• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Amazon launches Luna game streaming service ...

FunkMiller

Member
Yup, exactly right.

Luna is actually a bigger threat to Sony now than MS is.

Unfortunately, yes.

It's a huge threat to all of the existing video games companies.

However, I'd argue it's a far bigger threat to Microsoft than Sony or Nintendo right now. Sony and Ninty are pretty much all about the curated content that is specifically designed to run on their own consoles. I think their business model is going to be fine for this generation. Luna will never have God Of War on it.

Msft on the other hand, are moving into the subscription service model very heavily, which puts them at direct odds with Amazon's entry into the industry. Hence why Msft have just bought Bethesda, because they know they can't now rely on being the go to place for third party games. That's gone completely out of the window, now third parties can potentially put their games on an Amazon product.
 

jigglet

Member
Msft on the other hand

I'm curious, why do some of you refer to these companies using their stock quotes? You're a trader, right? I'm a trader too and I think it's a bit of a wankerish thing to do, but if you're a trader then I can at least kind of understand it. If not, then it's certainly very puzzling.

I've noticed a few of you doing this.
 
Unfortunately, yes.

It's a huge threat to all of the existing video games companies.

However, I'd argue it's a far bigger threat to Microsoft than Sony or Nintendo right now. Sony and Ninty are pretty much all about the curated content that is specifically designed to run on their own consoles. I think their business model is going to be fine for this generation. Luna will never have God Of War on it.

Msft on the other hand, are moving into the subscription service model very heavily, which puts them at direct odds with Amazon's entry into the industry. Hence why Msft have just bought Bethesda, because they know they can't now rely on being the go to place for third party games. That's gone completely out of the window, now third parties can potentially put their games on an Amazon product.

The way I see it is MS and Amazon are now direct competitors who will have different content to offer subscribers while Sony is in danger of going under or being forced to third party. Nintendo will be fine because their games top the charts at full price, but even Nintendo can't count on that for much longer going forward.
 

The Shepard

Member
Hence why Msft have just bought Bethesda, because they know they can't now rely on being the go to place for third party games. That's gone completely out of the window, now third parties can potentially put their games on an Amazon product.

I Think this is spot on. They see amazon/Google as a threat to there gaming business model. There's going to be to many cooks in the kitchen soon and only the best will survive.
 

FunkMiller

Member
The way I see it is MS and Amazon are now direct competitors who will have different content to offer subscribers while Sony is in danger of going under or being forced to third party. Nintendo will be fine because their games top the charts at full price, but even Nintendo can't count on that for much longer going forward.

If I continue my comparison with the book industry (because it's easily the most appropriate when considering how Amazon functions as a business) I can almost see Sony and Nintendo as the 'old fashioned' companies, like book publishers who still make paperbacks and hardbacks. They haven't gone anywhere, and I don't expect physical games to go anywhere either. Millions of people still buy physical books, even though the ebook market is now gigantic. I'm sure the same is going to hold true with physical games. I actually think Sony and Nintendo will be okay, but their business models will have to change and adapt. Welcome to why neither of them have ever really thrown themselves into streaming or subscription gaming the way Msft has.

Amazon aren't interested in physical game sales - that much is obvious because they've decided to get into the cloud streaming model. They are firmly aimed at Msft and Google.

Now, of course of streaming really does take off in a huge way, then that will threaten Sony and Nintendo, but I'm not sure that's a short term issue for them. And they probably have a good amount of time to strike the right deals to secure their futures.

Basically, if I were either of them, I'd be being extremely nice to Amazon right now. Book publishers weren't back in the day, and they're still paying for it over a decade later.
 
Last edited:

Warnen

Can he swing from a thread? Take a look overhead / Hey, there, there goes the Spider-Man
I don't understand this strange (albeit seemingly popular on this forum) sentiment. People on here rail on and on about "owning" games and the need for physical media (despite EULA's making this an utter fallacy), and then suddenly on a streaming service, people would rather "rent" an unstable list of games that might not even appeal to them? I much prefer the base Stadia model, free unlimited streaming, buy only the games that you want. I guess I am old school, as GamePass does not appeal to me in the slightest either, despite being deeply entrenched in the Xbox ecosystem. If I weren't so loyal to Xbox, I would consider Stadia as an option. Do people really fear Stadia's supposed shutdown so much? Google has enough money and Stadia costs them almost nothing, considering it is simply based on their servers, that Stadia will continue for years.

