• 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.

Microsoft’s Xbox boss says Amazon and Google are ‘the main competitors going forward’

Rightisright

Member
Dec 19, 2019
677
828
305
there is a problem with that, you are thinking of azure as some kind of magical future proof game streaming hardware that you only have to buy once and will works for everything

server need upgrades and game streaming servers need more upgrades, sony right now with their ps3 and ps4 data centers has better infrastructure than whatever MS can offer them for their streaming needs for PSnow why?, because you cannot expect to virtualize a PS3 on azure and be cost effective vs a rack with 8 cells and 8 RSX or a virtual PS4, azure is a cloud for a lot of services but most of them are not related to game streaming, you can add GPU power to your virtual machine but you can select between GPUs from Nvidia and AMD with different amounts of power they do that because not all the hardware in azure has the same procesing power in other words only a part of azure can run and stream games, what if you need raytracing? what if you need certain ram speed? what if you need hardware specific gpu extentions? how much of azure hardware can actually do that?, the point of virtualizing hardware is to not care about the hardware you just allocate more power on demand that works very well for business applications, database, video stream and webhosting that is good and is MS main business with azure but games and more specifically console games streaming require a console hardware to run properly that is why google mentioned the specs of the machines for stadia you can only run as many games simultaneously as machines with that specs you have, do you need more power for more complex games? then you have to distribute hardware and render part of the screen on another machine that is 2 machines for one game/user or you buy new and more powerful server which you eventually will do anyway and replace old ones with the exception that you cannot run more complex games than machines with powerful hardware you have

MS can spend a lot of money in azure right now(they need to for their business) but for game streaming only part of it will work, sony want to stream consoles games they dont need something as big as azure specially because most of azure wont work for their needs they can grow the data centers they have for game streaming as much as PSnow require and they can even wait until they truly need lot of data centers to buy modern hardware and at that point they can have as many modern gaming capable servers as MS
Oh no, it's not future proof yet. But there is a race on between MS, Google and Amazon to get it to that point. Microsoft doesn't want to give either Google or Amazon a head start.
If cloud gaming takes off, then it's a three horse race.
 

Ryu Kaiba

Member
Sep 12, 2018
719
1,075
360
Yet...you still have to pay for the box...you actually have to pay for more hardware, more electricity, more bandwidth, than you have to pay someone to commission it and decommission it in the data center, pay for maintenance and repairs....also the provider has additional costs as well...large scale cooling, property asset management, etc.
Uh no you don't, that is all MS's job. That's the point, all they want you to do is subscribe and play games.

I'm not sure why you keep saying MS plenty other companies actually already provide this service....no demand.
Again, you say think outside my bubble....it has nothing to do with bubbles....there is no demand for obvious reasons.
What people demand are games. What publishers demand are customers. What MS is doing is engineering a path to the games on any device.

Cloud gaming is not only not as good as native playing.... it will cost more.
No.
 
Last edited:

polybius80

Member
Jan 10, 2019
160
143
230
Oh no, it's not future proof yet. But there is a race on between MS, Google and Amazon to get it to that point. Microsoft doesn't want to give either Google or Amazon a head start.
If cloud gaming takes off, then it's a three horse race.

more complex games require better hardware, you cant future proof them, Do you think new games will never require more powerful specs?

MS, Google and Amazon have most of their servers oriented to business, only a tiny fraction of those servers are capable of running modern games and new server are needed for the new games, small companies can build gaming data centers and have better specs and grow on demand there are already game streaming services, some can be restricted per country like china closing foreign companies and then start offering services outside china, sony already have a service and is one of the big ones and have an exclusive catalog and is a producer of content, exclusive content, nintendo can also enter the game with exclusive content, RE7 is playable on SW with streaming so is not exactly a foreign concept for them, what if steam announces a service where you can stream your current steam library to any device? in fact nvidia has a service that do just that, announced recently, what if epic enter too? they already bought "cloudgine" the tech MS hyped a lot at the begining of this gen, the video game industry is not going to simply give up one day, if the demand for a streaming service grows anyone can enter, this is not a three horse race
 
Last edited:

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
744
707
335
It's pretty obvious that streaming IS the future, whether someone likes it or not, the publishing companies, who are indeed the ones who shape how the market looks like, will do everything to force streaming services, just as they did with digital distribution (which is now the main, dominating distribution method after all the initial hate it received). More control, more money, that's their ultimate goal, and they won't hesitate to achieve it just because there is a tiny bunch of whiny little kids o the internet.

