You’re going to drag me into an Apple discussion that I wasn’t planning to have, as I say, it was only meant as a point of comparison in response to the suggestion that PSNow was device-agnostic.

However, I will say that a large part of what Apple did (unintentionally, I should add) was create a route to a new market with a very low barrier to entry.

I’d argue that the PC already has several routes to market with low barriers to entry, so I don’t particularly envisage this having the same effect, but this could be wrong.

Of course, Microsoft does already have ID@Xbox and its own streaming service on its way, so there will be competition in this space.

Yossarian wrote:

If Google are doing tools as well, that would be A Good Thing, however.

I doubt they'll make any themselves, however they will make libraries as public as possible. They always try to. No I wasn't dragging Apple into anything just saying that they increased the visibility of game machines. If Google can join a controller through browser settings, then they can do the same in that explosion. Not ebough to be a games machine only enough to be seen as a games machine

cockbeard wrote:

I see OnLive being mentioned along with PSNow, I might be a bit behind but I thought that Sony bought OnLive so PSNow was OnLive

That was Gaikai that Sony bought.

The thread’s about Google, Davie.

It does, but mentioning competition in relation to a point made in this thread which was on topic is a bit different to jumping in with unconnected console war-isms.

He did so by having a pop at Microsoft in a thread about a Google service.

It just struck me as weird is all. Whatevs.

Yossarian wrote:

It does, but mentioning competition in relation to a point made in this thread which was on topic is a bit different to jumping in with unconnected console war-isms.

He's not console war-isms though - just trying to remind people that this "Google/MS is soon going to revolutionise gaming with streaming tech!" attitude is a bit odd, given that the same kind of streaming tech is already out and available for the past 5 years.

Yossarian wrote:

He did so by having a pop at Microsoft in a thread about a Google service.

You're the one who brought Microsoft into this thread that's "about Google".

poprock wrote:

Streaming games sure does look like it’s the future, whether it’s the one we want or not. Seems fair to say that once we’re all streaming there is little point in different exclusive platforms – you just need a thin client with good controllers and fast connectivity. I dunno. All the big games and tech players are going to want to get in on the ground floor in one capacity or another. Most likely Amazon will remain happy just providing infrastructure (but watch them sell faux-branded controllers etc eventually as well) but you never know. They built Prime Video after all. Of course Google are interested. Android is already a gaming platform. Android is built into a ton of TVs too. Wait and see.

Plus also it needs no ownership and offers the consumer no ownership which also follows the most popular current model (Deliveroo, Uber, Spotify, etc). We get annoyed about rental purchases because servers get killed eventually, and this is even worse from that point of view, as the consumer doesn't even have the digital download, forget hard copies, none of that anymore. But this also does follow a model that Google have been doing for a very long time, so I see no reason why they would struggle

The key might be making the thin client as thin as possible. If this could end up being nothing more than a USB stick like GoogleCast or FireStick that includes controller mapping/support, and maybe comes bundled with a controller if wanted, then that would be the ideal. If this could end up being smart TV compatible as well then wow. Much like the PSVitaTV or whatever it was called

djchump wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

He did so by having a pop at Microsoft in a thread about a Google service.

You're the one who brought Microsoft into this thread that's "about Google".

I mentioned competitors in relation to Google, not in relation to each other.

But w/e, I do still think this is the future, and I’m currently more excited about the future of gaming than I have been in many years. Feel free to consider it a bit odd, but I’m happy to be enthusiastic about what I see coming up.

So games eh

RedDave2 wrote:

Taking the companies involved, what's the problem with streaming if tech is reasonably solid though? The biggest issue for me with gamepass is I only have so much space on the hard drive so I can't just drop in and out on games like I can on say Netflix with a TV series. Streaming solves that.

The problems for streaming have always been infrastructure (broadband in the uk sucks) and financial (does the cost and pros outweigh the cons for the consumers and the hardware platform owners).

Yossarian wrote:

It’s not about the streaming, the streaming’s a means to an end. It’s about the wider changes that streaming can offer, being able to continue your play through of whatever it is that’s currently grabbing you anywhere and at any time. Well, almost at least. That sounds great to me.

I've thought the same in the past, then worried that it means experiences will be watered down to fit the mobile platform you might be using to catch up on the commute. However Switch is playing into this exact space isn't it? Mobile and sofa gaming, and from what I'm told it does it very well

Said as someone who knows that won't happen.

I genuinely can’t do face buttons any more. I don’t want to risk my thumbs. My mum has conginatally weak thumbs and when hers flare up, she can’t even open doors. I don’t want that to be me in a few years.