Well if someone wants the Netflix of gaming, I’m sure they know what that entails. Personally I don’t give 2 shits about owning media anymore. Apple Music, Streaming video services and I hope gaming joins that too some day. So much stuff to consume I have back logs of backlogs of shit to watch listen or play at this point.
 

Komatsu

Member
Interesting to see Amazon using a browser-based launcher to bypass Apple’s storefront. This will become increasingly common, I reckon.


I'm curious, why do some of you refer to these companies using their stock quotes? You're a trader, right? I'm a trader too and I think it's a bit of a wankerish thing to do, but if you're a trader then I can at least kind of understand it. If not, then it's certainly very puzzling.

I've noticed a few of you doing this.

Everybody knows Microsoft’s ticker name. I would only start to worry if people started referring to Bandai Namco by their ADR ticker: NCBDF.
 

jigglet

Member
Everybody knows Microsoft’s ticker name. I would only start to worry if people started referring to Bandai Namco by their ADR ticker: NCBDF.

Everyone also knows "MS". In fact I'd wager more people know MS than MSFT. When I see people casually referring to a company with a stock quote, I picture a guy with a dildo strapped to their foreheads.

I'm sure there are real traders here and some people in the industry, to which I'd apologise and say ok sure whatever. But I suspect a lot of these are just fans that just come off looking like real wankers.

I recently just offloaded a six figure holding in Nintendo. I'd say I'd probably be amongst one of the larger Nintendo shareholders on this forum (or was). Yet I'd still feel like a total wank if I referred to them as NTDOY.
 
Last edited:

PengTiki

Member
I'm looking at Luna as the rental option. They will need to provide fun throwaway games where lag isn't a major issue and for a decent sub price, then I will jump on board for a month here and there and maybe even spend extra on a devs channel.

But I will still be mainly buying on console and PC because that is where I expect the best quality games will be for a long time and they deserve more direct support. And I'm not talking about a lot of the AAA crowd pleasing crap.

Sony and Nintendo will need to plan carefully for the PS6 gen or expect to shrink. Sega knows.

Hopefully Amazon, Apple and MS can kill off Stadia. That will be good enough.
 

jigglet

Member
Yeah, I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about this. I think a lot of gamers are so stubborn and unsavvy that they can't even see how big this is.

I think most rational people expect this to play a huge role in the future. But I also think most of us understand it's also realistically a very long way away. Internet speeds in most parts of the world are shockingly bad.

MS has the right approach I think. Lean more on traditional client-based models, and offer cloud as a supplementary "away from home" / demo service. Then a decade from now slowly transition over, which will be a piece of cake with a decade worth of experience and technology under their belt.

This approach of diving right into the deep end that Google and Amazon are doing is premature. MS is doing it right IMO.
 
Last edited:

Kuranghi

Gold Member
A gif thats both a metaphor for Google's entrance into gaming and a premonition for what will happen to Amazon's Luna:

 
I think most rational people expect this to play a huge role in the future. But I also think most of us understand it's also realistically a very long way away. Internet speeds in most parts of the world are shockingly bad.

MS has the right approach I think. Lean more on traditional client-based models, and offer cloud as a supplementary "away from home" / demo service. Then a decade from now slowly transition over, which will be a piece of cake with a decade worht of experience and technology under their belt.

This approach of diving right into the deep end that Google and Amazon are doing is premature. MS is doing it right IMO.

I agree that MS has the right approach at the moment. But make no mistake, Amazon is able to target a lot more demographics than Nintendo and Sony and probably even Microsoft. People who might've bought a console because they saw one game that interested them but otherwise aren't into gaming. Older people who just want a time wasting service. Younger people who don't care about "mature" AAA titles. And a whole lot of people who definitely don't give a shit about physical media, "ownership", latency, etc.

This is nothing to sneeze at. Amazon knows what it is doing in Cloud. And they can absolutely attract top 3rd party talent and pay them handsomely. It's why I don't see this as a bad thing.
 

FunkMiller

Member
A gif thats both a metaphor for Google's entrance into gaming and a premonition for what will happen to Amazon's Luna:


Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The two do not equate at all. I know it's probably wishful thinking on your part that Luna goes the same way as Stadia, but it's not going to happen, for all the reasons I've already discussed in this thread.
 

