By the sound of it, a mixed model to spread the risk, including 'buying games at full price' in order to play them on Stadia - all that lovely profit gets shared n'es pas?
Also nice custom GPU hardware, apparently running Linux (aka it's a fat Steam box!)
Yes but you must have the model to sell them, Google has nothing, it doesn't have games either customers or hardware.
But let's check the competitor, or in inverse order.
Sony's stream is as low as $99 per year and Sony is not earning a dime from it, but it established a basement for their or catalog/console and it leaves no space for a competitor.
Microsoft has an all you can eat service (not streaming) for $10 per month. Microsoft earns about $1 per subscription and it is a not a big deal but this service also recommends Xbox Live (an extra $10) and it is when Microsoft start earning. Sony has the same deal, it's streaming service doesn't require PlayStation Plus but it is recommended. So, the total costs are $20, not $10 but it is something that Microsoft and Sony could do.
But, let's back to Sony's deal. Sony doesn't earn money with their streaming service. Accounting speaking it's easy to know that in the balances but let's say that Sony earns $2 per subscription (what is not real). Google could dream to earn the same but, Google doesn't have the hardware, games or even the image.. Google has the infrastructure but that's it.
People hate Epic Games, it is a douche of a company that it's playing hard against Steam, but its strategy is working. What is its strategy? Exclusive deals.
Google even lacks of games, Sony and Microsoft have a robust catalog of games and they deal with other distributors.
Instead, it is in the arsenal of Google:
GPU-servers are nothing new, in fact it is a big market (mainly for render-farms but also for multimedia service) but it is insanely expensive. A single GPU could eats the same energy than a whole server rack but also it's budget.
But let's say Google buys Nvidia (Google is going with AMD but it is the same price). Nvidia P100 is highly popular, the performance is par with the Nvidia 1080 ti.
Its price (heavily discounted and in bulk) is $3000 (GPU only). A streaming service requires at least once per 3 customers and if we consider the life of the server 3 years then:
$3000/ (12 months x 3 years) = $83 per month to serve 3 customers paying $10 each one ($30 per month). Of course, it doesn't match (and it is only the GPU).
AMD is way cheaper. In bulk, it is possible to obtain and proper AMD Vega (server ready) for $500 but it doesn't give the same punch than a 1080 ti, so it needs at least 1 per customer (plus the whole server & electric bill).
$500 / 12 months x 3 years = $13.8 per month to serve 1 customer paying $10 each one.
Maybe Google could obtain an insanely best price and get it for half the price. But it is not even enough because this number is only for the GPU.
Sony and Microsoft could move it's business (in fact no, they are not generating profit) because they don't sell a PC experience but a console experience, and they could use all the unsold-stock as a server.
Google indeed could sell extra stuff (DLC and whatnot) but again, Google has nothing to sell and companies profit when they sell their own stuff and not somebody else product (Ubisoft in this case).
But let's say that Google starts with $30, so it's selling a service for x3 the price (in fact MS and Sony are charging $20, not $10 but it is something that Google couldn't offer) of the competitors and it's giving less. Nice.
Google = monkeys - bananas.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.