to be honest, if any company can break into the gaming scene, it's Google. But not with streaming, couldn't care less.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Google reportedly working on 'Yeti', a game streaming service. May feature 'console'/controller
- Thread starter gofreak
- Start date
Maybe they see Phil Harrison as a gateway to establish better connections with the hardcore game industry.
Will be interesting to see what comes of this.
You have to wonder what googles plan is here.
It's almost funny to watch because Microsoft, Sony, Amazon, and Google.....all know game streaming is the future. Netflix for games will be huge.
And they all want to be first. But their ambitions are ahead of the infrastructure.
If they can find a way to make base chromecasts work they'll be in a pretty good position. There are already millions of those out there and it'd be a pretty easy proposition. The thing is, I don't think they come with blutooth, so that would make the controller proposition harder.
As a long time Google user I wouldn't invest too heavily in a Google game platform. Google has a series commitment problem. They're a bunch of engineers that love to try cool new things but they never stick with anything.
Just look at their mobile messaging apps, there's three text apps and two video calling apps, none of which play together. Pixel Bluetooth has been broken for months because they released an "advanced Bluetooth stack". Huge support thread that they just ignore completely. When the winds change they shutdown platforms leaving the users dangling in the wind.
Again, I use and enjoy several Google services but no way am I buying into a gaming service with them.
Just look at their mobile messaging apps, there's three text apps and two video calling apps, none of which play together. Pixel Bluetooth has been broken for months because they released an "advanced Bluetooth stack". Huge support thread that they just ignore completely. When the winds change they shutdown platforms leaving the users dangling in the wind.
Again, I use and enjoy several Google services but no way am I buying into a gaming service with them.
Is there a thread about GeForce now on here? I searched but couldn't find anything...the reviews on their new upcoming service has been fantastic
Some people here seem to be down on the concept of playing games through streaming.
Honestly, I think this is the immediate future of gaming media consumption (just like streaming is already supplanting CD players, DVD players, and cable boxes)
Some people here seem to be down on the concept of playing games through streaming.
Honestly, I think this is the immediate future of gaming media consumption (just like streaming is already supplanting CD players, DVD players, and cable boxes)
Hardware and platforms is no better. They dumped Google Glass (hope you didn't drop 1500 on those), they dumped OnHub and replaced it with Google Wifi, Nexus Player was killed but strangely ran parallel to Chromecast (Chromecast was a redo for the immediately killed Nexus Q), both were proceeded by Google TV. The cheap Nexus line got replaced with the expensive Pixel line despite being at the same generation relative specs and they decided not to backport all the exclusive features but even before that each iteration inexplicably had different screen sizes (4, 5, 6). They made 2 7" (Nexus 7) tablets that were popular, then switched exclusively to a 9" (Nexus 9) then killed that for an expensive 10" (Pixel C) convertible and then killed that. Chromebook strategy is still a mess, first it was about web apps, then Chrome based packaged apps, now emulator based Android apps and is probably going to be nuked for Fuschia (lol if you think existing models outside the Chromebook Pixel 2 will even compatible with that).
The churn is real, they have stated they have a "fail fast" strategy. Everything they do seems to get killed and replaced, which works in some cases. But gaming requires constant and heavy investment. Especially if you just roll up into a very established but still exceedingly innovative marketplace. Just look what happened when MS took their foot off the gas. The second there's trouble they'll platform thrash or throw the thing away because that's their corporate strategy.
I don't think streaming can work, especially in a gaming market that seems to love E sports and GaaS. Latency will kill any thought of being able to play competitively.
Game Pass has the right idea by letting you download the games. Of course if you have a data capped internet, Game Pass isnt that great either.
Game Pass has the right idea by letting you download the games. Of course if you have a data capped internet, Game Pass isnt that great either.
Google Glass failed, so it deserved to die. OnHub is still supported and is compatible with Google WiFi. The Nexus Player failed especially compared to the Nvidia Shield. What the did with the Nexus sucked, but it was necessary in order to push the Pixel line. Android tablets have been on the decline for years, the Nexus 7 was during it's peak. All that stuff with Chrome OS is based off consumer usage.
As you mentioned, consoles need significant investment. So if Google gets in, they'll have to stay in for awhile or end up like some of the more infamous game consoles.
A lot of the innovation in the Valley these days is behind the scenes stuff that consumers don't care about. Not to mention all the big players are gearing up to push AI as the next big thing.
4 major competitors? I wonder if the market can handle 4. I guess we will see but if someone gets pushed out then who would it be?
They would not go through all of this effort just to stream Android games. If they're streaming anything, then I would expect to see cutting-edge games that rival those on powerful PCs or top-of-the-line game consoles. They might offer a few popular Android games on the service as well, but that wouldn't be their focus.
Remember, the real horsepower is on the back end. The "game console" needs only enough silicon to handle the video stream and controller inputs.
Google Home seems to be doing well right now.
It would be nice to have it work with an ordinary Chromecast, but like you said they don't have any way of pairing up a Bluetooth game controller. They might be able to use a mobile phone or tablet (on the same Wi-Fi network) as a makeshift game controller.
I think it's likely that a Google-branded "game console" would be a machine like the Nexus Player that was on the market a few years ago. It should be a compact, affordable machine that can be easily connected to a TV. I thought Sony could've filled that niche with PlayStation TV (which sadly lost its ability to access PlayStation Now about 6 months ago). If Sony can't deliver on that premise, then perhaps Google can.