That being said, MS (which is one of the mentioned above companies) already knows more than anyone here how the future of gaming will look like, what the overall market is already setting itself for, who is already where, and apparently Sony and Nintendo are focusing almost entirely on the now/not so distant future.

But who knows, it's possible that Sony's/Nintendo's strategy will be way more profitable in the short term, allowing them to easily catch up with the streaming technology when actually needed. Time will tell as always.
 

xiseerht

Member
Nov 25, 2015
61
24
280
This is what Phil is talking about.

Google Market Cap
997.32 billion

Amazon Market Cap
Over $2 Trillion

Microsoft Market Cap
1.37 Trillion


Sony Market Cap
89.76 billion

Nintendo Market Cap
about $41 Billion ( American dollars)



You may not like it , but the numbers don't lie. Google and Amazon are a serious threat if they get their act together .
 
Last edited:

iNvid02

Member
Aug 16, 2009
18,334
98
1,075
so what was there focus the past 3 generations? and how did that work out for them? serious question
the irony is you and your spawn will be accessing games more and more through cloud with the tech companies as the gatekeepers while Sony is relegated to a content provider
 
Feb 15, 2013
7,192
1,106
675
London
This is what Phil is talking about.

Google Market Cap
997.32 billion

Amazon Market Cap
Over $2 Trillion

Microsoft Market Cap
1.37 Trillion


Sony Market Cap
89.76 billion

Nintendo Market Cap
about $41 Billion ( American dollars)



You may not like it , but the numbers don't lie. Google and Amazon are a serious threat if they get their act together .
Nice this is 'How business works' scrawled in crayon on a bit of paper if you're 13 years old.
 

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
Where did I say that consoles will become useless? Who's using strawman arguments now? In my very post I said that they'd work parallel with consoles, for quite some time actually. At least until we've made bigger strides in data and internet speeds, affordability and access throughout first-world countries or leading markets.
eventually render physical consoles a thing of the past
Huh. Did you not say this? LOL

You people really don't get it, huh? Okay, let me put this in another way; what is going to stop gaming from going to a mostly streaming model in a decade or so, give or take a few years? You guys really, seriously think that gaming isn't going to move to a more streaming-centric model, eventually? You think data caps/speeds/access and ping/latency is going to remain where it is today? Are you familiar with 56k modems and dial-up? You really think things are going to remain stagnant, and not change? Why? What governs your thinking.
Same thing people said a decade ago, rinse and repeat. None of the things you are saying now have anything to do with it....

1. its not as good as natively playing i.e. performance
2. as a generalization its going to cost more than natively playing

I guess if I thought the world was full of dumb people, sure it will take off..... but it seems like you just don't get it.

It is happening everywhere, in every sector of technology; from lighting, to automobiles, to medical science, to surgery, to music, to video content, to communication. But, gaming is an exception because you said so? Because a few loyalists or die-hard gamers refuse to accept what is an inevitable actualisation? It is going to happen, whether you agree with it or not...whether you like it or not.
Welcome to 1997 or so, we been streaming our own music since then.... video for basically a decade and half.

Not sure what your point is.... we game stream today, its just nobody really wants to pay for it.... for obvious reason... worse performance which will eventually have to cost more.

Just because you say so.... isn't a reason... I'm telling why its not selling today... you are not providing a reason or discussion.... just thru magic everyone gets stupid and subscribes to a service they don't want?

Y'all need to wake up. And in no way did I state MY actual feelings on the matter. Just because I have a bit of common sense and can see where things are going, doesn't mean I'm automatically a fan of it. I love the idea of OWNING what I purchase. But I'm not the company pushing products and creating rules, and changing the dynamics, and changing the climate. I'm the consumer, and capitalism/consumerism has always been a democracy; the majority rules. The majority will always be the lowest hanging fruit, the common denominator...aka, the masses. That's who they cater to. In gaming terms, it'll be the casuals, largely. Of course there'll still be consoles, for quite some time. Just as there are record players today; some people just love the novelty of certain things...and the tangible, physical interaction. Whether it be to preserve the idea of their humanity or for nostalgic reasons. I can even see competitive gaming still holding on to the physical model of a console for quite some time, maybe even long after streaming becomes mainstream.
I'm not sure what this rant is. A console is simply a computer that processes.