FunkMiller

Member
I agree that MS has the right approach at the moment. But make no mistake, Amazon is able to target a lot more demographics than Nintendo and Sony and probably even Microsoft. People who might've bought a console because they saw one game that interested them but otherwise aren't into gaming. Older people who just want a time wasting service. Younger people who don't care about "mature" AAA titles. And a whole lot of people who definitely don't give a shit about physical media, "ownership", latency, etc.

This is nothing to sneeze at. Amazon knows what it is doing in Cloud. And they can absolutely attract top 3rd party talent and pay them handsomely. It's why I don't see this as a bad thing.

This is the key point. There isn't a company on Earth that has access to consumer data like Amazon. If they've decided the gaming market is something they can get into, the decision would have been based on all of the data they've been pulling in for years on gaming habits and purchasing.

Honestly, while Google and Msft are massive companies, they don't have the cloud structure, consumer data, market saturation, ubiquity, or subscription levels that Amazon have.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Member
Everyone also knows "MS". In fact I'd wager more people know MS than MSFT. When I see people casually referring to a company with a stock quote, I picture a guy with a dildo strapped to their foreheads.

I'm sure there are real traders here and some people in the industry, to which I'd apologise and say ok sure whatever. But I suspect a lot of these are just fans that just come off looking like real wankers.

I recently just offloaded a six figure holding in Nintendo. I'd say I'd probably be amongst one of the larger Nintendo shareholders on this forum (or was). Yet I'd still feel like a total wank if I referred to them as NTDOY.

Mate... It's just a quicker way of writing Microsoft, that's all. You're reading way too much into it.

And someone who comes on a forum and starts talking about 'offloading a six figure holding' might just be the one with the dildo strapped to his forehead, don't you think?
 
Last edited:

jigglet

Member
Mate... It's just a quicker way of writing Microsoft, that's all. You're reading way too much into it.

And someone who comes on a forum and starts talking about 'offloading a six figure holding' might just be the one with the dildo strapped to his forehead, don't you think?

If that's how you want to see it, sure. But a six figure holding doesn't even put me within the realm of a lowly fund manager, I'm just a Joe Blow retail investor. But you're really just missing the point here; there's no universe where MSFT is easier to write and more universally comprehensible than simply "MS". And I'm not singling you out, I see so many others referring to companies like NTDOY and SNE etc. Are people just trying to look cool or something? Again I get it if you're actually traders. But regular fans...let's just cut the shit?
 

FunkMiller

Member
If that's how you want to see it, sure. But a six figure holding doesn't even put me within the realm of a lowly fund manager, I'm just a Joe Blow retail investor. But you're really just missing the point here; there's no universe where MSFT is easier to write and more universally comprehensible than simply "MS". And I'm not singling you out, I see so many others referring to companies like NTDOY and SNE etc. Are people just trying to look cool or something? Again I get it if you're actually traders. But regular fans...let's just cut the shit?

To me, MS has a different meaning, so I don't use it. Simple as that. But maybe just let people write things the way they please, instead of calling them wankers, eh? Just a thought.
 

Kuranghi

Gold Member
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The two do not equate at all. I know it's probably wishful thinking on your part that Luna goes the same way as Stadia, but it's not going to happen, for all the reasons I've already discussed in this thread.

Oh sorry, I didn't read any of what you wrote at all, I was just guessing. I don't know anything about Luna really.
 

wolywood

Member
If I continue my comparison with the book industry (because it's easily the most appropriate when considering how Amazon functions as a business) I can almost see Sony and Nintendo as the 'old fashioned' companies, like book publishers who still make paperbacks and hardbacks. They haven't gone anywhere, and I don't expect physical games to go anywhere either. Millions of people still buy physical books, even though the ebook market is now gigantic. I'm sure the same is going to hold true with physical games. I actually think Sony and Nintendo will be okay, but their business models will have to change and adapt. Welcome to why neither of them have ever really thrown themselves into streaming or subscription gaming the way Msft has.

Amazon aren't interested in physical game sales - that much is obvious because they've decided to get into the cloud streaming model. They are firmly aimed at Msft and Google.

Now, of course of streaming really does take off in a huge way, then that will threaten Sony and Nintendo, but I'm not sure that's a short term issue for them. And they probably have a good amount of time to strike the right deals to secure their futures.

Basically, if I were either of them, I'd be being extremely nice to Amazon right now. Book publishers weren't back in the day, and they're still paying for it over a decade later.


I've used the gasoline powered car (still kings of their industry by a huge degree, but based on a platform that most people agree will be phased out at some yet to be determined point) vs electric car (until recently a niche technology but one that continues to improve and gain market share year after year) analogy to describe traditional consoles vs cloud/subscription based gaming services, but I like your book industry comparison better.
 