This guy gets it. No amount of infrastructure will make fast paced games, as they're currently designed, feel worth playing remotely for the core gaming audience. On the other hand, if they cater to a different audience with games where the latency won't matter (like mobile-style android games) then who knows. Either way, I doubt anything they produce will be received/discussed fondly by the audience of this website.
It's about to get crowded in the game peddling business. MS gives you Game Pass and GaaS, Google gives you probably the most robust streaming solution, Sony gives you quality exclusive AAA games, Nintendo gives you portability and unique experiences, Amazon gives you Prime stuff probably, Apple sits on their hands.
I really don't get why all these game companies keep trying to make game streaming happen. It's a pretty fundamentally flawed idea.
Because whoever is positioned best will profit the most once the technology catches up.
Back when we were all still using 56k modems the very idea of digital distribution for games, tv shows and movies seemed flawed and look now.
Internet speed growth is still tending at around 50% a year, in line with Nielsen's law. Valve introduced Steam back in 2003 the internet was not ready at the time for what they had planned, however entering the market early and allowing the technology to catch up with their vision has paid dividends. For reference, Origin didn't launch until 2011 which was far too late as Valve had already cornered the vast majority of the market.
Valve.
It's fairly clear you haven't tried nVidia's GeForce NOW for PC/Mac. It's pretty fantastic, especially for people like me, who live near where nVidia has great infrastructure and is on gigabit internet. Once the tech is more scalable and connections catch up (they already have in most metropolitan areas), this will be absolutely golden. And honestly, in terms of infrastructure and scalability, Google is uniquely positioned.
The streaming is the problem though. American internet speeds are abysmal and have no impetus to change as long as ISPs maintain localized monopolies that are untouchable due to economies of scale. OnLive died on that hill back in 2012 and not much has changed in the present day. If Google went ahead with a service like that now it'd be uneven and laggy as hell and people would unsubscribe.
Check back in 5 to 10 years maybe. And/or, whenever we get a Democratic majority back at the FCC.
That's where the future is, but we dont have the infrastructure yet. We are getting the PS5 as usual, then the PS6 is probably gonna be in the transition period (you either get the console or a service to stream its games) and then the PS7 wont exist, it will just be the "playstation network streaming service".
not speed, bandwidth. Most games don't even need much bandwidth for online play so that metric is irrelevant in this context.
The mistake all these new entrants make is bringing mobile games to a console experience. It isn't a compelling offer, we have that on our phones. Most these mobile games are not compelling or long experiences. Hardware matters. Console gamers don't want to upgrade every two years. Stop bringing a mobile strategy to an established market and try to shake it up. These companies need to focus on taking the existing experience and innovating it and making it a good offer for gamers to invest and change the way they look at consoles and games.
If bandwidth is increasing then it is likely that the speed will also increase. It is also likely that you will reduce latency (which is the biggest issue in the context of this discussion) by improving your internet speed.
You might want to read what I linked, Nielsen's law's focal point is internet speed increases.
I've got two problems with this.
1. Google's commitment to a project can change overnight.
2. Streaming. (And that's with me having a 500Mbit fdx fibre connection.)
1. Google's commitment to a project can change overnight.
2. Streaming. (And that's with me having a 500Mbit fdx fibre connection.)
I wouldn't trust Google and hardware stuff just yet. They have tons of misses with thier hardware stuff, even with Pixel (I love the phone btw and I'm Android for life). They also have a history of just axing it right away if they felt like it (see Nexus 7).
I dunno, if Nintendo starts doing iterations of the Switch like Apple does the iphone, it could be a to bring mobile style iterations to gaming. We shall see though.
If I can play games like Final Fantasy 15 in 4k @60fps on ultra settings for only $20 a month then i'm in.
If any aspect besides price is of lesser then LOL.
If any aspect besides price is of lesser then LOL.
:) hope you're ready to eat that crow. 2018 will be an exciting year.
Even Amazon had money.
It's not about that, but more how much effort do you want to put into this, what kind of relationship you have with third party partners and if you have the human resources to make first party / in-house games.
Google could totally do that, but if they are interested in this the same way they were for all their other side projects that quickly got lost in the shuffle, they are going to fail again.
The success of this service relies on the kind of contents this service will offer: with mobile and casual games only, it will bomb, while if they want to compete directly with Xbox Game Pass is another story but again Google doesn't have the same relationships Microsoft has with these partners, so most likely it will have less games.
?
Do you talk with insight knowledge or is it speculation on your part ?
First step towards the Google Console should be the aquisition of Microsoft by Google.
On a serious note: I'd love a new competitor, that has the potential to innovate and mix up the market. More competition usually leads to better products/services/prices for the consumer.
On a serious note: I'd love a new competitor, that has the potential to innovate and mix up the market. More competition usually leads to better products/services/prices for the consumer.
The first company to really nail game streaming is going to win. If they can overcome the technical hurdles and provide a decent library, they are basically offering the future of gaming
This a thousand times.
This mentality is exactly what drove me away from Google products.
I use their search engine and maps app and that's it.
Stream games to a cheap device for a small subscription and the ability to harvest user data and serve adverts up in the game (In game objects, in menus, Full blown adverts after major points in the game like after mission cutscenes).... yep sounds like a google idea.
But as always latency (ie ping time) will be the issue
But as always latency (ie ping time) will be the issue