That said, let's say it doesn't happen tomorrow, or in 5 years, or even 10. If you seriously think 25+ years from now streaming games won't be a big thing (and probably the most popular way to play), you have to be sniffing something. If you don't experience that paradigm shift, your kids or your grandkids will. People have such short-sighted, myopic views of things, it's ridiculous. You think Henry Ford could foresee a future of self-driving cars? I'm pretty sure he didn't. But guess what? Ford has lived years beyond Henry Ford. The same will go for Microsoft and you and me, most likely. These companies will most likely outlive us, including the people we know today as their leaders (Phil and even Nadella, Gates, Balmer, etc.). And when we're dead and gone, things will develop in ways we probably can't even fathom yet.
I'm not sure what planet you are on but game streaming exist today, it existed 15 years ago.... I'm not sure why you keep acting like it doesn't. The problem is.... nobody subscribes..... but you don't like that answer.... so you are producing walls of text without saying anything of useful value.

So yeah, while you laugh at Phil...Phil is positioning his chess pieces to at least be able to react to an ever-changing environment that is probably inevitable. if not, lead it.

How this reality isn't blatantly obvious to everyone is beyond me.
Well, for someone that doesn't know there are countless companies that have been doing it for 10+ years why wouldn't know the obvious.

I literally don't know what reality you live in.... all of this is/was possible way before MS did it, matter of fact they are 10 years behind.... even if you did believe in it.

Its like you are stuck in 2006 and can't get out.
 

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
Uh no you don't, that is all MS's job. That's the point, all they want you to do is subscribe and play games.
Of course, and you will be charged more than it cost you to game natively. LOL

What people demand are games. What publishers demand are customers. What MS is doing is engineering a path to the games on any device.
This sounds like a marketing pitch that makes zero sense. If all people demand is games, Microsoft would have actually sold games on Games for Windows Live and MS Store, clearly they weren't. To be honest, I really have no idea what you point is.... all this exists from other companies already. Microsoft is actually just copying the loser businesses that came before it.

No demand.

Magic? :messenger_tears_of_joy: Where you game in the cloud and somehow the requirements increase but the costs go down?
 
Last edited:

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
This is what Phil is talking about.

Google Market Cap
997.32 billion

Amazon Market Cap
Over $2 Trillion

Microsoft Market Cap
1.37 Trillion


Sony Market Cap
89.76 billion

Nintendo Market Cap
about $41 Billion ( American dollars)



You may not like it , but the numbers don't lie. Google and Amazon are a serious threat if they get their act together .
What does a market cap have to do with anything? They lost the whole consumer market to companies that were basically nothing in size or nearly bankrupt like Apple.

Spotify was so small that it basically didn't exist and Microsoft had a competitor product Zune Music, then Xbox Music and then Groove Music.... MS lost to a much smaller company.

Music Players - Apple (they were basically near bankruptcy)
Phones - Apple and Google at that time barely out of the woods for Apple and very small Google.
Fitbit Watches/IWatch - much smaller companies
Music Streaming - Spotify
Consoles - Sony/Nintendo much smaller companies
Digital Distribution - Valve, its a freaking private company LOL

The threat is themselves as they are blowing up their gaming segment right here and now.
 
Last edited:

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
It's pretty obvious that streaming IS the future, whether someone likes it or not, the publishing companies, who are indeed the ones who shape how the market looks like, will do everything to force streaming services, just as they did with digital distribution (which is now the main, dominating distribution method after all the initial hate it received). More control, more money, that's their ultimate goal, and they won't hesitate to achieve it just because there is a tiny bunch of whiny little kids o the internet.

That being said, MS (which is one of the mentioned above companies) already knows more than anyone here how the future of gaming will look like, what the overall market is already setting itself for, who is already where, and apparently Sony and Nintendo are focusing almost entirely on the now/not so distant future.

But who knows, it's possible that Sony's/Nintendo's strategy will be way more profitable in the short term, allowing them to easily catch up with the streaming technology when actually needed. Time will tell as always.
Sure, just rinse and repeat.

This gem is from 2009.... back to the future. :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:

Good-bye, consoles! Steve Perlman says his OnLive can stream video games over the Internet. Whether it succeeds or not, this will be the future of gaming.

