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)

They really didn’t and to say otherwise is just trying to rewrite history. I was in my late teens when Microsoft enter the game and there was never this sense from gamers that they were a morally corrupt company.

Peoples issues with Google are not competition, which is what people were upset with Microsoft because they wanted to create an all in one box to take over the living room.
It might be because you were a little younger at the time that you were not aware of where Micro$oft used to fall with regards to morality. The focus on corporate evil by tech companies in the public eye was at a lower level then than it is now, but it was still there. And Microsoft had major morality questions around them.
 
Oct 28, 2017
5,534
I am also more curious than I am concerned and that is because I dont intend to buy into it as a service. Im not a fan of streaming media in general and even less of a fan at it for gaming. I buy a game because I want it forever. If this is somehow a real thing with streaming, digital download and physical media then maybe. As for the character of the company, it is far more concerning.
 
Oct 25, 2017
638
Illinois
Nintendo, Sony and MS aren’t saints either. Corporations are out to make money, don’t let that “For the gamers” branding fool you. We don’t live in a perfect society.

That said yes Google is an ethical mess. But adding more jobs and competition in the gaming space isn’t a bad thing. If Google bothers you that much, just don’t buy their console and move on.
 
Oct 25, 2017
24,909
No, my answer is that if you want to stand on the moral ground, why have such arbitrary limits ?
Again, “no ethical consumption in a capitalist world”.
In an ideal world, there would be alternatives to corporations that exploit human suffering that would cause them to die out. This is not an ideal world. That doesn’t mean that we just tolerate anything. We can define a bare minimum that it is possible to stand up against, and then stand up against that.
All companies are evil. Google (and Facebook) go beyond that. Where possible, not supporting those two companies, while still supporting others, isn’t “inconsistent” or “hypocritical”, it’s doing the best you can.
 
Oct 25, 2017
161
I know we are leaning left/far left but really this is just sad. If not being ethical is a problem none of Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo will be in the gaming industry anymore.
 
Oct 25, 2017
24,909
There’s no answer. Every choice a consumer makes is a bit (or a lot) or a compromise. You choose what you feel is the best, others do the same. I think people are getting on your case for your kind of high-horse stance more than anything.
Sure, I got that, but again, my high horse stance is towards Google. Others were the ones who brought up other companies to try and point out... inconsistencies?
There is no inconsistency. As you said, it comes down to your own personal compromises.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,397
Again, “no ethical consumption in a capitalist world”.
In an ideal world, there would be alternatives to corporations that exploit human suffering that would cause them to die out. This is not an ideal world. That doesn’t mean that we just tolerate anything. We can define a bare minimum that it is possible to stand up against, and then stand up against that.
All companies are evil. Google (and Facebook) go beyond that. Where possible, not supporting those two companies, while still supporting others, isn’t “inconsistent” or “hypocritical”, it’s doing the best you can.


I mean, all companies are evil yes. But it's not like video games for exemple are something necessary in our everyday life.
It is inconsistent indeed since you draw an arbitrary line. You have no problem using consoles that arent mandatory in your life and that may be using minerals from conflicts and children forced to work for exemple ?
 
Oct 25, 2017
259
California
I think they have their hands unnecessarily in too many baskets. I also tried project stream on two occasions and the first time it ran okay, the second time it wasn’t sufficient by any means. That could be my own personal experience but by okay I mean minimal input lag with a very soft image. This can never replace real installed software for me.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,064
Illinois
It might be because you were a little younger at the time that you were not aware of where Micro$oft used to fall with regards to morality. The focus on corporate evil by tech companies in the public eye was at a lower level then than it is now, but it was still there. And Microsoft had major morality questions around them.
Maybe so but a lot of the moral issues that surround Google and it’s parent companies are issues that were born after the internet boom. You can’t put Microsoft of 1999-2001 under the same lens because those issues just didn’t exist back then.

The way I thought of Microsoft as “evil” was not in the same sense as I see Google today. But I have my morals and I can only support a company so far before questioning them.
 
Feb 21, 2018
403
Serious question for those who have stated it, why is "shaking up the console market" more important than ethics?
Well firstly though iam not one of the ones who have stated this however i would say that atleast right now in the console landscape people have issues like why do companies still taken money for playing their games online via consoles? This said console lower specs and its console manufacturer should make it better in the next iteration of it..or this said console should have x features that other consoles or the PC has its about time!..

