Google entering the Home Console race is not a good thing for the Consumers, the Developers, or the Industry and Art of Video Games (ethical issues)

Oct 25, 2017
6,866
Austin, TX
I don't disagree with any of the points in the OP. And certainly share some of that concern. But then it's like, all these tech companies are ethically fucked anyway, perhaps not to the extent of google but none of us can possibly live in this world and not swim in this shit. The modern world we live in makes it virtually impossible to do so (and doubly so if I'm a socialist). LOL

So with that being said, I'm kinda curious to see what they'll announce.

I'd say it depends on the kind of changes that Google can bring to the console market. For instance, a Google console that offers free online multiplayer could help console gamers reclaim free online after all three console makers started charging for it.
this is an example that would be rad. Or perhaps fund more single player, mtx free games. Or something else. But it probably won't happen. I'll wait to shit on them properly once they reveal what they got. And in all actuality, I doubt they'll convince me to buy more than 2 consoles a gen.
 
Dec 5, 2017
1,590
"Google is too large" is not an argument when their competition has the likes of Microsoft, Sony, Amazon and others...

Im sure anybody can find countless articles on how Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo have been terrible as an overall company and brand over the last 5-10 years.

So... i don't much care for Google joining the console space... but this is silly.

Hardware is worthless without software. And nobody is jumping in into a brand new console without a proven library.

Whatever Google puts out, it's more likely to be a Cheaper box to run an extensive library of indie releases... Hardware is meaningless without the games to back it up.
 
Oct 25, 2017
353
Iowa USA
Good lord. What is it with you people. If a company wants to enter a market there is zero you can do to stop it. Stop being hyperbolic and posting theories. Nobody here knows what is going to happen. The only thing you can do as a consumer is to vote with your wallet. You like what Nintedo is doing? Good, buy their systems and games. You like what Sony is doing? Support them. Period. That's it.
 
Oct 26, 2017
752
I disagree for a few reasons:

1) ethics is not binary. There is such a thing as cleaner or dirtier companies, to use your terms
2) consumers can pressure and drive companies' ethics through purchasing their products or not
3) that viewpoint leads to a slippery slope of "everyone's dirty, so it's fine if these people are dirtier." Change industries, think of how unethical the whole tobacco industry was...
I would add that it also depends on the size/power of a company.
I don't need companies with multiple monopolies like Google and Ms to get even more powerful by inhabiting the next market.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,350
Ok, you lost me here. What do you mean?
Currently we have one console provider who has a lot of influence, enough to make third party exclusive deals. Also enough influence to not allow its users a choice to have console crossplay features that some developers also want to implement or allow competitive services like EA Access. So the argument being made about Google being a very powerful company to the point of having a monopoly in certain areas doesn't mean we don't already have issues already taking place now in gaming.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,350
Fuck this attitude. Everything is fucked, so fuck it all? Why even try to be a good person at all if this is your outlook, or maybe it's an Outlook only espoused when it suits you?
Like I said before, how far down the line do we go? Naughty Dog and Rockstar are both known to have their employees work long hours, EA was known to not pay overtime. People are moving around all the time, so what kind of job security is there? Console hardware makers make exclusive deals and poach third party developers to keep content from going on other platforms. The list goes on and on.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,990
Sweden
Like I said before, how far down the line do we go? Naughty Dog and Rockstar are both known to have their employees work long hours, EA was known to not pay overtime. People are moving around all the time, so what kind of job security is there? Console hardware makers make exclusive deals and poach third party developers to keep content from going on other platforms. The list goes on and on.
Well reading the OP list some questionable stuff... which I find way worse then not paying for overtime.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,350
Well reading the OP list some questionable stuff... which I find way worse then not paying for overtime.
Cool, so everything is perfect then in your eyes right now. This reminds me of the discussion I had months ago about PC gaming and how some stores are using exclusive content to get you to use their service and how upset they are with that. Yet were all too willing to buy console exclusives and thinking it's not the same thing at all.
 
Apr 23, 2018
51
Currently we have one console provider who has a lot of influence, enough to make third party exclusive deals. Also enough influence to not allow its users a choice to have console crossplay features that some developers also want to implement or allow competitive services like EA Access. So the argument being made about Google being a very powerful company to the point of having a monopoly in certain areas doesn't mean we don't already have issues already taking place now in gaming.
Sony's not the only one who made third party exclusive deals this gen, Microsoft did too with Rise of the Tomb Raider, and Crossplay and EA Access, while consumer-friendly niceties, are not things Sony is obliged to implement on their consoles. Also, Microsoft has only themselves to blame for Sony's huge clout this gen, keeping guys like Don Mattrick and Terry Myerson managing Xbox for longer than they should've, and I say that being a big Microsoft fanboy.