Last edited:

Celine

Member
The way I see it is MS and Amazon are now direct competitors who will have different content to offer subscribers while Sony is in danger of going under or being forced to third party. Nintendo will be fine because their games top the charts at full price, but even Nintendo can't count on that for much longer going forward.
If people's behaviour shift toward consuming third-party games through these new upcoming streaming/subscription services then Sony will be screwed because being the premiere platform where playing third-party games was always a key factor for PlayStation's dominance.
However Nintendo would remain relatively unfazed by this paradigm shift because their success was never dependent on being the de facto standard to deliver third-party games.
Instead Nintendo base their success on going against the commodization of videogames by introducing unexpected custom hardware features that create values unique to their ecosystem.
These cloud giants cannot and won't compete with Nintendo on Nintendo's terms (they don't have the skill set nor the desire to).
What these cloud giants want is to render obsolete the idea that you need a dedicated local hardware to play games but this will go in direct contrast with Nintendo's approach based on uniqueness which will make Nintendo stand out even more.

Nintendo's pursue for uniqueness isn't tied only to hardware features but also reflected in the kind of games they develop in fact they own a bunch of genre kings (games that have created or popularized their own genre/sub genre) which have little to no credible alternatives from third-party publishers.
If you want to play Smash Bros, Animal Crossing, Mario Kart etc. you are likely to gravitate around the Nintendo ecosystem.
 
Last edited:

magnumpy

Member
what is up with all these fracking streaming services

I thought it would be enough just to buy the gaming hardware but now you need to subscribe to all these services with a darned monthly fee!

it's too much lol there is a recession going on you corporate cretins I can't afford all this poop :(
 
Sony bought Onlive and Gaikai. They must of just put up Playstation Now to prove they are using the patents. They must be loving this LUNA STADIA XCLOUD nonsense.

TIME TO SUEEEEE SONYYY.
 

Celine

Member
Don’t think they care about exclusives. They’ll just want to be the easiest, cheapest and most reliable way to access a massive library of games.
But then their rivals could offer the same massive library of games + tentpole first-party exclusives.
Microsoft was also smart enough to understand that in the transitional phase it's better to cover all the bases so they don't rely exclusively on streaming but also offer options to play games on local devices.
Microsoft streaming service is included in the Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription so over time they will naturally convert their userbase from consuming the games locally to doing so with streaming (when the time is ready).
 

FunkMiller

Member
But then their rivals could offer the same massive library of games + tentpole first-party exclusives.
Microsoft was also smart enough to understand that in the transitional phase it's better to cover all the bases so they don't rely exclusively on streaming but also offer options to play games on local devices.
Microsoft streaming service is included in the Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription so over time they will naturally convert their userbase from consuming the games locally to doing so with streaming (when the time is ready).

Well, possibly, but they could end up being too late. If Amazon Luna is a success, and changes the playing field, Msft will regret not moving to the subscription / streaming service earlier, instead opting to keep one foot in the traditional console market.

If they’re not careful they could find themselves the middle men between Sony’s clear console strategy and Amazon’s clear streaming service strategy.
 

Ozzie666

Member
This all comes down to perspective really, how much money and profit do you actually need? What I mean is, even a niche company, who bucks the trend, can make a profit and small yearly growth. They don't have to be number one or the biggest or best. That is why Microsoft has done well this generation, regardless of poor hardware sales and doom posts. They still made profit. I get pushing the industry forward and streaming is probably the future, I hate the idea myself.

Even if streaming is huge, you will still have, hopefully a company like Nintendo who continues to sell physical based games and is a success. Just an example.

Unfortunately for the world, a company like Amazon was perfectly placed for the Pandemic, they have more cash then god. Amazon, Google, Apple and Microsoft all have some cash to burn, cash stuck overseas. Thankfully, only Microsoft has taken gaming seriously. Triple A gaming maybe be too volatile for these companies to seriously invest.
 

Celine

Member
Well, possibly, but they could end up being too late. If Amazon Luna is a success, and changes the playing field, Msft will regret not moving to the subscription / streaming service earlier, instead opting to keep one foot in the traditional console market.