Its so futuristic that they filed bankruptcy because the world just wasn't ready. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

 
Last edited:

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
the irony is you and your spawn will be accessing games more and more through cloud with the tech companies as the gatekeepers while Sony is relegated to a content provider
The irony is... that is how it works today through PSN (digital distribution) and PS Now (streaming/rental), its a closed eco-system. Where do you guys come from?

(I've said for some time that there has to be marketing/astro-turfing campaign going on as so many people seem to have their facts fucked up behind belief... .they still act like these companies invented game streaming. :messenger_tears_of_joy:)
 
Last edited:

mejin

Member
Oct 18, 2012
4,431
2,478
670
Brazil
Visionary Spencer in 2012 thought Apple was the biggest "enemy" and xbox was supposed to be "an entertainment platform for everyone on the planet" .

8 years later, Spencer evolved. Google and Amazon are the biggest "enemy" and xbox is supposed to be the same thing they do every gen, try to take over the world! I hope he continues to deliver in his predictions.



Q: What is your general reaction to your competitors this year? Nintendo was showing off the Wii U while Sony was showing Last of Us, Beyond, etc. What was your overall thinking on those two camps?

Phil Spencer: I think, to not not answer your question, it is worth noting that there is another competitor that is not here that has a developer's conference next week (after E3).

Q: Apple?

Phil Spencer: Right, so if we think about where our ambition is, our ambition is to create an entertainment platform for everyone on the planet.
 

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
Visionary Spencer in 2012 thought Apple was the biggest "enemy" and xbox was supposed to be "an entertainment platform for everyone on the planet" .

8 years later, Spencer evolved. Google and Amazon are the biggest "enemy" and xbox is supposed to be the same thing they do every gen, try to take over the world! I hope he continues to deliver in his predictions.



Q: What is your general reaction to your competitors this year? Nintendo was showing off the Wii U while Sony was showing Last of Us, Beyond, etc. What was your overall thinking on those two camps?

Phil Spencer: I think, to not not answer your question, it is worth noting that there is another competitor that is not here that has a developer's conference next week (after E3).

Q: Apple?

Phil Spencer: Right, so if we think about where our ambition is, our ambition is to create an entertainment platform for everyone on the planet.
Yeah, this forum is so strange.

-You tell these Xbox people that Microsoft doesn't really care about the hardware they care about "services".
- Xbox person comes in with pitchfork to tell you how wrong you are, and gets all mad :mad: telling you that you don't have a clue.
- Than Microsoft continues to say its about "services", and you tell them all these services already exists and nobody subscribes to them.
- Another Xbox person comes in with a pitchfork, trying to convince you its new and its the future even though the tech has existed for 10-15 years and there are already countless providers and most of us already can stream for many years on our own devices. :messenger_tears_of_joy:


 
Last edited:

Vawn

Member
Feb 20, 2018
5,076
9,526
535
8 years later, Spencer evolved. Google and Amazon are the biggest "enemy" and xbox is supposed to be the same thing they do every gen, try to take over the world!
Well, put. They have been trying everything they can to not win a console race, but use Xbox to appeal to the billions of people not interested in console gaming and become as big as the Internet itself.

Whether it's TV, TV, (games, cough), TV! Or Cloud, Cloud, Cloud, (cough games), Cloud! And it keeps failing.

Xbox is Pinky and the Brain.

 

Bandi

...pretends to be stifled by SonyGAF. Cries a lot.
Dec 19, 2016
113
182
370
Sure, just rinse and repeat.

This gem is from 2009.... back to the future. :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:




Its so futuristic that they filed bankruptcy because the world just wasn't ready. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Google Market Cap
997.32 billion

Amazon Market Cap
Over $2 Trillion

Microsoft Market Cap
1.37 Trillion


Sony Market Cap
89.76 billion

Nintendo Market Cap
about $41 Billion ( American dollars)

how much was onlives market cap? about Tree Fiddy?
 
Jan 29, 2019
1,869
1,292
365
Well, looks like someone will lose some serioius shit if the cloud gimmick fails. Thing that can perfectly happen.
Cloud and other service models are already very big cash cows, this is why MS is putting the effort there more than anywhere else - everything is a means to get people on your cloud platform (I.E. xbox, surface, windows, office, and whatever else MS is doing now, this is all a means to get people on Azure and pay recurring bills).
 

wolffy71

Member
Feb 19, 2014
128
91
390
What does a market cap have to do with anything? They lost the whole consumer market to companies that were basically nothing in size or nearly bankrupt like Apple.

