comcast.

My reaction to Google expanding into gaming is meh at best, since they're going with a hardware-locked streaming strategy.

 

[Dominator211]

Resident evil 7 for switch all over
again.

 

[TheMCNerd2017]

I'd prefer to play my purchased games without relying on an awful DSL connection.

 

[x65943]

I mean, they have the infrastructure for it in the form of Google Play Games. This move is a natural evolution of that system, I suppose. Hopefully they'll be able to put the system to better use than it has been on the mobile games market.

As for the streaming approach; I know that a lot of companies seem to be moving towards a more platform-agnostic model in general, but said model is really a double-edged sword. While, yes, it will get to the point where you can play games on pretty much any device without having to worry about compatibility or having the right/powerful enough hardware (a very good thing indeed), control over the games will be put solely in the hands of juggernauts like Microsoft, Sony, and, apparently, now Google. This will make for much less leeway in regards to things like game mods, customization, and personal cheats. In other words, developers would have total control over how their games are played, which may not sound like a big deal at first, but could potentially have serious implications with regards to game design.


Not so worried about digital-only games, as backups can always be made and games can usually be cracked, but streaming-only games are probably going to be a nightmare to preserve. IIRC, a lot of content that went up on Nintendo's Satellaview service is now classified as lost media, and that was just for a relatively obscure add-on. Imagine if practically an entire generation of games goes undocumented simply because they were only offered through streaming services.

There were less people interested in game preservation at the time.

Now we see games as an art form, and there are many people invested in preserving them. I think the platform being less obscure also means the games are *more* likely to be preserved - as there will be even more people wishing to see it happen.

 

[Bladexdsl]

Lol, Android games don't even have replay value or depth, good luck with that

unless you keep buying to keep playing them. gotta get that building built better buy some crystals to speed it up

 

[Deleted User]

There were less people interested in game preservation at the time.

Now we see games as an art form, and there are many people invested in preserving them. I think the platform being less obscure also means the games are *more* likely to be preserved - as there will be even more people wishing to see it happen.

Hopefully. I can see an awareness movement for this sort of thing spreading across sites like Reddit, and there's already a whole community of people out there dedicated to preserving and documenting lost media, so hopefully all is not as bleak as it seems.

 

[orangy57]

My brain drips with a green ferrofluid every time a company thinks streaming games and using them as a service is a good idea. Like not even the concept makes sense. Games shouldn't ever be a service. It's not like they're movies or the same as any other form of media. They're interactive, not a movie where you can watch it once and be done in two hours. Games can take weeks to complete, and having to pay monthly to subscribe to get that experience is so dumb.
Now maybe you could look past that and say, "well i mean im fine with that, things like Game Pass on Xbox work for me," and sure you could be fine with a subscription model, it's all preference. Personally, I like owning my games but it's not objective. BUT, that's not the only problem with streaming. The big, oozing, sloppy issue here is with the whole "streaming" part itself. Streaming sucks schlong, and there will always be an extreme increase in delay when games get streamed over the internet that cannot physically be lowered in our universe. Technology will get better, but there's never going to be a way to stream your first person shooter that's being rendered on a PC in NYC to your place in Philly without at LEAST a second of input lag. Encoding, decoding, and internet technology just isn't there yet, and companies just can't get it through their heads. Sony tried it with Playstation Now, and it was a complete disaster. (I can't speak for the Nvidia one tho, i've never tried it.) But, like why can't companies learn from other companies's mistakes? This all looks good on paper, but proper execution will just never work out.

 

[the_randomizer]

unless you keep buying to keep playing them. gotta get that building built better buy some crystals to speed it up

I find no appeal in them lol

 

[Fusion]

The GBox, for the OG's.

 

[Deleted User]

I don't think they're even allowed to continue expanding their fiber network, or I'd gladly use Google as an ISP over our one cable option here, Comcast.

My reaction to Google expanding into gaming is meh at best, since they're going with a hardware-locked streaming strategy.

what do you mean "not allowed to expand their fiber network"? who can stop em and why?

 

[Xzi]

what do you mean "not allowed to expand their fiber network"? who can stop em and why?

Comcast and Time Warner (AT&T) have been filing lawsuits whenever cities try to implement rules to expand broadband/ISP competition, and they typically win.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...hey-filed-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville/

 

[ByteBite]

Hopefully we'll get another Ouya!

 

[Ryccardo]

Google should just stick to being a search engine and little services like email and blog. This business venture is a waste of money.

It's not about the money, they're in for world domination fueled by addiction to their services (see, partially, the arguments against old Microsoft, yes the one that was pushed to keep innovating by the Firefox+Google combo)

Hopefully we'll get another Ouya!

They've existed for years, vulgarly called "Kodi boxes"

 

[Subzeron17]

I will not be getting this

 

[|<roni&g]

Good, hope google does well.
They can give us the free online that Nintendo is taking away and actually market the fact that their online is free.

 

[Deleted User]

Good, hope google does well.
They can give us the free online that Nintendo is taking away and actually market the fact that their online is free.

I don't think anything was said in regards to Google charging a subscription for online or not. I'd assume it would be free, but you never know.

Besides, online is still free for many PC Games these days, so I find it more likely that people unwilling to pay for a subscription would just migrate to PC.