I get the impression Amazon just rightly avoided overselling it and growing too far too fast. I see it advertised for a few specific cases where people don’t own consoles and might try it, but not overblown in showcases the way Google did.
amazon has repeatedly let competitors use amazon cloud services; and amazon has repeatedly ripped off those competitors ideas stored in cloud services and then shut them down economically
Why do people react so negatively to cloud options? (Emphasis on that last word)
It’s dumb for a lot of cases, but there’s plenty of niche occasions it’s very cool. I had an extended period of time I was away from my gaming PC, and sad that I couldn’t play my home games - but GFN let me do so easily.
Nobody working on this tech (with any sense) is claiming ALL games will come from the cloud in 10-20 years. Nobody will accept that level of lost control. But having it as an extra way to access games, in a situation where you’d be reliant on the internet more than hardware anyway, is very useful. It was even how I recommended people play Cyberpunk on release if they had a mediocre PC.
I get that there’s constant worries about how close we are to the EA-managed dystopian control of their library, I just don’t see the logical sequence of events there when it’s an option on a generally open and consumer-friendly store.
You talked about console hardware, but then mentioned distribution. I’m going to guess you mostly mean servers - as these days people don’t really need any special local hardware aside from any controller.
The major cities generally already have those servers distributed and working. It’s true certain edges of the world don’t have a good experience, but that sort of just fits in the 70% of scenarios where you wouldn’t want a cloud game.
There’s still this weird expectation it would replace your home den where you have lots of space and disposable income for multiple consoles - it doesn’t. It’s really more for the convenience of getting your games from a web browser.