If they’re not careful they could find themselves the middle men between Sony’s clear console strategy and Amazon’s clear streaming service strategy.
Microsoft is debuting their streaming service at the same time as Amazon and their game subscription service (which just like Luna count already hundreds of games + Microsoft first-party exclusives + in the the near future Bethesda exclusives) is already above 15M subscribers.
Why should they be late? They are leading the charge.

Also Microsoft's strategy seems clear to me, they believe that Sony console strategy is a losing proposistion in the long term but it's useful in the short term to gain a bigger subscriber base for their services than their true competitors (Google, Amazon) in addition to embracing PC (native + streaming) and mobile (only streaming and adroind for the moment).
The big difference between Microsoft and Amazon is that the latter is streaming only which will limit the userbase adoption in the beginning of the transitional phase.
Microsoft is embracing everything from the get go which is smarter IMO (obviously Microsoft was lucky to have already invested in console gaming for the past two decades).
 

FunkMiller

Member
Microsoft is debuting their streaming service at the same time as Amazon and their game subscription service (which just like Luna count already hundreds of games + Microsoft first-party exclusives + in the the near future Bethesda exclusives) is already above 15M subscribers.
Why should they be late? They are leading the charge.

Also Microsoft's strategy seems clear to me, they believe that Sony console strategy is a losing proposistion in the long term but it's useful in the short term to gain a bigger subscriber base for their services than their true competitors (Google, Amazon) in addition to embracing PC (native + streaming) and mobile (only streaming and adroind for the moment).
The big difference between Microsoft and Amazon is that the latter is streaming only which will limit the userbase adoption in the beginning of the transitional phase.
Microsoft is embracing everything from the get go which is smarter IMO (obviously Microsoft was lucky to have already invested in console gaming for the past two decades).

Amazon have access to ten times the potential subscriber base than Microsoft, with a far lower barrier to entry.

You’re thinking like Msft are the ones ahead of the game here... they’re not. Hence the Bethesda buy.
 

linkroi

Member
oh yes ! another streaming platform, people will surely be happy, seems like Stadia was a huge success so... i mean wtf, it's gonne be like Netflix at first with few services and more and more and more... it is not interessting at all. I imagine in the future, people will have a Psnow subscription, luna, stadia, xcloud, etc... :/. The thing i'm scared of is if Amazon (theorically) decide to acquire some studio to make exclusivity on their plateform, it would be bad. To be oblige to play in streaming, the choice is important !
 
Last edited:

Celine

Member
Amazon have access to ten times the potential subscriber base than Microsoft, with a far lower barrier to entry.

You’re thinking like Msft are the ones ahead of the game here... they’re not. Hence the Bethesda buy.
Microsoft is ahead in term of exclusive content at the moment, lead which was further extended with the acquisition of Bethesda.
If Microsoft didn't buy Bethesda it was likely that another competitor with deep pockets would have done it.
I'm not sure why you think Luna has a far lower barrier to entry, it's like you don't consider xCloud to exists (I give you that Luna being supported on iOS through PWA while xCloud isn't yet is an advantage for Amazon).
 
Last edited:
oh yes ! another streaming platform, people will surely be happy, seems like Stadia was a huge success so... i mean wtf, it's gonne be like Netflix at first with few services and more and more and more... it is not interessting at all.
Netflix has something like 400kk of subscriptions
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Member
Microsoft is ahead in term of exclusive content at the moment, lead which was further extended with the acquisition of Bethesda.
If Microsoft didn't buy Bethesda it was likely that another competitor with deep pockets would have done it.
I'm not sure why you think Luna has a far lower barrier to entry, it's like you don't consider xCloud to exists (I give you that Luna being supported on iOS through PWA while xCloud isn't yet is an advantage for Amazon).

Everyone pretty much already has an Amazon account, and Luna will be on everything.
 

Celine

Member
Everyone pretty much already has an Amazon account, and Luna will be on everything.
The probable inclusion into Amazon Prime and the integration with Twitch are indeed powerful tools.
However while Luna will be on everything, not everyone have a good enough connection to enjoy the service and to attract the enthusiast gamers it misses the day one big games and exclusive games which are present in other competing services like GamePass which at the moment represent better value.
Time will tells how the situation evolves.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Member
The probable inclusion into Amazon Prime and the integration with Twitch are indeed powerful tools.
However while Luna will be on everything, not everyone have a good enough connection to enjoy the service and to attract the enthusiast gamers it misses the day one big games and exclusive games which are present in other competing services like GamePass which at the moment represent better value.
Time will tells how the situation evolves.

Very true!