More importantly, however, is that Sony doesn't have any other monopoly they can leverage to favor PlayStation. My problem with Google is the same people had with Microsoft back in the 90s: they have huge monopolies in key areas that they can easily use to unfairly force themselves into new markets while undermining the competition. Microsoft destroyed Netscape Navigator and they only had Windows as a powerful monopoly to favor Internet Explorer, so I'm not really comfortable with letting a company that dominates web search, web browser, maps, video streaming, mobile OS and is already abusing those resources to take over voice assistant market from Amazon to get any significant market share in gaming.

But, of course, your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
2,350
Sony's not the only one who made third party exclusive deals this gen, Microsoft did too with Rise of the Tomb Raider, and Crossplay and EA Access, while consumer-friendly niceties, are not things Sony is obliged to implement on their consoles. Also, Microsoft has only themselves to blame for Sony's huge clout this gen, keeping guys like Don Mattrick and Terry Myerson managing Xbox for longer than they should've, and I say that being a big Microsoft fanboy.

More importantly, however, is that Sony doesn't have any other monopoly they can leverage to favor PlayStation. My problem with Google is the same people had with Microsoft back in the 90s: they have huge monopolies in key areas that they can easily use to unfairly force themselves into new markets while undermining the competition. Microsoft destroyed Netscape Navigator and they only had Windows as a powerful monopoly to favor Internet Explorer, so I'm not really comfortable with letting a company that dominates web search, web browser, maps, video streaming, mobile OS and is already abusing those resources to take over voice assistant market from Amazon to get any significant market share in gaming.

But, of course, your mileage may vary.
You don't think Playstation had a key role in making blu-ray have the upper hand? Of course it was being leveraged.

My mileage does vary. From VR deals, to making deals for the rights to IP's just to have them sit on the shelf, to strong-arming developers. Yes you are correct, Microsoft used to play hardball in a very big way with third party deals. So you're agreeing with me that they are all guilty of being self-serving. That's not to ignore Google's past practices at all, just putting things into perspective that this is an entertainment business driven solely by profits.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
2,576
I agree with most of your points here OP broadly speaking, but what specifically for gaming is Google going to do to harm the industry ie the players and developers?
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,258
Google already owns one of the biggest gaming platforms around (Android and Google Play), so i really dont think a new dedicated box from them will change anything in that regards. That platform has opened opportunities for many game developers. I'm looking forward to see what they will bring. Only a few more days until we know.
 
Nov 14, 2018
167
UK
if Google are getting into console gaming then i'd welcome them. the more competition the better. you don't support them because of ethical reasons as a company? don't buy/use their products.

any serious competition in the gaming industry can only be good. if anyone has a chance of challenging sony/microsoft/nintendo then it's either Google, Apple, Amazon. in fact they could probably do much better than Sony/MS/Nintendo if they are serious and stick with it. in 5-10 years who know what the gaming industry could look like.
 
Jan 10, 2019
126
Competition is good.

Can't let these companies have a monopoly on gaming, so I welcome newcomers.
Competition isn't always good you know.

Companies that are rich use "competition" to kill other companies all the time - release into an already crowded market that can't sustain so many players, reduce the number of sales to the people already in the market, make it not financially viable for anyone to complete, wait until the companies that aren't as rich as you can no longer sustain themselves and fold, congratulations you've just "won"" and now own said market and can do whatever you want, you have killed the competition through "more competition".

"More competition is good" is incredibly naive, especially when talking about the mega corps that are too big to fail. They can make everybody fail, including themselves, it just only matters to everyone else until they own the market.
 
Last edited:
Oct 29, 2017
2,546
People are putting way too much stock in Google's size being assurance of guaranteed victory. Brand loyalty is massive in the video game industry. It is amongst the most utterly tribal of all industries out there, second perhaps only to sports.

Good luck getting a foot in in an industry that is so utterly blinded by brand loyalty and fanboyism that even the developers themselves are guilty of it...

 
Oct 27, 2017
1,810
Cool, so everything is perfect then in your eyes right now. This reminds me of the discussion I had months ago about PC gaming and how some stores are using exclusive content to get you to use their service and how upset they are with that. Yet were all too willing to buy console exclusives and thinking it's not the same thing at all.
It's not really the same thing though, at least in a lot of cases, because console exclusives are very often some combo of funded/published by/straight up made by one of the console manufacturers.

When MS moneyhatted Tomb Raider a few years back people were extremely pissed off. When they make Halo, nobody expects them to release it on PlayStation for very obvious reasons and there's no issue with that.
 
