4 ms·

The reason why these kind of initiatives fail is because they do not solve a real problem or issue. The average Joe doesn't need another subscription just to pl

The reason why these kind of initiatives fail is because they do not solve a real problem or issue. The average Joe doesn't need another subscription just to play some games. Having a console where you buy games is more than enough. I also silently hope that Google will fail hard with this one. Since they are the worst publisher on earth with absolutely no compassion towards its developers relationships.

petra 8y ago
It does solve some problems for game developers, like with style transfer. And gamers go where the content is.
- stordoff 8y ago
  Is there any reason that requires infrastructure to _play_ the games (in a consumer sense)? That seemed more like a prototyping tool to me.
  - petra 8y ago
    No reason. But Google may decide to share it only with cloud partners. Of course it depends on the competition, but the may manage to do so.
- dymk 8y ago
  Style transfer is something game developers want? Do popular games typically run style-transfer ML models today?
  - bobsil1 8y ago
    Feels like a gimmick.
joefkelley 8y ago
Sorry, maybe I missed it; where in the announcement did they say it was a subscription?
- andromeduck 8y ago
  It's a service ffs.
pergadad 8y ago
$400 for a current console and $60 or so for a recent game. Assuming you buy the next gen after 3 years or so there's quite a budget invested in the gamer's part - a streaming service at maybe $20/month that gives you access to recent titles doesn't look that bad in comparison.
- Krasnol 8y ago
  So what would be the businesses incentive here? It's not like we're talking about charity here. I have the feeling this is peak microtransaction. They've found out that people are likely to spend small amounts over time then one big sum at once and now you don't even own the game. It became the microtransaction.
- root_axis 8y ago
  Even with a very conservative 3 year lifespan of a console (5 years is closer to reality) 20 dollars a month over 3 years is 700+ dollars and at the end of the day you don't own anything. It seems like a pretty bad deal overall.
  - alexandre_m 8y ago
    Video games and consoles don't have much lasting value, so it's not a good investment (except for some collectors). If you mean to keep a copy and be able to play it again anytime in the future, then yes I'm with you. However, most of the games are either thrash or doesn't offer much replay value, which means that once you're done with it that will stack up somewhere and collects dust. One point though is you can trade games that you own, which has some appeal. People used to bring the same argument for music streaming vs buying a CD or digital copy. See where that brought us. Convenience wins most of the time.
- reanimated 8y ago
  It's more like every 5 years and $60 a game only if you buy just fresh games, if you don't focus just for most recent games, you can buy good triple-A games for like $20 then they are on sale. Don't forget the subscription where you usually get a decent game every month for like $45 a year. So you can actually buy a console once, subscribe and pay like $4 a month and constantly have new games in your catalog to play with.
DantesKite 8y ago
There's a lot of computer games I can't play at 60fps because my computer isn't good enough. I would like if someone else handled all the hardware upgrades, so I don't have to spend so much money every year just to keep up. One of the appealing aspects of South Korea gaming cafes is that all the computers can be rented for a few dollars and tend to be maxed out. That environment creates a great place for everyone to get into gaming. I'm not sure how that fits into Google's long-term interests, but it definitely fits into mine.
rifung 8y ago
I work at Google on a different project. Opinions are my own. > The reason why these kind of initiatives fail is because they do not solve a real problem or issue > Having a console where you buy games is more than enough. I think that's the problem though. This opens up "real" gaming to a much wider audience. Even though games are mainstream now, most people are not willing to spend big money on gaming PCs or consoles. If this technology works, they won't have to.
- reanimated 8y ago
  It would have a much wider appeal if it didn't require any additional hardware at all. Such a service should be integrated straight into TV's

petra 8y ago

It does solve some problems for game developers, like with style transfer. And gamers go where the content is.

stordoff 8y ago
Is there any reason that requires infrastructure to _play_ the games (in a consumer sense)? That seemed more like a prototyping tool to me.
- petra 8y ago
  No reason. But Google may decide to share it only with cloud partners. Of course it depends on the competition, but the may manage to do so.
dymk 8y ago
Style transfer is something game developers want? Do popular games typically run style-transfer ML models today?
- bobsil1 8y ago
  Feels like a gimmick.

joefkelley 8y ago

Sorry, maybe I missed it; where in the announcement did they say it was a subscription?

andromeduck 8y ago
It's a service ffs.

pergadad 8y ago

$400 for a current console and $60 or so for a recent game. Assuming you buy the next gen after 3 years or so there's quite a budget invested in the gamer's part - a streaming service at maybe $20/month that gives you access to recent titles doesn't look that bad in comparison.

Krasnol 8y ago
So what would be the businesses incentive here? It's not like we're talking about charity here. I have the feeling this is peak microtransaction. They've found out that people are likely to spend small amounts over time then one big sum at once and now you don't even own the game. It became the microtransaction.
root_axis 8y ago
Even with a very conservative 3 year lifespan of a console (5 years is closer to reality) 20 dollars a month over 3 years is 700+ dollars and at the end of the day you don't own anything. It seems like a pretty bad deal overall.
- alexandre_m 8y ago
  Video games and consoles don't have much lasting value, so it's not a good investment (except for some collectors). If you mean to keep a copy and be able to play it again anytime in the future, then yes I'm with you. However, most of the games are either thrash or doesn't offer much replay value, which means that once you're done with it that will stack up somewhere and collects dust. One point though is you can trade games that you own, which has some appeal. People used to bring the same argument for music streaming vs buying a CD or digital copy. See where that brought us. Convenience wins most of the time.
reanimated 8y ago
It's more like every 5 years and $60 a game only if you buy just fresh games, if you don't focus just for most recent games, you can buy good triple-A games for like $20 then they are on sale. Don't forget the subscription where you usually get a decent game every month for like $45 a year. So you can actually buy a console once, subscribe and pay like $4 a month and constantly have new games in your catalog to play with.

DantesKite 8y ago

There's a lot of computer games I can't play at 60fps because my computer isn't good enough. I would like if someone else handled all the hardware upgrades, so I don't have to spend so much money every year just to keep up. One of the appealing aspects of South Korea gaming cafes is that all the computers can be rented for a few dollars and tend to be maxed out. That environment creates a great place for everyone to get into gaming. I'm not sure how that fits into Google's long-term interests, but it definitely fits into mine.

rifung 8y ago

I work at Google on a different project. Opinions are my own. > The reason why these kind of initiatives fail is because they do not solve a real problem or issue > Having a console where you buy games is more than enough. I think that's the problem though. This opens up "real" gaming to a much wider audience. Even though games are mainstream now, most people are not willing to spend big money on gaming PCs or consoles. If this technology works, they won't have to.

reanimated 8y ago
It would have a much wider appeal if it didn't require any additional hardware at all. Such a service should be integrated straight into TV's