Spotify was so small that it basically didn't exist and Microsoft had a competitor product Zune Music, then Xbox Music and then Groove Music.... MS lost to a much smaller company.

Music Players - Apple (they were basically near bankruptcy)
Phones - Apple and Google at that time barely out of the woods for Apple and very small Google.
Fitbit Watches/IWatch - much smaller companies
Music Streaming - Spotify
Consoles - Sony/Nintendo much smaller companies
Digital Distribution - Valve, its a freaking private company LOL

The threat is themselves as they are blowing up their gaming segment right here and now.
This is just an argument against what company will be the first to win the game streaming concept. But its not an argument that its coming. Its the future and theres no way around it.
 

Doom85

Member
Mar 3, 2018
1,164
944
350
Get gaming to 7 BILLION? Spencer, I like you and all, but are you fucking high?

-plenty of poor people exist
-not all countries will have easy access to buying your console
-some people are too busy (college, work/large family) to play games
-some people just don't give a shit about gaming
-some people are babies/toddlers, or elderly people who have no knowledge of current systems. "Is that the Nintendo?" - random old person
-some people are blind
-some people are in jail or institutionalized
-some people are extremely religious who think gaming will send you to The Bad Place AKA hell
-and you know, a lot of people just prefer the systems of Sony and/or Nintendo

Please, everyone, feel free to chime in with more categories of people in the world population who wouldn't buy the system yet Phil thinks will totally buy one or care about it if someone else in the household has one.

And yes, Nintendo and Sony are "out of position". It's not like their sales records scream the complete opposite or anything! Was the head of Microsoft talking smack about the PS2 back in the original Xbox age, and was like, "sure, Sony is selling at a rate never seen before, but I think SEGA is our biggest competitor for......reasons."
 

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
This is just an argument against what company will be the first to win the game streaming concept. But its not an argument that its coming. Its the future and theres no way around it.
No its not coming, its been here for 10+ years, if you can't get that right... you don't have an argument, you have a denial problem. I'm going to put you on ignore the next time you go down this road... you're not making any sense on stuff that is known facts.

You are setting up a strawman by acting like this is new and services already don't exist, so having a discussion with you seems more like an impossibility at this point.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Gold Member
May 24, 2005
42,775
5,710
1,665
This level of thinking is still stupid for MS. That only means Google and Amazon are your competitors in that narrow field of game streaming and having an online store and backend. Saying Sony and Nintendo are "NOT" your competitors is very DUMB!

In reality, this only shows what MS is really thinking. And just like Daniel Ahmad said, they aren't comparing first-party games or consoles anymore. And it's maybe because MS doesn't care about that as much anymore.

It's pretty obvious that streaming IS the future, whether someone likes it or not, the publishing companies, who are indeed the ones who shape how the market looks like, will do everything to force streaming services, just as they did with digital distribution (which is now the main, dominating distribution method after all the initial hate it received). More control, more money, that's their ultimate goal, and they won't hesitate to achieve it just because there is a tiny bunch of whiny little kids o the internet.

That being said, MS (which is one of the mentioned above companies) already knows more than anyone here how the future of gaming will look like, what the overall market is already setting itself for, who is already where, and apparently Sony and Nintendo are focusing almost entirely on the now/not so distant future.

But who knows, it's possible that Sony's/Nintendo's strategy will be way more profitable in the short term, allowing them to easily catch up with the streaming technology when actually needed. Time will tell as always.
What is wrong with people like you? No disrespect, but do you even play video games? I know you are on this forum, but when's the last time you played a single-player game and actually beat it? What game was it, because you don't sound like a gamer. You sound like an executive that's trying to find more revenue. You sound like a lost\out of their mind EA executive that said: "gamers don't want single-player games anymore". EA was clueless when they said that, and so are you with the bolded above.
 
Last edited:

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
A Venn diagram of Xbox brand fans and political zealots would be fascinating.

Both seem to retreat to baselessly cheering "it is the future, get used to it!"

