I’m not going near their console. I don’t think we need another paywall.

i think it will be a streaming only console

God Of War, The Last Of Us 2, Days Gone, The Order, Horizon, GT, Detroit, Dreams, Infamous ss, UC4, Ghost Of Tsushima, The Show, Bloodborne, Spider-Man, Death Stranding.

right, Nintendo released exclusives like these and more right? lol

and the reason i added Spiderman, bloodborne, and Detroit is that non of these devs will be bought out by some company going into gaming for the first time.

in the future please try to put Nintendo to the side, because they make children's games that never really change.

Sony is a beast and could care less about streaming only services because they know what the real gamer wants. a good AAA games that you unwrap and stick into a player.

blasphemy

Jin_Sakai - You're correct; however, Google certainly has the money to let devs take their time and do what they need to do. I'd say they are also more likely, than some, to let devs have keep their creative freedom.

@Sprinter

I think Google would have to specifically target the same market that MS is to force them out of the console business. As it is, MS is diversifying it's Xbox brand into a service, and the console is going to play a key part of that. Google is already primarily a service provider, but they actually have a broader reach than MS because of Android. Unfortunately, mobile and console alignment, and the games that appear on both, have been disparate and spotty at best.

But, Google does now have that streaming game service, which could be adapted, and it's apparent that Apple may not be opposed to these services on their platform with Sony now having remote play on the iOS. This leaves Google with a rather sizable target market, and the console for them can be similar to what MS is also trying to do.

However, as I said in my prior post, Google will have to either go traditional, or offer up some new type of console. New types of consoles haven't really taken off. Steam and Shield being the only real contenders, and any mobile based platform has pretty much failed miserably. But, if Google can leverage newer smart phones to have TV out, with controller support, then they could have an easily accessible console, even if it's just through streaming. I think Google would have to hit the ground running though, and to make it more appealing, internal game support through 1st party, and certainly 3rd party support would be extremely important.

If they also have, or go the traditional console route, they could possibly put more pressure on both Sony and MS, but then they will need to have more internal support, because as of now, Google just isn't a strong gaming brand. People play games on Android, and their streaming service seems to work well, but Google isn't known as a hardcore platform. Targeting the more casual mobile type market isn't consistent enough for a traditional console, as many failed attempts have proven. So, they have to actually go after the traditional console market if that is their goal.

The interesting thing in all this is is that Google has quite a few options, and signs have been around for a while that Google wants to get more into gaming. Same with Amazon, who may also throw their hat into the ring. But I believe Amazon may take a different approach. Google has options though, and it'll be interesting to see which route they take, which partnerships they make, and most interestingly, which market they're going after, because once they make that known, it'll either ignite a new variation of the console war, or be mocked among all gamers with a united voice....as we've seen so many times in the past.

It's almost a shame that the entrance fee to get into the console market is so high. Because I think there are several companies who could bring fresh ideas to the market. But, despite the popularity of console gaming, and it's rather unexpected growth this gen, there is still a limited market to do well. On top of that, the industry itself isn't really interested in supporting more, because it means more resources have to be expended, which means more risk. Unfortunately, for the traditional console paradigm to work for devs/pubs, less options is better, and more unfortunately, there isn't a singular API for any of the consoles. A singular API may be desireable but at the same time, it can cause restrictions on the hardware, and allow one company to gain too much control, or force the console development paradigm to be more high level, which reduces the effectiveness of the hardware. There are just too many balances that have to be worked out.