Iam sure there are other issues/complaints people have regarding these console manufacturers and their practices which a new competitor can hugely improve on and even introduce new practices and features in their console then make it a better alternative than its console counterparts?

As a gamer ethically this is what is most important to someone who's not used to care what happens outside of gaming for the most part IMO and thats how normally people react unless something personally affects them.. they'd ONLY care about their hobby.

PS: Also like others have stated.. the other big 3 are also responsible for some of the worst acts ethically but do we care enough to boycott them in full? The answer is no.
 
Oct 25, 2017
24,909
I mean, all companies are evil yes. But it's not like video games for exemple are something necessary in our everyday life.
It is inconsistent indeed since you draw an arbitrary line. You have no problem using consoles that arent mandatory in your life and that may be using minerals from conflicts and children forced to work for exemple ?
I mean, yes, I definitely could be living as a retired hermit and have no unethical consumption. I could absolutely not have any “inessential goods” like my gaming consoles. I could have no sofas or beds or pillows or tables or desks or tablets or phones, technically most of it is inessential.
But I have it, because I want a certain quality of life. And you know what, I try to make up for that where and when I can. I donate money to charity for children in war affected countries, as one example. And I specifically, where possible, choose not to engage with a corporation that I feel is more evil than the average one, such as Google.
I don’t see why this is a problem. What companies are ones you never engage with in any capacity?
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,145
Serious question for those who have stated it, why is "shaking up the console market" more important than ethics?
People just want to play great games. Us choosing to buy or boycott games has almost no relevance or effect on, say, Google's adherence to Chinese law.
 
Oct 29, 2017
5,287
Pennsylvania
Let's see what it is first and what Google have too say about it. I don't think your concerns are unwarranted however SG, big companies getting bigger should always have some push back against it imo.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,397
I mean, yes, I definitely could be living as a retired hermit and have no unethical consumption. I could absolutely not have any “inessential goods” like my gaming consoles. I could have no sofas or beds or pillows or tables or desks or tablets or phones, technically most of it is inessential.
But I have it, because I want a certain quality of life. And you know what, I try to make up for that where and when I can. I donate money to charity for children in war affected countries, as one example. And I specifically, where possible, choose not to engage with a corporation that I feel is more evil than the average one, such as Google.
I don’t see why this is a problem. What companies are ones you never engage with in any capacity?


I'm not saying to live like a retired hermit. But admit that there's a difference between a game console and a bed or a sofa.
My point is fairly simple: I understand why you would refuse to engage with the more evil. What I dont understand is why not refuse to do so with lesser evil ones too for the reason they dont even provide something that you need in your personal or professionnal life ?
 
Oct 27, 2017
413
I feel like the only companies big enough to make a difference in the gaming markets tend to operate unethically. The companies you think might not can probably be shown to if they are examined closely enough.
 
Oct 25, 2017
24,909
I'm not saying to live like a retired hermit. But admit that there's a difference between a game console and a bed or a sofa.
My point is fairly simple: I understand why you would refuse to engage with the more evil. What I dont understand is why not refuse to do so with lesser evil ones too for the reason they dont even provide something that you need in your personal or professionnal life ?
You missed answering my question—what are companies you never absolutely engage with on principle?
My answered is tied intrinsically to yours.
 
Maybe so but a lot of the moral issues that surround Google and it’s parent companies are issues that were born after the internet boom. You can’t put Microsoft of 1999-2001 under the same lens because those issues just didn’t exist back then.

The way I thought of Microsoft as “evil” was not in the same sense as I see Google today. But I have my morals and I can only support a company so far before questioning them.
The scope and types of issues are always going to be "flavor of the day". I can very well compare Microsoft of 1999-2000 because in those days, they were the "evil guys" (at least in my circles). I'm not comparing issues themselves, I'm comparing the relative perception of the company. I mean, you're kind of proving my original point; 10-20 years from now a guy might be posting on this board arguing with someone that Google wasn't as evil as the new Borg trying to land on the console scene. ;)
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,853
I'm not saying to live like a retired hermit. But admit that there's a difference between a game console and a bed or a sofa.
My point is fairly simple: I understand why you would refuse to engage with the more evil. What I dont understand is why not refuse to do so with lesser evil ones too for the reason they dont even provide something that you need in your personal or professionnal life ?
We’re all enthusiast gamers, so gaming clearly is important to all of us. People are allowed to set their arbitrary ethical lines wherever they want. The problem is when they get preachy about it, and that’s when other people point out hypocrisy.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,397
You missed answering my question—what are companies you never absolutely engage with on principle?
My answered is tied intrinsically to yours.

