According to The Information, Google has been working on this for the past two years.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Report: Google considering a game streaming service, console hardware
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
This entire idea is pretty wild, and while Google is known for having some wild moonshot projects, I think the idea that the service would work with a Chromecast to actually be super believable.
Right now, you can control a Chromecast using just your voice from another device like a Google Home or Android phone. The Chromecast grabs the video stream from whatever server and maintains that connection itself, and you only send it small amounts of control data.
With a game streaming service, either the gamepad could connect to the Chromecast over WiFi and have the Chromecast do all the communications with the server... or the gamepad would only communicate with the Chromecast to do the initial stream setup, and then communicate control inputs directly to the server (since Chromecast hardware is pretty minimal, I suspect the latter would be the case). I'd imagine you pair the gamepad to the Chromecast by selecting from a list of available receivers read aloud by the Google Assistant.
Pure speculation, but we don't have a lot of information other than that Google might be exploring a game streaming service that might use the Chromecast, so speculation is pretty fair game at this point.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
PlayStation Now is doing well with over 600 games in its catalog. I've used it many times and it works pretty good over a wired connection. Like Spotify or Netflix I'd rather pay a small fee each month to have access to a catalog of content than buy each item individually.
Upvote
-3
(2
/
-5)
If it works as good as PlayStation Now and doesn't have a library full of shitty mobile games then I'll probably use it.
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
Sound like a definition of games consoles as a market sector
Just what we need, multiple new systems, incapable of interacting with each other. Only to be discontinued shortly after
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Works amazing on my 16 MBP over 5ghz wireless connected to AT&T Fiber .. I had to set my router to 20 instead of 40 due to some quirky issue between the PACE 5268 and Mac hardware but it's perfect now.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
well, Steam Remote sucks even between two computers on the same LAN.
I wish Google good luck.
I wish Google good luck.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
PlayStation Now works great for me on a wired connection. That's how these services are designed to work.
Upvote
-4
(1
/
-5)
Xbox has a subscription service where you download the games to your console. PlayStation's subscription service is streaming games over the cloud.
I wonder which service is better suited to today's broadband environment?
I wonder which service is better suited to today's broadband environment?
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Yeah... so I take it you haven't heard of PS+? The subscription service that entails online play, cloud storage for games and monthly "freebies*)"? PS Now is a separate thing.
*) Yes I know, technically not free as you're paying for the subscription. Free-ish, maybe.
Upvote
-4
(1
/
-5)
The codename is "yeti" but you know what it's really going to be called, right?
The Google N-GAGE
(for those old enough to get the joke)
The Google N-GAGE
(for those old enough to get the joke)
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
In fact, why just one?
Rather, have three competing game streaming services!
That is, until you get bored and neglect all of them and let them die a slow death.
Rather, have three competing game streaming services!
That is, until you get bored and neglect all of them and let them die a slow death.
Upvote
-2
(2
/
-4)
PS+ is analogous to Xbox Live, and yes both of those services are pretty similar in what they provide.
However, both Sony and Microsoft also offer services (Playstation Now and Xbox Game Pass, respectively) which give users access to a library of games they don't have to individually buy or rent, because they're included in a subscription... like a Netflix for games.
As Tendoboy84 pointed out, Sony's offering requires players to stream all gameplay, while Microsoft's requires them to download each game and run it locally. They both have their pros and cons, and Tendoboy84 was wondering which of the two was best suited to the US's broadband situation.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
"...users would pay a subscription fee to access a collection of games, which are run on a remote device and streamed over the Internet."
I'll pass.
I'll pass.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
This idea is still a non-starter given how many Americans, let alone people in developing countries, do not have access to broadband connections. The United States hasn't even managed to have current technology extended to most of the country, and this service is likely too demanding for those who have it. How long until the average American has access to a connection capable of this service? This is a cart before the horse scenario.
The closest we could do now is Steam offering monthly fees for access to their entire database using a pay system similar to Spotify. The games would still be installed and played locally, but the license would be linked to the subscription.
It reminds of Windows CE and the handhelds that largely failed to capture a mainstream audience because the hardware was nowhere near ready for prime time. The processors, screen technology, battery technology, etc. were all way too primitive for true handhelds. In this case, it's the internet infrastructure.
