Didn't Microsoft just spend a year in court with their top VPs & CEO fighting against the UK & US governments over cloud gaming so that they could buy Activision for roughly $70 billion?
I believe they had to make concessions with the UK to somewhat outsource the cloud gaming aspect of the deal so that it could go through. This was something they didn't seem to want to do but also forced them to extend their merger & pay additional dividends to shareholders of Activision.
It may have been a component, but no, the fight was over Call of Duty becoming an Xbox Exclusive Title, instead of being generally available on all platforms, including Playstation.
The market is tiny (relatively) for all of these players. Motley Fool estimates the entire cloud gaming industry is ~$2.5B in total revenue for 2023.
Many of the current services are likely running at a loss, hoping for the hype-train to get people into it.
The reality is, most people wanting to play AAA titles either have a console, or a gaming computer already
The cross-section of people with a 10 year old macbook, that want to play the latest AAA title, have expensive high-bandwidth internet, and are willing to pay ~$30+ a month is just not that large.
I'm sorry what does any of this have to do with Google's lies with regards to their commitment to cloud gaming? All gaming platforms run at a loss in their early days.
> The cross-section of people with a 10 year old macbook, that want to play the latest AAA title, have expensive high-bandwidth internet, and are willing to pay ~$30+ a month is just not that large.
This is frankly an idiotic summary of what you believe to be the cloud gaming addressable market.
> I'm sorry what does any of this have to do with Google's lies
Google is not a charity. If something is not working out financially, or the market has failed to grow at the pace Google initially thought, it is in their best interest to exit that market and re-allocate resources. You know... like any rational business.
> This is frankly an idiotic summary
Well then perhaps you can enlighten us on why the market has failed to materialize? $2.5B for 4+ industry-heavyweights to fight over is pathetically small.
The R&D costs alone to deliver this type of service likely outweigh several years of total industry revenue... yet each of these companies is trying to blaze their own path more-or-less independently.
In short, there is no addressable market, and the numbers clearly tell us that. Do not be surprised when more of the players exit this market as well.
Just because you love a service doesn't make it a reasonable or sustainable offering.
> If something is not working out financially, or the market has failed to grow at the pace Google initially thought, it is in their best interest to exit that market and re-allocate resources.
Correct, Google can't be trusted to commit to a product long-term. Even a product with paying customers.
> Well then perhaps you can enlighten us on why the market has failed to materialize?
Because like I said, it's a young market. It has absolutely enormous upsides for those that can win it.
> there is no addressable market
This is laughable. You're a clown.
> Just because you love a service
None of the cloud gaming vendors have ever even offered the service in my country. I have no dog in this hunt.
You don't seem to be capable of understanding basics about business and seem to feel entitled to services that aren't working...
It's no wonder you're so upset.
You still cannot explain where the market is, or why the existing services are being forced to raise prices and cut hours already... but hey, you want it therefore you're owed it, right?
You're misunderstanding the limit on gaming subscription revenue from having to put a $400 and usually idle P55 or XSX in every living room instead of leverage a free app already in every TV.
I honestly believe the market will get there eventually, it's a lot easier for a teen to justify a 18 dollar subscription to a parent than a 400 dollar console/PC
The problem is it's $18 today, during a period of loss leading behavior from the incumbents. When this technology needs to become profitable, it'll be vastly more expensive than it currently is. ie. the "Uber" effect.
Think about it... exclusive access to a 4090 GPU for up to 5-8 hours a day for $18? Isn't going to happen. The electricity alone will cost more than that to operate over a month.
That does not even factor in a relatively expensive high-bandwidth internet connection that a lot of the world doesn't have... and you still need a device capable of consuming 1080p, 1440p, or 4K content in near realtime - ie. it still has to be a relatively capable system.
The economics are dubious, to say the least. Emerging markets without a lot of average household disposable income is probably where this type of service will excel - and even there we're already seeing price increases and cuts to maximum daily playable hours.
It is 100% fair because it supports a trend. Amazon didn’t have to continue support for a myriad of AWS products yet still do and maintain backwards compatibility.