On principle, I refuse to engage to those who either put out product harmful to my health or my consumer rights. Sure, I could go a step above and also refuse to engage with ethically questionnable ones. But I dont because I hate to have one sided principles. If I start somewhere, I'd have to do it totally.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,569
UK
Why ? If anything, they're the only one that seems to have the cash to give the console market a shakeup ? Then again, if we're talking about a moral ground well yes, I agree... but then again, none of the big 3 stands well there.
Well 3 is better than 5 if we're going with the moral ground

I just don't trust either of them to do anything that would benefit consumers, we'd likely see more exclusives, a larger focus on streaming, money hatting and studio acquisitions etc
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,397
Well 3 is better than 5 if we're going with the moral ground

I just don't trust either of them to do anything that would benefit consumers, we'd likely see more exclusives, a larger focus on streaming, money hatting and studio acquisitions etc

Well, it would benefit devs.
 
Oct 25, 2017
24,909
On principle, I refuse to engage to those who either put out product harmful to my health or my consumer rights. Sure, I could go a step above and also refuse to engage with ethically questionnable ones. But I dont because I hate to have one sided principles. If I start somewhere, I'd have to do it totally.
So your personal line is your consumer rights?
Mine is data collection. Google is far beyond other companies there.
 
Jul 21, 2018
89
So I don't like Facebook as an organization and refrain from using their services whenever possible.
But even if this was about Facebook, I gotta look at OP as overdoing it. It goes from holding a company accountable for their actions (and inactions) straight to "I wish this company failure at things completely unrelated to the things I'm holding them accountable for, even before they even told us what those things are"
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,920
We all have our lines to draw when it comes to consumption of things that are not a necessity. The reason they are okay with other corporations doing unethical things is because they like those things. Trying to act like that's not the reason is just plain weird to me.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,569
UK
Well, it would benefit devs.
It could, depends on what they do and how, buying a load of huge publishers and dictating what they can make and how would probably be a negative

It could also be win win for devs and consumers, it depends on how and what they do, but I suppose rather the devil you know than the devil you don't

Sony and MS keep each other in check, and Nintendo do their own thing, throw new players into the game and the whole dynamic could end up messed up, which is kind of whats happening with PC now with the EGS

We could see Valve resorting to money hats if Epic keep it up and gain market share, and that's worse for everyone

Steam wasn't perfect but it worked for consumers for the most part, and you can say the same about Sony/MS/Nintendo
 
Oct 27, 2017
867
Google entering the console race is bad to me from more of a monopoly standpoint- they can see the streaming future and want to establish a monopoly on video games having failed on that front in terms of TV/film, music and social media.

I agree with most of what OP says, but they're symptoms not of something wrong with Google specifically, but of what is wrong with monopoly capitalism in general. Apple, Amazon, Facebook etc are going to be responsible for very similar ethical violations, Microsoft too. The scale of such violations is always dependent on the size and power of the corporation.

I mean, I'd much rather all our video game platforms were created by much smaller, Nintendo-sized companies which didn't have imperialist, world-conquering outlooks.

Lol this article is literally the view of incredibly right wing, imperialist American millitary figures who would like an actual war with China, and for China as we know it to be wiped off the face of the earth and replaced with a USA puppet state. Tbh the only good thing about Google is that they occasionally don't simply do the bidding of the American state.

hmm, never realised this. thanks
Haha, best response
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,397
Epic Games Store also benefits devs. That doesn’t make it a good force in the market, you yourself have pointed this out.

Yes, I did. Hence why I point it out again.
If you want my honest opinion on what Google's entrance could mean it's simple:
No good.
Agressive acquisition, agressive behaviours and more fragmentation.

Because unfortunately, competition barely does any good in the video game market. In fact, consumer reaction is often a stronger vector of change for publishers and manufacturers than actual competitors. Despite having 3 competitors, every consoles has an online paywall. Despite having 3 competitors, they all have big problems that may not be fixed such as refunds, backward compatibility or virtual console.

What I see though is people complaining about Xbox always online brought change. People complaining about lack of crossplay brought change.

Basically I dont believe in the big company that needs to enforce itself with anti-consumer practices in the hope they make the market better. It never happens. But I can see some people changed their tune when they are concerned this time potentially.
 
Oct 25, 2017
24,909
Yes, I did. Hence why I point it out again.
If you want my honest opinion on what Google's entrance could mean it's simple:
No good.
Agressive acquisition, agressive behaviours and more fragmentation.

Because unfortunately, competition barely does any good in the video game market. In fact, consumer reaction is often a stronger vector of change for publishers and manufacturers than actual competitors. Despite having 3 competitors, every consoles has an online paywall. Despite having 3 competitors, they all have big problems that may not be fixed such as refunds, backward compatibility or virtual console.

What I see though is people complaining about Xbox always online brought change. People complaining about lack of crossplay brought change.

Basically I dont believe in the big company that needs to enforce itself with anti-consumer practices in the hope they make the market better. It never happens. But I can see some people changed their tune when they are concerned this time potentially.
The point is that the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are known quantities, and we know how to communicate with them. Collectively, consumers have been able to keep them in check, as you yourself point out. Can we say that will be true for Google? And given how big Google is, can we say that they won’t be able to brute force their way with sheer money and appeal to a larger market and be able to throw their weight around?
 
Oct 22, 2018
2,975
Because a lot of these ethical issues can be applied to the current 3 manufacturers, from the use of minerals from countries in war, to the use of Foxconn factories... To even contributing to drones for the american army in the case of Microsoft it seems.
I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting google builds its hardware from sustainably-sourced minerals?
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,968
This is like a shot for shot remake of people freaking out about Microsoft entering the console market
Glad Im not the only one noticing that.

Especially the sheer fear of a "company of this size and with its history entering our space for the first time". The Evil, Antitrust-laden, Greedy multi billion dollar company a.k.a Micro$oft was going to bring all the 'wrong' things to gaming.

History REALLY does rhyme man. This is crazy.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,492
I’m good on Google. Damn near every single branch of their business exists for the sole purpose of harvesting your data and habits. Android, Google health, YouTube, docs, drive, Google Wallet, Chrome, Maps, etc are all there to monetize you. I’m not interested in what that business model will bring to gaming, and I hope they fall flat
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,057
Yup. These arguments certainly apply to all the companies in this industry but google is high risk for abuses. This is where games journalism needs to really step up to the plate... and as consumers of games journalist, where we need to step up and support the good stuff.
 
Oct 22, 2018
2,975
No ? I'm saying for exemple Nintendo and Sony are (or were ?) not well ranked when it comes to minerals usage.
The problem is that if that's all you have to say you're outlining a problem where a solution would be actively impeded by further competition/consumption
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,518
The point is that the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are known quantities, and we know how to communicate with them. Collectively, consumers have been able to keep them in check, as you yourself point out. Can we say that will be true for Google? And given how big Google is, can we say that they won’t be able to brute force their way with sheer money and appeal to a larger market and be able to throw their weight around?
Microsoft is bigger than Alphabet/Google. You would communicate with them the same way you do with MS. What would they be doing that MS hasn't or couldn't?
 
Oct 27, 2017
365
Kentucky
im curious about what they are going to do. but honestly i dread it. a company as a big as google with tons of $ likely means buying up studios or buying exclusive games. that will make 4 consoles necessary to buy, assuming they have good first party output. and assuming microsoft gets their shit together for next gen (which i expect they will). I try to avoid google every where possible, but good exclusives are going to be my weakness. although if it turns out to be streaming only ill probably ignore their offering. not interested in purely streaming. i like it as a complimentary thing like ps4 remote play though.
 
Sep 1, 2018
840
Serious question for those who have stated it, why is "shaking up the console market" more important than ethics?
Obviously people want to see glorious capitalism in action, so that they - as the consumers - can reap the rewards from the resulting competition.

Nothing wrong with capitalism, right?
 
Oct 27, 2017
454
Today I learned that people think Google is worst than Microsoft, Sony, EA, Activision, etc.

Like all public companies, the only thing any of them care about is the bottom line. Google is just another company. None of them want to be your friend or care about you as a consumer other than your money.