With Google lurking, gaming has never been more critical to Microsoft
Google has been chipping away at Microsoft's software empire for many years now, with Android in particular exploding as a software ecosystem to rival Windows itself. Android handsets armed with Google Play are a dominating force on mobile devices, while Microsoft's efforts in the space fell spectacularly flat.
Google has been leveraging its Android app ecosystem on its increasingly popular line of cheap Chromebook laptops. Chrome OS loaded with web apps and, now, a large array of Android apps is proving problematic for Windows in a casual computing context, particularly in businesses and schools who see Chromebooks as a cheaper alternative to a Windows laptop, strangled by legacy code. Google has been incredibly adept at exploiting Microsoft where it is weak, notably with the Chrome web browser, which has come to dominate Windows too.
There are a few notable absences on Chrome OS when it comes to usability and versatility. It's often missing more powerful applications, such as video editing and programming packages, but for Windows consumers, it's also missing games. The vast legacy of Windows is one of Microsoft's greatest strengths, granting it thousands of quality apps and, vitally, games spanning across decades and different hardware levels. Even if you're running a potato PC, your device likely has better quality core games than the latest Android phone, and especially the latest Chromebook. But all of that could be set to change.
Recently, Google played its hand after years of speculation. Google is working on Project Stream, which will (if it works) allow you to experience "AAA" quality core games via Chrome OS, and of course, cheap Chromebooks. Notably, mega publisher Ubisoft is one of the first companies to jump on board, with Assassin's Creed Odyssey.
If Google can credibly make streaming a viable way to access real games on the cheap across their devices, and not the usual Candy Crush-style pay2win garbage associated with Android, Microsoft could find Windows' popularity with consumers plummet into nothingness. But it's not like Microsoft isn't gearing up to compete.
Next-gen streaming wars
While powerful local hardware is not going away by any stretch, the battle for new consumers will be fought firmly within the streaming arena. Casual mobile gamers who have no intention of buying a $1500 gaming PC or a dedicated video game console tend to play whatever they can get access to on their Android or iOS devices, if the core gaming industry can expand to that market by lowering the barriers to access, it could prove extremely lucrative for everyone involved.
Sony has PlayStation Now, Google has Project Stream, Amazon is widely expected to be working on something similar, with Microsoft already having announced "console-quality" game streaming for phones and other devices. Recently I've heard credible rumors that Microsoft's game streaming platform could be available as early Q1 or Q2 2019, which would make X0 2018 in November a good place to announce it.
Microsoft has a considerable head start here, but so too was the case with tablets, Cortana, Skype, and even smartphones.
Google and Amazon will exploit every weakness
Microsoft has this uncanny ability to allow competing companies to react to changes in the market more quickly, whittling away at every gap and weakness in a Microsoft product while Redmond sits on its hands, overconfident and complacent. Microsoft cannot afford to allow this to happen with gaming if it wants to prevent Chrome OS from eliminating its main weakness with game streaming, potentially giving away an entire generation of potential gamers over to cheaper Chromebooks.
Microsoft's main advantage here is that many millions of its customers already have a large library of expensive games primed for streaming. Those users you could say, are effectively already locked in. Problematically, they're not really the audience Microsoft wants here. The whole point of streaming is improving access to gamers who want to play on the devices they already own, rather than investing in a new platform or device, and this is where Google has an advantage.
Project Stream will send games to a Chrome OS laptop, presumably an Android phone, and even a Windows PC via Chrome's web browser. When it's ready for the prime time, it will be advertised and pushed heavily across those platforms, since Google holds the keys to all the defaults on many millions of those Google Play-enabled devices.
Google has already signed deals with Ubisoft and is no doubt working with other companies too, all of whom are eager to expand their profitability by reaching untapped device markets, namely mobile. All this is while disregarding Amazon's play, which will no doubt factor in Twitch.tv and Amazon.com itself, and other mammoth gaming companies like Tencent.
Swimming in the midst of all this is Discord, which has become the gaming world's de facto friends list. Discord has become the largest gaming social network by a significant margin, beating Skype and Xbox Live at their own game with a razor sharp focus on messaging and community building. Whichever cloud company manages to snap up Discord first (and one of them will, eventually) will plug a massive gap in their respective capabilities, while adding another screen upon which to deliver streaming games. Microsoft could simply modernize Skype and Xbox Live's communication capabilities, but so far it has shown a staggering incapability to do so. Losing Discord to Amazon, more especially Google and Chrome OS, would be catastrophic for Microsoft in the coming streaming wars. Either company could simply embed their game streaming service directly into the app.
Time is of the essence
Microsoft might have a head start now — but as we've seen with various other Redmond products that hit market first and then wallowed in complacency — that head start could evaporate incredibly quickly.
Microsoft seems to have made many of the right moves, investing heavily in a future exclusive games portfolio, adding Mixer.com as a vehicle for building community, and so on. But many of Xbox Live's other aspects, such as messaging and community tools, and presence on mobile devices, are really weak. Google, and others, will exploit these weaknesses with impunity.
