So far as cloud gaming is concerned, it seemed to me that Google could have tried developing a game that would have justified cloud gaming.

It seems to me in cloud gaming you could have a monstrous server with multiple GFX cards attached that could run the simulation and do the rendering for, say, 20 simultaneous users. If you were looking for a quantum leap in gameplay and graphics this is an obvious route, and Google would have been in a good position to develop it in terms of having cloud resources, systems programming talent, and money to throw at the problem.

(Of course, the idea that system programming > application programming is a certain way to get underperformance from systems programmers. Also, back when cloud gaming was fashionable, there wasn't any need to justify cloud gaming since all of their competitors were doing it. GFX card shortages were a gift to cloud gaming which is about to go into reverse.)

I feel like a "technology first, game second" approach is a trap. Perhaps I'm wrong and there are examples of it working out but in general it seems building a game to justify hardware is a losing proposition.

In response to your specific idea - I think something like that could be an interesting approach, but the difference between what the cloud GPU cluster can do vs an enthusiast-level video card would have to be massive - in a way that is both apparent and relevant to the average player. Obviously there would be an noticeable difference in the quality of rendering and overall simulation, but unless it's competently intertwined with the design of the game, I don't think a lot of players are going to care - outside of the "whoa, cool" aspect which is fleeting.

I’d basically agree that a good game with old technology is better than a bad game with new technology. Cloud Gaming is a bit like Blockchain gaming in that there is a contingent of firms that think it’s the future but nobody bothered to ask the players what they think.

This is Google we are talking about, however, and they have advanced technology in their DNA. In fact, they are such believers in technology that a believer in games is going to feel unsupported at Google whatever they do.

If the goal was to produce exclusive games with the brand power of Nintendo then the Stadia studio was doomed. When it comes to games that are exclusive because of technology than Google had a chance and they could have demonstrated the concept, made a framework accessible to people who were better at games, and get patents to lock down the technology.

I’d contrast the Nintendo strategy to the Id Games strategy —- even though the ludic design of Id Games were superb they kept making the same game over and over again motivated by improvements in technology. It’s not the only or even the best way to make it in games, but is is the path Google rejected in favor of having no path. Cloud gaming really needed something like that because it needs to answer the question “Why?”

The game I’d point to for inspiration is Titanfall which showed what was possible with cloud-based simulation. At first glance Titanfall was just another shooter but it was fun for everyone no matter how good or bad of a player they were and was bigger and more tightly coupled than previous multiplayer combat games. I see a worthwhile cloud-based game being something like Titanfall squared for whatever genre it is based on.

> So far as cloud gaming is concerned, it seemed to me that Google could have tried developing a game that would have justified cloud gaming.

Hah! Stadia G&E (games and entertainment) was indeed created and then subsequently shuttered down (https://kotaku.com/google-stadia-shuts-down-internal-studios..., https://www.theguardian.com/games/2021/feb/02/google-stadia-...)

Microsoft could be argued as one, but Microsoft could be also disregarded because they simply have acquired Microsoft Flight Simulator, Age of Empires and Halo.

Flight Simulator is an especially fun example because Microsoft didn't want to be in games at the time. It has been said that Bill Gates thought games were mostly a waste of time and worked very hard to make sure that the early many years of the company Microsoft had no games division. Microsoft bought Flight Simulator because it wasn't "entirely" a game, and was a good technical demo of PC capabilities. Microsoft wasn't trying to build a game studio. Microsoft "accidentally" built a game studio when people wanted Flight Simulator updates every couple of years. (Many of those people weren't even game players, but various users of Flight Simulator in non-game uses such as people using Flight Simulator as a learning tool or as they call it a "simulator".)

Maybe you can't force a game studio to happen, you have to accidentally walk into it?

Same for Xbox being (initially) seen as a deadweight to Microsoft. Microsoft is not even looking beyond office and enterprise when Nintendo and Sega were the players in the game console industry, but when Sony launched PlayStation (and the associated threat of a Sony-connected home entertainment and productivity system basically preventing Microsoft from selling Windows at home users), Microsoft just launched Xbox to counter PlayStation.

Yes, but it's also weirder than that, because Microsoft was a hardware and software partner with Sega on the Dreamcast. Microsoft was hoping to keep the three-horse race between Nintendo, Sega, and Sony in tact by offering support for things that Sega had ceased operating in house. The Xbox may not have existed at all if Sega hadn't been trying to cut corners and outsourcing random bits of Dreamcast hardware/software to whoever would answer the call and Microsoft being in the weird spot where they felt like they had to answer that call.

... and Activision!