I have played KSP on my personal potato and honestly it's not as bad as I'm making it out to be - depending on the settings that I use, number of parts or flight segment, it can go from quite bad to acceptable/good. Watching Youtube KSP videos I've also noticed that even high-performance computers tend to struggle when put up against huge part numbers, so I don't have any unrealistic expectations from my machine. I just did a side-by-side test with my rig vs GFN, for the lolz, as one might say. No mods (as you can't use mods on GFN atm), 1080p, maxed out graphics settings, taking the AeroEquus to a roughly circular 150km orbit. It takes me about 4 minutes to do that on GFN vs. about 6 minutes on my rig. The thing that annoys me the most on my rig is the "time dilation" (aka low fps) during launch and atmospheric climb (it takes around 2.5x normal time to exit the atmosphere). Long story short, yeah, the difference is noticeable. One may argue that I could get around this by simply lowering some settings, or that the vast majority of KSP gameplay takes place, well, in space. Barring performance issues, I am still a strong proponent of cloud gaming, as you don't have to deal with a lot of issues regarding hardware/software compatibility, hardware fatigue and obsolescence for high-end expensive gear, storage space, power management aso.
Alas, I think I went off on a tangent for long enough, and I don't want to pollute the forums with my rants. Thank you for your replies. Guess we'll have to see what happens next; they might even go for a different cloud gaming service such as Stadia or it might simply be a non-issue, as not a lot of people depend on this type of service still.