Jan 20, 2019
609
You don't think Playstation had a key role in making blu-ray have the upper hand? Of course it was being leveraged.

My mileage does vary. From VR deals, to making deals for the rights to IP's just to have them sit on the shelf, to strong-arming developers. Yes you are correct, Microsoft used to play hardball in a very big way with third party deals. So you're agreeing with me that they are all guilty of being self-serving. That's not to ignore Google's past practices at all, just putting things into perspective that this is an entertainment business driven solely by profits.
You don't make money in a Bussiness world by being soft and pro consumer, is the oposite that gives close to full control of the industry. Sony made 20B revenue in 2018 and will do the same in 2019 and 2020 until the new generation comes in.

Google will apply the same rules.
 
Nov 9, 2017
145
I feel like most of these points could have equivalently been applied to Microsoft when they introduced Xbox. Y'all ain't gonna be using Bing soon so idk why human rights is such an issue now when it comes to this hobby in particular.

I think Google or even Apple would be fine additions to the console race given they provide competition, fund great games in their own regard, and maybe even innovate with some features. We all thought the market would saturate and die at the end of last gen but it's as healthy as ever so why not shake it up a bit.
 
Oct 28, 2017
28
But aren't we already using a lot of Google services in our daily lives, which has much more coverage than premium gaming services Google will ever possibly have.

Is it worth the effort into suggesting Google not to do this, rather than constantly enforcing the points
where we believe Google has already failed in current existing services.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,350
It's not really the same thing though, at least in a lot of cases, because console exclusives are very often some combo of funded/published by/straight up made by one of the console manufacturers.

When MS moneyhatted Tomb Raider a few years back people were extremely pissed off. When they make Halo, nobody expects them to release it on PlayStation for very obvious reasons and there's no issue with that.
The point is it is to EXCLUDE others. It's not a consumer friendly practice. Now with Google entering I'm not going to harp on them either, it's a competitive business.

You don't make money in a Bussiness world by being soft and pro consumer, is the oposite that gives close to full control of the industry. Sony made 20B revenue in 2018 and will do the same in 2019 and 2020 until the new generation comes in.

Google will apply the same rules.
Sony made that money for various reasons and one of them is to do what they can to get people to their hardware. This includes partnering with third party and them being the market leader often made those deals easier I would imagine. It also expalins why we seen less of those deals by Microsoft. Same thing with trying to get your name out there on the internet, if you are a retailer you need to be on Google for search. Google is guilty for putting certain searches on the first page, while others come up on page 2 or higher. Why is this not the same as a small developer who feels compelled to release their title on the PS4, only to have their game censored?

There is no one who has this total influence.
When you are the market leader it comes with advantages and often it involves third party which again is to create deals to exclude others.

My only concern is what will Google bring to the industry for games. Of course my biggest fear is they work with a third party provider and make exclusive deals, then make the games streaming only. Other than that they should be free to compete like the rest of them.
 
Jan 20, 2019
609
The point is it is to EXCLUDE others. It's not a consumer friendly practice. Now with Google entering I'm not going to harp on them either, it's a competitive business.



Sony made that money for various reasons and one of them is to do what they can to get people to their hardware. This includes partnering with third party and them being the market leader often made those deals easier I would imagine. It also expalins why we seen less of those deals by Microsoft. Same thing with trying to get your name out there on the internet, if you are a retailer you need to be on Google for search. Google is guilty for putting certain searches on the first page, while others come up on page 2 or higher. Why is this not the same as a small developer who feels compelled to release their title on the PS4, only to have their game censored?



When you are the market leader it comes with advantages and often it involves third party which again is to create deals to exclude others.

My only concern is what will Google bring to the industry for games. Of course my biggest fear is they work with a third party provider and make exclusive deals, then make the games streaming only. Other than that they should be free to compete like the rest of them.
99% of the games that get censor are pedo simulaters or have some nudity.

It is not something new and it also happens on all platforms.

And i dont know what that has to do with this topic, but that what happens when somebody runs out of arguments.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,350
99% of the games that get censor are pedo simulaters or have some nudity.

It is not something new and it also happens on all platforms.

And i dont know what that has to do with this topic, but that what happens when somebody runs out of arguments.
I see I touched on something you've taken personally which explains why you can't see the similarities in how each company is guilty of using it's clout to be competitive. Google to me deserves a shot to enter just like Sony had and Microsoft had after them.
 
Jan 20, 2019
609
I see I touched on something you've taken personally which explains why you can't see the similarities in how each company is guilty of using it's clout to be competitive. Google to me deserves a shot to enter just like Sony had and Microsoft had after them.
Didn't touch on anything and neither did i said that they dont diserver to come to the gaming world because they are already here.

This is just a expansion.
 
The point is it is to EXCLUDE others. It's not a consumer friendly practice. Now with Google entering I'm not
I'm just trying to follow the line of argument, do you think MS making Halo themselves and then just releasing it on their own platform is anti consumer?

I tend to agree on the tactics Epic are employing but I don't see how they bear any relation to many (but not all of course) exclusives on consoles.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,350
I'm just trying to follow the line of argument, do you think MS making Halo themselves and then just releasing it on their own platform is anti consumer?

I tend to agree on the tactics Epic are employing but I don't see how they bear any relation to many (but not all of course) exclusives on consoles.
No, I think most people expect 1st party to remain exclusive. If Microsoft wants to include games like Halo on Steam that's awesome. I was talking about third party and how console makers try and get those deals, I expect Google to partake in that too. So this whole topic about Google is not a good thing for consumers and their best interest is ironic to say the least.
 
No, I think most people expect 1st party to remain exclusive. If Microsoft wants to include games like Halo on Steam that's awesome. I was talking about third party and how console makers try and get those deals, I expect Google to partake in that too. So this whole topic about Google is not a good thing for consumers and their best interest is ironic to say the least.
Ok fair enough, I agree with that and the third party deals aren't what I was referring to.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,080
This is a moderation/man power issue vs ethics. There is zero indication that Google actually wants this content on Youtube.

The app itself (which Apple also carries) isn't doing anything out of the ordinary from any other tracking/permissions app that allows a parent to monitor their kids/people they are legal guardians for. The problem is that Saudi Arabia's laws allow guardianship of adult Women and children trying to escape violence. Taking action against this app because it allows for guardians to track movements of people they are legally responsible for would call for Google to take action against other apps that allow parental/guardian tracking and permissions.

Google dropped these plans after push back. Meanwhile Microsoft Bing works in China and is censored.

This actually goes with your argument, but again Microsoft has problems here as well.

Microsoft has had the same anti-trust suits in over pre-installing software into their OS/promoting their own products over others on their platforms.

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have all done and continue to cancel/kill products and games. This isn't something unique to Google.

While Google is more dominate in this area, Microsoft and Facebook have questionable data collection practices as well.

The two officials claimed Google was indirectly helping China in response to Google deciding not to pursue the Pentagon's cloud computing contract because it went against their corporate values and to cancel analyzing drone images for the US military, while pursuing Chinese contracts (including the Chinese search engine that they dropped).

Your link even says Google stopped doing this, which is directly related to point 8. This was part of the contract that they dropped that is indirectly helping China according to US officials. But guess who stepped in to offer to do this after Google dropped it?

Anyway, the point of this response wasn't really to defend Google/I agree Google has issues as a company, but it's silly to single them out in regards to developing a Game console when companies like Microsoft aren't getting the same "they aren't ethical" treatment.
 
Oct 27, 2017
605
Catalunya
All of these businesses will have not exactly pro consumer and ethical behaviors, so why would Google be different than Microsoft, which is also a huge corporation, or Sony or Nintendo, smaller but corporations too run by many persons that are, in the end, the ones that make questionable desicions, and that one day work for A and another one works for B.
My only concern is too many boxes that play the same games (mostly) and that may make the market worse from several pow.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,080
Lol no, it´s not. You don´t need a lot of man power to get at least rid of the bigger trash channels. You could do that with a handful of people.
Those links in the OP aren't talking about a couple of Youtube channels, vs uploaded videos and comments in videos. The main criticism being Youtube not reacting fast enough/how their attempts at removing the content have failed. And those specific criticisms aren't indications of Google wanting that content on their platform aka an "ethics issue" like the OP is claiming.
 
Nov 3, 2017
2,580
Those links in the OP aren't talking about a couple of Youtube channels, vs uploaded videos and comments in videos. The main criticism being Youtube not reacting fast enough/how their attempts at removing the content have failed. And those specific criticisms aren't indications of Google wanting that content on their platform aka an "ethics issue" like the OP is claiming.
But the problem on Youtube isn´t content from smaller channels, it´s big channels being allowed to spew their bigoted garbage for years without any kind of interference.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,080
But the problem on Youtube isn´t content from smaller channels, it´s big channels being allowed to spew their bigoted garbage for years without any kind of interference.
The OP's links are discussing terrorist extremism/bomber content and child pornography/pedo content. Youtube is working towards getting rid of that content. Right Wing/Conservative/Fox News/etc... channels is a different discussion, but even then I wouldn't single Google out for this.