AAA gaming is full of execs who have not grasped how their industry has already begun imploding. The survivors in the all digital potato PC world will be the indie devs and Steam since Steam sells their games. The indie game devs write their games to run on anything. The other survivor will be the free to play studios who have already won every market they've entered. If they don't own a gaming market yet its because they haven't bothered winning it. Look at active player counts. Franchises like Battlefield and Call of Duty are way down the charts from the free to play shooter games.

The only one that I think stands a chance is the xbox one, and that's assuming they combine it with gamepass. Because that was the only thing that sounded even somewhat appealing to me about the idea of remote gaming: being able to try a bunch of different games legally without needing to buy them all. Like netflix but for games (and not just mobile games like the actual netflix games).

Having my own devices that can handle playing games, I have zero interest in paying full price for a game I own even less than most games these days (because at least with the files all being stored and run locally, it opens up other possibilities, like hacking it to still run without DRM if its DRM server goes out or modding it). That was deal breaker #1.

Dealbreaker #2 is of course the latency. I use an ETX via VPN for my work and just typing on that thing is annoying because of the latency.

The subscription cost is another big negative, though I guess I wouldn't call it a dealbreaker. Though I currently have 0 video game related subscriptions (I don't count netflix, assuming they haven't given up on their games).

On the pros side, the only things I can think of is that it limits cheating (though separate devices would still work) and it gives you an option to play if you don't have a device capable of playing it, though you do still need a device, a display and sound system, and a good internet connection.