Google’s announcement is almost certainly a brand new console - Ars Technica

Nov 16, 2017
1,247
499 is cheap now?
For the time you use it, and for being such a large part of your hobby (mine at least) it’s -dirt- cheap. I struggle to find a hobby that you generally invest 500 bucks every 7 (8?) years into.
If it’s a hobby you love, why not spend a bit more to get a box that doesnt sound line a jet engine and uses ancient storage tech, leading to horrible loading times and a laptop cpu that limits the scope of virtually all games?
 
Oct 26, 2017
7,488
If you're not in it to win substantial market share, what's the point?

And if all google wanted to do was push streaming subscriptions to various platforms- they don't need a console to do that.

controllers have margin, but the death of couch co-op (smash brothers aside) means they're not really selling a ton of extra controllers, except as replacements.

on the other hand, retailer margin of a $60 video game is about $15. https://kotaku.com/what-your-60-really-buys-5479698

For a AAA title that sells a few million copies, this is going to be far more significant than the sales from replacement controllers, and there are many of these AAA games released each year.

We can agree to disagree on google's ratio of abandoned to successful products, but the perception is absolutely out there.
$15 on a retail game is way more than I thought. I thought it was like 5.

But on the point of not racing for console sales: Look at what Microsoft is doing right now. That can be done to different degrees. Microsoft is going to reduce emphasis on the console because the real money is going to be in the streaming subs. Google can pursue this streaming business with the same aggression while having even less emphasis on the console sales.

The console can be a luxury product. Or a halo product, if you prefer. And it does serve a certain audience. Just think about what'll happen here when we start getting our first Google fanboys. How is their involvement going to differ depending on whether they own a hard console or not? I bet they'd be a lot more zealous with a console under their tv.

That probably seems kind of silly. I guess I'm trying to paint a picture of how the console could support the streaming platform without having to sell a huge (30-100 million) amount.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,166
STILL waiting to hear how Sony / Google / Amazon / MS intend to deal with the data caps you just know will be put into place once the game streaming medium takes over. ISP's literally control the most important tech, completely.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,972
Shield 2 it is then
If a Shield 2 gets announced, I'm buying it.

The Nvidia Shield is the best media streaming box ever. And I don't know how long people who own it will have GeForce Now for free, but if you're into streaming, there's no reason to not have it, especially since it adds your already purchased games to your stream collection.
 
Nov 22, 2017
1,994
If it's literally just project stream, I don't really understand why they're hiring multiple people who oversaw major gaming hardware launches and teasing the thing that they've already beta tested.

"Alright, thanks to everyone for joining us for this heavily anticipated announcement. I'm glad to finally announce that the thing we've been clandestinely teasing as the future of gaming... Is the streaming service you beta tested for us last year! That's right! The secret announcement is something you've probably literally already used!"
 
Oct 25, 2017
762
STILL waiting to hear how Sony / Google / Amazon / MS intend to deal with the data caps you just know will be put into place once the game streaming medium takes over. ISP's literally control the most important tech, completely.
Gaming does not compete with their media subsidiaries like Netflix did so why would they care?
 
Jan 10, 2018
1,066
If it's literally just project stream, I don't really understand why they're hiring multiple people who oversaw major gaming hardware launches and teasing the thing that they've already beta-tested.

"Alright, thanks to everyone for joining us for this heavily anticipated announcement. I'm glad to finally announce that the thing we've been clandestinely teasing as the future of gaming... Is the streaming service you beta tested for us last year! That's right! The secret announcement is something you've probably literally already used!"
They will likely go into detail to show just how they will make their Streaming Service work (talking about how they feel they solved the problems that plagued streaming so far) and all the third parties that have jumped on board to launch games on their service. The pricing structure, supported ways to use their service, etc. There's a lot of things they can talk about rather than just a console itself.

Google will try to hype up their streaming service/platform as them jumping into the gaming scene. Their service in a way is a major gaming platform launch.
 
Last edited:
Nov 6, 2017
2,143
If it's literally just project stream, I don't really understand why they're hiring multiple people who oversaw major gaming hardware launches and teasing the thing that they've already beta tested.

"Alright, thanks to everyone for joining us for this heavily anticipated announcement. I'm glad to finally announce that the thing we've been clandestinely teasing as the future of gaming... Is the streaming service you beta tested for us last year! That's right! The secret announcement is something you've probably literally already used!"
I'm guessing there will be exclusives for the new service.
 
Oct 26, 2017
7,488
I'm calling it. I have my crow bib ready for tuesday.

Pixel Console $249. Significantly more expensive commercial version for game streaming servers.
I'm guessing there will be exclusives for the new service.
Also a good guess. A reveal of a streaming box, a controller, details streaming service, would be a letdown. But if they showed three or five badass games that they were actually developing to add to the market, that would justify the hype.

That would be equally as exciting as a console, just in a different way.
 

Kilrogg

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,064
For the time you use it, and for being such a large part of your hobby (mine at least) it’s -dirt- cheap. I struggle to find a hobby that you generally invest 500 bucks every 7 (8?) years into.
If it’s a hobby you love, why not spend a bit more to get a box that doesnt sound line a jet engine and uses ancient storage tech, leading to horrible loading times and a laptop cpu that limits the scope of virtually all games?
But assuming it's somewhat like a console, I struggle to see how that can be considered cheap. $499 was literally the highest possible price for any piece of hardware this console gen. Outside of the Xbox One at launch and the Xbox One X, every single piece of console hardware this gen was cheaper. $499 is $100 more expensive than the launch PS4. $200 more than the Switch. And it's just $100 short of the laughably expensive PS3 back in the day. Note that I'm not even trying to argue that $499 is expensive (although I do think it is); I'm just telling you it's not cheap. If you can't even see how it's not cheap given pricing standards in the console hardware category, then I don't know what to tell you. I feel like I'm hearing those arguments for the PS3 all over again: "$599 is actually not expensive! It's all about value!" Yeah, we all know how well that went with consumers.

Now, on the other hand if you're simply saying it's cheap for a streaming box, then... I honestly don't know because I don't know what kind of price those go for. How expensive are those, typically? The somewhat successful ones anyway.
 
Oct 26, 2017
7,488
That would mean that the 3rd parties need to port their games though. Maybe Google was able to convince them.
You don't port Linux as much as you port to open apis. The usual obstacle to linux ports of larger games is the small audience. If there is bigger $$ involved, I'm sure these ports would suddenly become lot easier to do lol.
 
May 25, 2018
2,327
I mean by that logic Nintendo shouldn't even be in business anymore.

Depends more the software line up they got. Especially if they do have all those Sega exclusives they supposedly funded.
We all know that Nintendo is special. Do you think Google could put out as many great games as consistently? Plus Nintendo has Pokemon, Zelda, and Mario. Like of course Nintendo doesn't need the best hardware.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3
Do you think they want to run their streaming games off Windows? An android console might have a sister unit that goes on a server rack.
Linux seems more likely:
Our understanding is that the Google system, codenamed Yeti, is a new platform built from the ground up, based on Linux and using the Vulkan graphics API. As a new platform, it's designed with the future in mind, with specs that are comparable to those projected for the next-gen consoles - but that also means that it's going to take time to build a library of games.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...icrosoft-make-a-streaming-platform-that-works
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,079
I dont think this will use Android, Linux or Chrome as the base OS. I bet it will be based off fuchsia which is going to run on many many different devices with different screens and sometime just smart speakers.
 
Nov 16, 2017
1,247
But assuming it's somewhat like a console, I struggle to see how that can be considered cheap. $499 was literally the highest possible price for any piece of hardware this console gen. Outside of the Xbox One at launch and the Xbox One X, every single piece of console hardware this gen was cheaper. $499 is $100 more expensive than the launch PS4. $200 more than the Switch. And it's just $100 short of the laughably expensive PS3 back in the day. Note that I'm not even trying to argue that $499 is expensive (although I do think it is); I'm just telling you it's not cheap. If you can't even see how it's not cheap given pricing standards in the console hardware category, then I don't know what to tell you. I feel like I'm hearing those arguments for the PS3 all over again: "$599 is actually not expensive! It's all about value!" Yeah, we all know how well that went with consumers.

Now, on the other hand if you're simply saying it's cheap for a streaming box, then... I honestly don't know because I don't know what kind of price those go for. How expensive are those, typically? The somewhat successful ones anyway.
I don't see it that way.
It's cheap to me. And to a lot of others too; people buying super expensive PCs (money which, lets be frank, only helps with gaming, not other PC needs). Also, people that bought PS4 base AND Pro, like me.
Give us more options. Have a 499 option, but have a truly premium option too. And if 499 is expensive, 399 was expensive when PS4 was released too, or what? Inflation etc. Inflation adjusted, that 399 is 441 today, which is a few big macs from 499.
 
Oct 25, 2017
248
Yuba city
I have a feeling this is a service type thing. I dont think Google is making a system in the traditional way. It seems to me Microsoft and Google are doing things similar and want games only anything with a screen on it.