Remember when Google did this and it failed because PC gamers dont want 1700 stores for games. They just want Steam or GOG.

These companies do not know their customer base and it costs them.

I do see these devices making way more sense for enterprise on the other hand, to the dismay of many. But for the average consumer maybe not. I assume they are going to recycle the same tech they are using to let you stream Xbox games.

If Windows wasnt so damned bloated this wouldnt cost them much. Every Windows laptop that was nearing its end of life became magically better and still in my house all 15 years later after I installed Linux. Wild.

▲

yyyk 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Google failed with Stadia because no sane AAA company would want to risk App/Play Store terms. The offering maybe made sense for A companies, but Google's requirements were too much for them (their marketing certain wasn't there). Google ended up subsidizing a few AAA companies, and then it fell to typical Google kill-it-now cost cutting. Microsoft has existing relationships and won't have this problem.

▲

ThrowawayB7 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The fine article plainly says that these are for corporate use and that the service it is meant to connect to isn't even available to regular consumers. And this is hardly a new concept: even a casual search shows that Windows thin clients have existed since the '90s and that the previous models are still currently being sold by various OEMs.

	▲	spwa4 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, exactly, this is the same old "how do we prevent lowly employees from going on facebook and solitaire" technology many other companies have tried 1000 times before. Always runs stuck on 3 problems: 1) this attitude makes these machines a reverse status symbol. I mean if you work at a company and work on one of these it essentially means you're low status. It's just shy of a slave collar. So everyone fights to the death not to have one of these. (this was imho also a problem of Google Stadia. It worked ... but an xbox was better. It worked, but a PC was better. It worked ... but a PS5 was better. Not because they were actually better, but because they were fundamentally superior status symbols. Stadia meant you were cheap/poor) 2) for any even remotely creative work you need access to so much of the internet, and a web browser. Which then defeats the purpose because of course facebook (or rather the 10.000 ad-supported sites) have an extreme incentive to make themselves available. So solitaire (whatever the modern version) is available. 3) management has their little favorite solution and configuration. IT has their little favorite adaptations. Security has ... and so on. So fixing even the tiniest of incompatibilities is a 5 year project that requires 5 departments getting involved, that nobody wants to do. Microsoft has always resisted doing this, with citrix picking up the slack, but looks like they'll give it another shot.

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

Spivak 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean GeForce Now is still going and PS+ streaming is surprisingly playable.

I think people just didn't want Google.

	▲	tanaros 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Google stupidly positioned their service as if it was a separate console you had to buy games for, which then couldn’t be played anywhere else. The successful streaming services sell you games for non-streaming platforms and then just allow you to stream them as an option.
	▲	klodolph 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think the reasons are a little more boring, that it was a combination of different reasons that contributed to Stadia’s failure.