Timing is the real driving force behind the success and failure of many new ideas. One day this idea will make sense, now just isn't it.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
History has shown time and time again that it's not a matter of building a machine and developers and gamers will magically come. If you want your console to sell first you need to provide your own games, either paying for exclusives to third party developers, or having your own first party developers. Without that it will be just another box that will make some noise and then die (like Ouya or the NVidia Shield for a recent examples).
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
While I don't doubt this my come and go very quickly, Google has a lot of bandwidth around the country that's not last mile, which is all that Google Fiber was. They have the pipes, regardless of what happens with their Fiber division. I just don't trust that they'll see this through to completion, because it could take a while to get real traction.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Considering that simply casting my phone screen to a 2nd-gen Chromecast on home Wifi results in a user experience that makes me want to kill myself*, I'm extremely skeptical that there's a sweet spot for cloud gaming over the wider Internet. What sort of game needs beefy graphics hardware, yet is playable with spotty latency? Is the quality/speed loss from streaming actually less than it'd be from running on weak local hardware?
*: Okay, "kill myself" is exaggerating, but every move makes me think "Damn, I paid $40 for this setup and it's dreadful compared to wired video out. I'm gonna make sure my next phone doesn't have to put up with this wireless crap for an external monitor."
*: Okay, "kill myself" is exaggerating, but every move makes me think "Damn, I paid $40 for this setup and it's dreadful compared to wired video out. I'm gonna make sure my next phone doesn't have to put up with this wireless crap for an external monitor."
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
It's a sell *IF*
- I get all the top quality Triple-A titles that I want to play, not el cheapo mobile games meant for a smartphone and not a TV screen.
- They figure the graphics/latency part out better than the competition, eg. what Sony's already got going with Playstation Now.
- They plan to support this long-term with a constantly updating game library, not just titles from 5-6 years ago.
Will Google do this? And not just lose interest in a year or two and move on to the next project? We'll see.
- I get all the top quality Triple-A titles that I want to play, not el cheapo mobile games meant for a smartphone and not a TV screen.
- They figure the graphics/latency part out better than the competition, eg. what Sony's already got going with Playstation Now.
- They plan to support this long-term with a constantly updating game library, not just titles from 5-6 years ago.
Will Google do this? And not just lose interest in a year or two and move on to the next project? We'll see.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
Would this be entirely disconnected from Android?
There are a lot of great games on Android, the catch is that Google makes it next to impossible to find high quality games that appeal to more of a "gamer" type person (sorry I don't have a better term to use) rather than the more casual folks enjoying the latest puzzler or etc (and that's cool if they're having fun).
Can google discern between the loot box / Gacha type games that rake in the money, and the games that appeal to folks who expect more depth and tend to pickup a gamepad?
There are a lot of great games on Android, the catch is that Google makes it next to impossible to find high quality games that appeal to more of a "gamer" type person (sorry I don't have a better term to use) rather than the more casual folks enjoying the latest puzzler or etc (and that's cool if they're having fun).
Can google discern between the loot box / Gacha type games that rake in the money, and the games that appeal to folks who expect more depth and tend to pickup a gamepad?
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
If they're going to make gaming hardware, to go with a streaming service, I wouldn't be surprised if they take the Nvidia route and use AndroidTV.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Upvote
-3
(2
/
-5)
Google's already been doing this for many, many years. They have their own CDN inside of the ISPs networks. Its one of Google's specialties
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
AndroidTV... it's dead, but also not... long live the zombie product line!
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Ah google wants to make a new way to serve you adds and spy on you in your home?
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
With streaming, there is one little problem called latency. Normally, you would achieve around 50ms, if you are super-lucky 20ms, anything less requires gaming server located at your local ISP's premises. And frankly, while my internet speed increased like 100x over last 15 years, the latency decreased only marginally. I must say that e.g. Steam or Xbox streaming over LAN works okay, but that is different case.
Considering, that 30fps games mean new 33.33ms and 60fps game means 16.67ms per frame, it is clear that any streaming introduces quite a lag. So unless you play only games without any action element, then having game played from local source is likely beneficial.
That being said, streaming service may achieve higher image quality (imagine using 1080ti instead of Xbox non-X), and economies of scale due to better utilization of hardware (=lower cost). However, before Google manages to seriously launch such a streaming service, there will be likely PS5 and Xbox-whatever on the market, and those are going to offer 4K without strings attached. To match this, 4K streaming is VERY demanding - Youtube requires some 40Mbit/s. And you might experience "queues" or image quality degradation at times, when everyone wants to play.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Google already has such a product -- it's called the Nvidia Shield!
Somebody at Alphabet needs to get these guys to focus on their existing platforms (like Android TV) and actually make them better over the course of years, rather than fragment, confuse, and cannibalize everything they do into oblivion.
Somebody at Alphabet needs to get these guys to focus on their existing platforms (like Android TV) and actually make them better over the course of years, rather than fragment, confuse, and cannibalize everything they do into oblivion.
Upvote
-2
(3
/
-5)
The game streaming service available on the Nvidia Shield (TV, tablet, gamepad, whatever) is called GeForce Now. As you might note from the "GeForce" part of that name, this is an Nvidia product.
While the operating system for Shield is Android, the Shield itself not a Google product, and whatever you might think about this hypothetical Google game streaming service, it wouldn't be cannibalizing GeForce Now. It'd be competing against a separate company.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
It looks like nobody here has ever heard of OnLive they launch game streaming service almost10 years ago it was accessible in playable on Android and through there micro console also through windows computers it was a very nice service it just couldn't get its feet off the ground because none of the big boys would support it if you think this is a great idea you should give Steve Pearlman some credit it was his vision long ago...
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
I thought they shut PlayStation Now down last August? I bought a Sony branded Blu-Ray player over the summer and then almost immediately got a notice that they were shutting down the Now service.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Chemical Tribe
Ars Legatus Legionis
6.5 years for chroneos devices.
As long as it brings in money it survives.
Also, cheap Android boxes already have game streaming services that work surprisingly decent.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
<3 my Nvidia Shield. Not interested in "abandoned before completed" Google hardware.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
Yes and no. Playstation Now itself is still going strong... but they removed support for most platforms effective August 2017, limiting future support to Playstation 4 consoles and PCs.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
They shut down the service for most client devices other than PS4 and PC.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
OnLive had the same issues with latency. Sony acquired them a while back.
Playstation Now is still a thing, Sony dropped support for everything but Playstation and PC.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
It's still under active development, just Google hasn't released a new piece of hardware of their own. Unfortunately no one but Nvidia has made a box worth buying. The mibox comes close, but lack updates makes it a bad choice too..
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
It's still available on PC and PS4 - they shut it down on all underpowered devices like PS3s and Blu-ray players.
From my time beta-ing PS Now that was a good choice because the PS3 performance was severely degraded from the PS4 performance - both in my living room on the same wired connection, the PS3 was just choked by its slow NIC and lack of power.
This also lets them use more CPU and GPU intensive compression techniques to improve the PS4 and PC experience even more.
I'm not using PS Now any more (I don't need more unplayed games), but on the PS4 it was very playable for games that don't require hair-trigger reflexes. The tech is not in question here, just Google's ability to focus.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
So, TV manufacturers had to introduce special "gaming modes" in their TV sets to reduce latency, and we are supposed to believe I can press a button in a racing game, send the button press to a remote server, have the result rendered by the server, and then have the resulting frame compressed and sent back to me over an internet connection without noticeable latency. I 'd rather buy into the idea of having a 3 hour Skype or Hangouts session without a single glitch (which btw hasn't happened for me, ever).
I think that by "streaming" they probably mean something akin to Instant Apps.
Either that or a streaming service only for games like chess and strategy games and role-playing MMOs where latency doesn't matter.
I think that by "streaming" they probably mean something akin to Instant Apps.
Either that or a streaming service only for games like chess and strategy games and role-playing MMOs where latency doesn't matter.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Another pipe dream because Microsoft can easily enable Xbox game streaming and Sony could follow suit. Google has no game studio or portfolio of games to leverage this on. Unless they go and buy Steam which is not gonna happen.
Game streaming today is not good enough because gamers want lag-free gaming and the ability to play anywhere.
Game streaming today is not good enough because gamers want lag-free gaming and the ability to play anywhere.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)