I'm not suggesting game streaming will fully replace local, powerful Windows PC hardware or PlayStation or Xbox consoles, but it could prove to be an incredibly lucrative way for big publishers to grow their audiences beyond the traditional install base. Core gaming could grow from millions, to billions, and that's ultimately the goal here. The risk for Microsoft is that they won't be part of the story, and that for future generations, Windows and Microsoft may no longer offer everything many people want from their devices, factoring in price.
Microsoft has a really troubled relationship with consumers lately, seemingly unsure whether they want to be a boring "productivity" company or something a little more fun, with Xbox and Mixer. It still feels like Microsoft as a company isn't pulling in the same direction in this context, and if that's true with regards to gaming and consumer products, that is ultimately the biggest weakness Google can exploit.
Related: Microsoft, ignore the threat of Discord at your peril
Get the Android Central Newsletter
Instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
Does anyone actually believe google could do anything in gaming that would make a difference? They'll just introduce something that lurks around for a few years, like Google+ or any of a number of Google's other projects, until it just kills it off. How much of the US doesn't have the internet bandwidth or speed to stream video games with any sort of quality?
Yeah the premise of this article is Microsoft doesn't focus on consumer products and often fails with poorly laid plans, while implying that Google will undoubtedly push and succeed. This reads like an injured Windows phone fan still upset about that failure, or maybe a former Zune owner (I'm both, they were superior products and you neve convince me otherwise). Problem is, you can easily count an equal amount of failures and abandoned products from Google.
This is actually an article from Windows Central.
Exactly. Google neither understands nor appreciates the level of hardware support necessary for gaming. For example, my 6+ year old Radeon 7870 HD GHz edition is still receiving driver updates from AMD.
The point of project stream is that you don't need the hardware support since you're not running the game locally.
Streaming hype forgets one important thing: latency. Multiplayer games - especially battle royale ones - are likely to perform very poorly over streaming. Not to mention ISP data caps limit UHD streaming. Also, remember when console gaming was supposed to kill PC gaming? Hasn't happened. Remember when mobile games were supposed to kill consoles? Hasn't happened. Instead, in each case the market expanded. Console games captured people who didn't have quadruple digits to drop on a gaming PC. Mobile gaming captured people in waiting rooms, etc. who needed something to do and other casual gamers while out of the house. I think streaming will take off on set top boxes, capturing after-work couch potatoes who don't own consoles.
I'ma say: No, no, more no, and have some even more no... How many companies have tried streaming? How about Steam? The largest platform for PC games.... They have streaming over local network, and even the internet if you can manage to set it up right. But that hasn't taken off at all. Why? Because its just stupid... WHY would you want to play a PC/Console game on a mobile phone/tablet? The controls just WON'T WORK.... Its utterly STUPID to think that it would... No one wants it, no one who claims to want it realizes just how wrong they actually are and that in fact, they don't really want it. NOTHING about streaming a game, will be good. You'd have to pay monthly for the service, pay even more for your internet to get the extra bandwidth needed, you'd STILL need to pay out the ass for some piece of hardware (because no, those 50 dollar cheapo phones will more than likely NOT work for streaming games properly... too laggy with subpar hardware for networking/decoding...), and you'll STILL need to pay 20-100 bucks to get a controller, mouse/keyboard, or joystick-type-doodad to play the games you are wanting to play. Not to mention now needing some sorta stand to hold your device. Maybe a chromebook/laptop may be ok. But even then, most people are getting the cheapest laptop they are told by walmart employees to buy. And they can BARELY play YouTube videos and have a chat program open at the same time. And yes, I know this for a fact. I previously needed a laptop just to 'have'. Didn't want it to be powerful, but didn't want it to be terrible either. I bought one for 900 buckos, and what was a I rewarded with? A laptop that couldn't watch 1080p 30fps YouTube videos without stuttering every time the mouse was moved... couldn't have it playing in the background either while using skype or discord. Where's that laptop now? Somewhere in some refurb place most likely, or in some electronic waste plant. Why? Because I returned it to where I bought it as soon as I was done needing 'something'.... SO NO... THIS SHOULD DIE BEFORE ITS EVEN GIVEN A CHANCE TO BREATHE.....
Long article. Coles Notes version: Better games are coming to the Android space. Whatever comes to Android won't appease those invested in gaming PC's. I don't think anybody sees the gaming PC market growing. Game makers like the potential of smart phones because almost everyone has one in 2018.
Microsoft is getting by on inertia at this point. Quite a lot of it actually. But if there is one thing MS can be counted on for it's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I dislike the company and have no faith in Nadella at all. I've been thinking for years that a hungry young company would come along and knock them off their mountain. It remains to be seen whether Google will be that company but it will happen. Then Microsoft in all their arrogant complacency will wait to react untill it's far too late.