It's not like we're talking about charity here.
I have the feeling this is peak microtransaction. They've found out that people are likely to spend small amounts over time then one big sum at once and now you don't even own the game. It became the microtransaction.
If you mean to keep a copy and be able to play it again anytime in the future, then yes I'm with you. However, most of the games are either thrash or doesn't offer much replay value, which means that once you're done with it that will stack up somewhere and collects dust.
One point though is you can trade games that you own, which has some appeal.
People used to bring the same argument for music streaming vs buying a CD or digital copy. See where that brought us.
Convenience wins most of the time.
I would like if someone else handled all the hardware upgrades, so I don't have to spend so much money every year just to keep up.
One of the appealing aspects of South Korea gaming cafes is that all the computers can be rented for a few dollars and tend to be maxed out. That environment creates a great place for everyone to get into gaming.
I'm not sure how that fits into Google's long-term interests, but it definitely fits into mine.
> The reason why these kind of initiatives fail is because they do not solve a real problem or issue
> Having a console where you buy games is more than enough.
I think that's the problem though. This opens up "real" gaming to a much wider audience. Even though games are mainstream now, most people are not willing to spend big money on gaming PCs or consoles.
If this technology works, they won't have to.