AWS is probably the biggest weapon in Amazon's arsenal. It's by far the largest and most established cloud service in the world, and if games are going to run with very low latency anywhere, it's going to be on Luna.

I'm not dismissing Microsoft's presence in the games streaming business model at all, but I think folks who have the idea that they are better placed than Amazon need to re-evaluate a little. Microsoft's many years in consoles don't really mean much when we're talking about this new technology... and Amazon have been ahead of the game with cloud based services for years now.

Marry that with all the information Amazon has on video games buying habits, the way they can target consumers better than any other company, the ubiquity of their own devices in people's homes, the 150 million Prime subscribers, the countless people with standard Amazon accounts, their ownership of Twitch, the amount of money they have to play with, and the line up of launch games as they stand... and Microsoft should frankly be very worried about the future.

Forget Sony vs Microsoft. Say hello to Amazon vs Microsoft, with Microsoft actually being the underdogs :messenger_hushed:
 

linkroi

Member
Netflix has something like 400kk of subscriptions

Not sure if I understand your message correctly. Netflix is indeed good (at least, for a streaming service) they were the first on the market to be that popular, they have good series, not too expensive. The problem is, we can see more and more other studio trying to take some part in that juicy market and that's the problem for the consumer. If i have to pay for Stadia (for exclusive), Xcloud, Psnow, Luna (maybe Amazon will try to buy studio ? surely they will) and that is bad for us consumer. I can't see myself to have alot of subscriptions, and i don't talk about the other services like spotify, etc... one day, it will be very expensive and kinda weird to jungle with like 10-12 services each month.
 
Last edited:

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
People thought streaming would fall off it’s only getting stronger better believe that
 
Not sure if I understand your message correctly. Netflix is indeed good (at least, for a streaming service) they were the first on the market to be that popular, they have good series, not too expensive. The problem is, we can see more and more other studio trying to take some part in that juicy market and that's the problem for the consumer. If i have to pay for Stadia (for exclusive), Xcloud, Psnow, Luna (maybe Amazon will try to buy studio ? surely they will) and that is bad for us consumer. I can't see myself to have alot of subscriptions, and i don't talk about the other services like spotify, etc... one day, it will be very expensive and kinda weird to jungle with like 10-12 services each month.
Yeah, just like with the originals you will have to pay for certain stuff from various services. Still 80 euro per month provides multiple services with tons of games instead of a single game. And nobody usually has subscriptions for 80 euro per month. 400kk implied that 400kk users are happy there.

But my point was about market - paying 1 cent from 400kk subscribers is 4kk per month(!). For 15kk it is only 150k per month (hope my math is correct). And that is continuous flow of money - as long as the game is there you will get something. For indies I doubt that are paid 1 cent (even less) but still it is good amount of money. Ironically it is basically socialist UBI for developers that relies on the capitalistic expansionism lol More games produced - more money received.
Not to mention some bonuses and games are still bought separately if the user wants too.
 
Last edited:

semicool

Banned
The old economics of supply and demand. They are supplying streaming services but I don't really think there is a big or strong demand for it, in fact I think the demand is weak. So I'm only worried if Amazon starts buying videogame companies.
 

linkroi

Member
Yeah, just like with the originals you will have to pay for certain stuff from various services. Still 80 euro per month provides multiple services with tons of games instead of a single game. And nobody usually has subscriptions for 80 euro per month. 400kk implied that 400kk users are happy there.

But my point was about market - paying 1 cent from 400kk subscribers is 4kk per month(!). For 15kk it is only 150k per month (hope my math is correct). And that is continuous flow of money - as long as the game is there you will get something. For indies I doubt that are paid 1 cent (even less) but still it is good amount of money. Ironically it is basically socialist UBI for developers that relies on the capitalistic expansionism lol More games produced - more money received.
Not to mention some bonuses and games are still bought separately if the user wants too.
I understand your point of view, even if i don't share the same.
 

Truespeed

Member
Google literally couldn't have failed harder. Let's stop fear mongering

There's a reason MS have barely mentioned cloud gaming, and its because they know it sucks especially right now

Wait, isn't this the same company that littered their datacenters with 900p xbox's and then come to the conclusion we done fucked up? Also their library of a 100 or so old games doesn't look too appealing. What happened to their awesome catalog of Xbox games they were supposed to unleash to the cloud? I also hate to use reddit as a data point, but why is xcloud a ghost town over there? I mean the Stadia reddit makes it look like a Joe Biden car parade.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom