How will Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Valve react to Google?

[Legend]

Fresh off the announcement, how will the other companies react to this? Which companies do you think will partner with google, which will make their own competing service, and which will just shrug it off?

[Cute Pikachu]

Microsoft is fine since they are going ahead with services.

Sony and Nintendo's first party lineups are too strong and should be strong.
It should be fine.
Streaming should become more popular.

[nnodley]

I think sony just needs to start marketing PS Now more.  MS still seem a little bit early in their plans, but they should be fine as well.  This is definitely nothing that's gonna stop traditional consoles for now.  This service seems way to good to be true right now so we will see once it releases, but hopefully they will deliver everything they promise.

[ethomaz]

React to what?

Streaming? Well...

Sony already reacted 5 years ago.
MS will reveal xCloud at E3.
Nintendo cares about cloud?

[kitler53]

so i'm mostly read up on the stadia now.  i know not much is really known right now but my current impression is this seems doomed to fail.

unless this is 100% ad revenue driven,.. i can't see they breaking though the "chicken and the egg" problem.   the required internet speed is even higher than psnow asks for.   as of right now even i (wealthy guy from big city chicago) don't have the required internet speed to access stadia.    i have the option to upgrade but lots of america does not have that even as a possibility.  regardless,.. i wouldn't subscribe to a gaming service with no games.  a gaming service with no customers and a requirement to port to linux won't lots of "good" games.  

the reason netflix succeeded, imo, was when they introduced streaming it was a "free" add on to their existing disc library service.   that was clutch and a thing no other streaming service was able to replicate.

i still think streaming will be the future.  i still think sony is currently in the best position just so long as psnow is better leveraged with the ps5.  ms is the next best positioned company.  google/amazon/ect are going to struggle.

[Legend]

so i'm mostly read up on the stadia now.  i know not much is really known right now but my current impression is this seems doomed to fail.

unless this is 100% ad revenue driven,.. i can't see they breaking though the "chicken and the egg" problem.   the required internet speed is even higher than psnow asks for.   as of right now even i (wealthy guy from big city chicago) don't have the required internet speed to access stadia.    i have the option to upgrade but lots of america does not have that even as a possibility.  regardless,.. i wouldn't subscribe to a gaming service with no games.  a gaming service with no customers and a requirement to port to linux won't lots of "good" games.  

the reason netflix succeeded, imo, was when they introduced streaming it was a "free" add on to their existing disc library service.   that was clutch and a thing no other streaming service was able to replicate.

i still think streaming will be the future.  i still think sony is currently in the best position just so long as psnow is better leveraged with the ps5.  ms is the next best positioned company.  google/amazon/ect are going to struggle.

I kinda agree that stadia will struggle in the beginning. They did not mention how players pay and they did not mention how devs pay. If every game is part of a subscription (so that they can spam play now buttons across the web) then they better make sure they have a strong library.

I think however that stadia could easily build momentum fast. Google is in a position to push the service through youtube, play store, chrome, and even google itself. Millions and millions of casual gamers are just "one click" away from trying it out. The barrier for entry is practically nonexistent.


Sony is in a harder position imo. They could go all in on streaming and have a system that crushes google from a gamer point of view but they have to balance that service with PS5. Should next gen PS Now be only for PS4, PS5, and PC, or should it be on every system possible? Should next gen PS Now allow exclusive games that can't run natively on PS5, such as massive multiplayer games or games with extreme graphics? On one hand PS5 would only be for people with non perfect internet but on the other hand Sony needs people to buy PS5s to play VR.

[BananaKing]

Responding to what Kitler said about internet speeds. It's a bit surprising to see how bad the situation is in the USA. You would expect them to have much better internet speeds and plans.

[the-pi-guy]

This was kind of interesting:

The Antitrust Implications of Google Stadia are Dire and No One is Questioning it.  *Not a Single Journalist has Covered it.* | ResetEra

Imagine having an internet platform where all trailers of games live. It's so pervasive that your competitors rely upon it to stream their press conferences and upload their video game trailers. Imagine every time someone wants to get information about a video game, they need to use your search engine to find it too. Now imagine also being able to instantly sell such video games as simple hyperllink, without a storefront, without hardware, and without an install. It simply exists in your browser. The browser is the hardware. The browser is the storefront. The opportunities to undermine your competitors under such circumstances are virtually endless.

 This is a huge issue and I'm surprised that no one has written about it yet. Every time you Google a multiplatform game, Google will get the first opportunity to sell it to you. Every time you see a trailer for a game, Google will have the first opportunity to sell it to you. Heck, if Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony uploads a trailer for a new game on YouTube, Google can run a YouTube advertisement that plays for 30 seconds PRIOR to the trailer for a similar game or potentially the SAME GAME with a "play now" link before you ever see the competitor's ad.

 This platform is, very clearly, designed in a way to undermine fair competition in the video game industry. It's really shocking that no one is at least questioning its legality or the ethics that surround it.

 I have not seen a single journalist raise this issue.... (hint hint)

 EDIT: I'm seeig a lot of confusion about what antitrust behaviors are present here.

 THE ISSUE IS OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION - a type of monopoly that is different from horizontal monopolies people are referencing. The concern is that vertical integration may allow a dominant firm in one market to leverage market power into another market in such a way that undermines otherwise would-be horizontal competitors.

 So, in this instance, a search engine, video platform, and browser that controls the information you see about video games, that also exists to sell you video games. Merging the functionality of these separate applications can be considered to be a VERTICAL integration that undermines competition.

 The basic premise is: If your in the business of delivering search results, you should not be allowed to deliver such results in a way that undermines competition of non-search competitors in favor of your own non-search related products. In this case, the non-search product is access to video games.

 Here's a link:

https://academic.oup.com/jleo/article-abstract/33/4/653/3091191?redirectedFrom=PDF  

[/size]

[Legend]

Yeah people aren't realising just how serious this competition is. Stadia is far from another Ouya.

[kitler53]

I think however that stadia could easily build momentum fast. Google is in a position to push the service through youtube, play store, chrome, and even google itself. Millions and millions of casual gamers are just "one click" away from trying it out. The barrier for entry is practically nonexistent.

is it though?  is it really?   

i, like much of my immediate friend, don't have a personal computer at home anymore.  i have a tablet.  i'm never going to play "doom" on a tablet with touch controls.  getting a controller to pair with a tablet is not as of yet a streamlined thing.  i really can't think of a more inconvenient way to get my games than via a internet browser or tablet.




...and i have this to back me up:

http://www.businessofapps.com/data/netflix-statistics/

Netflix viewing devices
Netflix might have revolutionised the way we watch television, but that doesn't mean that we no longer use televisions themselves.  While the most popular device used to sign up to Netflix is a computer, followed by a phone, 70% of streams are viewed on televisions (though users tend to go through a period where they uses their computers as well). This is even the case following the introduction of downloading content to view offline in 2016.


70% of netflix viewing is on a tv (aka via a game console or other device).  

if the point of "cloud" is to break down the barrier of entry then i'll counter your argument and say that for casuals the technical difficulty of pairing a controller to an amazon fire is a more difficult barrier to overcome then buying a dedicated game console.   pc is just not in fashion anymore.  tablets and phone don't have the controller layout for games like doom and assassin's creed they they have shown so far.  tablet games aren't direct ports of console games,.. they are dumbed down alternative versions.

i don't see any "benefit" to me gaming via stadia instead of on a console.  i only see hurdles and inconvenience.  and mostly likely a non-existent set of what i think is core gaming features these days like party chat    and even worse,.. most likely a sub par selection of games. 

[Dr. Pezus]

Responding to what Kitler said about internet speeds. It's a bit surprising to see how bad the situation is in the USA. You would expect them to have much better internet speeds and plans.

Not when you see the president's priorities

Also, isn't this what OnLive tried a few years ago, basically?

[Legend]

is it though?  is it really?  

i, like much of my immediate friend, don't have a personal computer at home anymore.  i have a tablet.  i'm never going to play "doom" on a tablet with touch controls.  getting a controller to pair with a tablet is not as of yet a streamlined thing.  i really can't think of a more inconvenient way to get my games than via a internet browser or tablet.




...and i have this to back me up:

http://www.businessofapps.com/data/netflix-statistics/

Netflix viewing devices
Netflix might have revolutionised the way we watch television, but that doesn't mean that we no longer use televisions themselves.  While the most popular device used to sign up to Netflix is a computer, followed by a phone, 70% of streams are viewed on televisions (though users tend to go through a period where they uses their computers as well). This is even the case following the introduction of downloading content to view offline in 2016.


70% of netflix viewing is on a tv (aka via a game console or other device).  

if the point of "cloud" is to break down the barrier of entry then i'll counter your argument and say that for casuals the technical difficulty of pairing a controller to an amazon fire is a more difficult barrier to overcome then buying a dedicated game console.   pc is just not in fashion anymore.  tablets and phone don't have the controller layout for games like doom and assassin's creed they they have shown so far.  tablet games aren't direct ports of console games,.. they are dumbed down alternative versions.

i don't see any "benefit" to me gaming via stadia instead of on a console.  i only see hurdles and inconvenience.  and mostly likely a non-existent set of what i think is core gaming features these days like party chat    and even worse,.. most likely a sub par selection of games.

When did I ever state something to go against your post?

Mobile phones have eclipsed PCs for internet use but desktop Chrome still has hundreds of millions of active users. For those people who already have a keyboard and mouse and are casually browsing the internet, it is trivial to click a link and become a stadia user.

The service doesn't have to be good for Google to get a large player base. It's not game streaming that would be successful, it's Google game streaming that would be successful. Stadia from any other company would be dead on arrival.

[SWORDF1SH]

Big Phil gets about

[Legend]

"Project xCloud: The Future of Streaming Xbox Games on Mobile Devices and Beyond (Presented by Microsoft)"

2 hours till we get a glimpse at what microsoft is thinking.

Also: Xbox boss: Google went big at GDC with Stadia "we will go big" at E3 2019

[Legend]

XCloud Details from GDC (controller touch mapping, datacenters...) | ResetEra

 Xcloud datacenter map
 

 Will update
 The devs can customize the layout
 
 Developers can also use custom icons for buttons

 Example of custom icons/controls:
       Click to expand...  
 Example UI:
 

 
 Matchmake players using Xcloud/using same datacenter
 Other:
 -Xbox devkit/sdk updated for game streaming
 -Controller layouts can swap depending on player actions
 -controls can be hidden by developers at anytime (for cutscenes, etc.)
 -Devs don't need to modify their code.

 It begins:
 
 Testing now and bringing it to developers soon