[PostOnce]

Does this mean I'll now need a Steam, Uplay, and Google account all simultaneously logged in to play an offline game by myself?

And if something goes wrong, I can expect absolutely zero tech support?

And I'll lose access to all my games in 11 months when Google kills it?

And it'll post my Achievements and owned games to my Google+ account automatically and try to make it Social?

And if I get banned from the games stuff for some reason, I'll lose my other Google accounts like Gmail, since they're all linked?

With all that value-add and free extra latency, I basically HAVE TO sign up! What a deal!

[restingrobot]

Well since this is a streaming service, there is no such thing as an "offline" game as you need to be connected to the internet to stream it. I"m guess they will have some sort pay for play time model rather than a full game purchase. This would be the streaming equivalent of renting a red box title, but hopefully cheaper.

[PostOnce]

Offline meaning single player, streaming not withstanding, that's a lot of crap to go through (managing and maintaining many accounts and clients) to boot into a game that you're going to play by yourself (not multiplayer), and a lot of points of failure between you and your small amount of recreation time after work.

[restingrobot]

You already have to do this to play any AAA title? I really don't see the issue?

[PostOnce]

The issue is that it doesn't have to be that way, didn't used to be that way, and isn't that way for pirates.

Just because it's the state of affairs doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Consoles are arguably a better experience in several regards, and I want the PC to be as enjoyable, considering PCs cost more; e.g. you can play Diablo 3 without an internet connection on PlayStation, but not on PC.

You can play some random AAA game on a console without having to put in a key or maintain an account or a third party client (or multiple third party clients!), where on PC you have to do those things.

You can sell a console game or give it to your friend when you finish playing it, but on PC it's "already activated".

Google is going to take all the above and make it worse, so they can get their % of the sale too.

Just because some company wants us to do something or behave some way doesn't make us obligated to do so.

[drivebycomment]

You're perfectly entitled to your own opinion of why you think it's terrible and why it will fail and is useless, etc (and I would agree with some of your points). But I just don't understand:

> Just because some company wants us to do something or behave some way doesn't make us obligated to do so.

Don't use it if you don't like it ? Google launching something doesn't mean you're "obligated" in any way, so I don't know what you're trying to say with that sentence.

[PostOnce]

You can opt out in the beginning, but later it becomes a monopoly.

You can't even buy a game on a DVD anymore without it requiring Steam to install, activate, and play.

So, in theory, if they succeed, it won't be optional anymore.

"Oh then you can just stop playing games!" ... yes, but I would prefer not to. I would prefer a fair exchange of money for an unencumbered product.

Hopefully, if I speak out now about the potential and likely dangers of such a service, then I may hinder its adoption and prevent the further decline of an art form that I hold very dear.

[ReverseCold]

I know this is the exception and not the rule, but cdpr games are DRM free on GoG.

[utopcell]

Clearly you are not happy with the announcement. :-)

[PostOnce]

Rather I'm not happy with the foreboding.

I really like video games, and they keep getting worse... not the games themselves, but everything around them (due to "business" concerns), such as my above concerns, and IAP/DLC, and Xbox Live/PSN/Nintendo all charging money to play games on your already-paid-by-you internet connection, where it used to be free (since you can act as a server).

For DLC, in some cases, it's never sold on physical media, so for example you buy a playstation game, and half the game is DLC, and then 5 years later Sony shuts down the service that delivers the DLC, and you're left with half a game, so when your kid turns 10 and you want to show him this cool game, now you only have half of what you paid for.

Games now require mandatory updates to play alone by yourself (GTAV needs gigabytes of updates, no option to play the game offline alone and update later)... so you get home after work and want to play for 30 mins but have 2 hours of updates to download or more.

And a million other little things. Pardon me for not wanting Google to pour more gas on the garbage fire.

[flavmartins]

I understand the concern.

To play Devil's advocate, I would love to see real data on how much these older games get played.

The idea is that we buy a game and will continue to play it off and on for YEARS. But is that reality? Or do we finish a game or get tired of a game and then move on to a newer title and never return to those older games we thought we'd continue playing in the future?

I have MANY PS3/PS4 games I thought I would pick up again eventually. My PS3 has now been donated to goodwill after years of being disconnected and gathering dust in my media room.

And on my PS4, the disc games I can't even find. Most titles are digital buys and I've actually deleted from from the console since I'm not playing them. I find myself moving from new game to new game every 6 months or so. A few multi-player games I'll stick with periodically while it's active, but once the sequel is released I'll move on too.

[restingrobot]

To be fair, many of the problems you just described are specific to console games. But more specifically to your point this service would actually eliminate the need to keep the game up to date, as the centralized server would maintain an update product. So this might actually improve your game experience, as you would never have to wait for an update again!

Plus it runs in chrome so you don't even have to worry about installing/tweaking settings/finding the disk anymore either.

[PostOnce]

This will be adding those problems (centralization of services, recurring costs to play your existing games, and to play multiplayer) where they don't already exist.

PC game companies are already making single player games that run on your local machine require an "always-on" network connection to "thwart piracy".

I've posted more above, but I have also posted this yesterday detailing why these multiple-clients-required games can and will personally sting you, and are a benefit to absolutely no one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18111288

tl;dr: steam doesnt tell uplay you own the game, uplay uses a separate key, it takes days to go via tech support to fix your game, or just minutes to pirate it. Google is going to amplify this already crappy situation.