When will we be instructed that streaming is The Right Side of History? :pie_thinking:
It would seem we have two categories, now:

1. The ones that didn't get the memo that Microsoft gave up on the console warz... just like many of us have been saying
2. The ones that think cloud gaming is a new technology and countless services exists.... and its the future bullshit

What is interesting is, these two categories of people don't attack each other. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,990
40,808
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
It would seem we have two categories, now:

1. The ones that didn't get the memo that Microsoft gave up on the console warz... just like many of us have been saying
2. The ones that think cloud gaming is a new technology and countless services exists.... and its the future bullshit

What is interesting is, these two categories of people don't attack each other. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Correct, an Xbox fan circa 2009 would be calling a modern Xbox fan a "Sony Pony" for some of these claims.
 

mckmas8808

Gold Member
May 24, 2005
42,775
5,710
1,665
A Venn diagram of Xbox brand fans and political zealots would be fascinating.

Both seem to retreat to baselessly cheering "it is the future, get used to it!"
It's as if they know they only like the Xbox brand and need to carry their corporation's water for them. If a person is a PC\Switch gamer or a Playstation only gamer, why would they need to believe "streaming is the future so get used to it"?

- We all know gaming on a PC will not be going streaming only.
- We all know Nintendo will never go the streaming-only route.
- And to anybody that has paid attention to Sony's financials, you'd realize that Sony sells to too many countries on Earth to go the streaming-only route. You don't average 120 million consoles sold per generation (assuming the PS4 sells 135 million units at its end of life) with an attach rate of 10-11 games per console AND then decide, "you know what we hate profit and fun let's just ruin the 25-year Playstation brand and go STREAMING ONLY"!
 
Last edited:

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
It's as if they know they only like the Xbox brand and need to carry their corporation's water for them. If a person is a PC\Switch gamer or a Playstation only gamer, why would they need to believe "streaming is the future so get used to it"?

- We all know gaming on a PC will not be going streaming only.
- We all know Nintendo will never go the streaming-only route.
- And to anybody that has paid attention to Sony's financials, you'd realize that Sony sells to too many countries on Earth to go the streaming-only route. You don't average 120 million consoles sold per generation (assuming the PS4 sells 135 million units at its end of life) with an attach rate of 10-11 games per console AND then decide, "you know what we hate profit and fun let's just ruin the 25-year Playstation brand and go STREAMING ONLY"!
The one thing Microsoft might be banking on is.... no longer selling Windows to OEMs (native)... thereby the only Windows that would exist are VDs. The PC world as a whole would have to find a new OS or solutions like containers, etc. to run win32 or convert win32 to some other format for execution. There are lots of rumors of only being able to run win32 via emulation via the cloud.

(maybe a discussion for another time)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: demigod

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
744
707
335
Get gaming to 7 BILLION? Spencer, I like you and all, but are you fucking high?

-plenty of poor people exist
-not all countries will have easy access to buying your console
-some people are too busy (college, work/large family) to play games
-some people just don't give a shit about gaming
-some people are babies/toddlers, or elderly people who have no knowledge of current systems. "Is that the Nintendo?" - random old person
-some people are blind
-some people are in jail or institutionalized
-some people are extremely religious who think gaming will send you to The Bad Place AKA hell
-and you know, a lot of people just prefer the systems of Sony and/or Nintendo

Please, everyone, feel free to chime in with more categories of people in the world population who wouldn't buy the system yet Phil thinks will totally buy one or care about it if someone else in the household has one.

And yes, Nintendo and Sony are "out of position". It's not like their sales records scream the complete opposite or anything! Was the head of Microsoft talking smack about the PS2 back in the original Xbox age, and was like, "sure, Sony is selling at a rate never seen before, but I think SEGA is our biggest competitor for......reasons."
While those 7BLN are indeed just a wet dream, the actual number of people playing video games, be it on PC, laptops, tablets, smartphones, current as well as old gen consoles, and what's not, is clearly way, WAY higher than the ~150MLN current-gen consoles cover. As all you lagitimate arguments say, it's all about the accesibility, both in terms of platform and price, so allowing all those people to play video games on their already owned TVs, smartphones, laptops etc. for a small fee can turn into a really huge revenue figures, which is what all the companies are going after. The smartphones market alone already clearly demonstrates that if the user base goes into billions, even a mere 1$ every now and then can turn into unimaginable profit.
 

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
While those 7BLN are indeed just a wet dream, the actual number of people playing video games, be it on PC, laptops, tablets, smartphones, current as well as old gen consoles, and what's not, is clearly way, WAY higher than the ~150MLN current-gen consoles cover.
Oh that is true, but they already have access to everyone that is running Win10 via the MS Store (say 1 billion people), yet, they probably only sell a few copies of video games on the Store. Just because you want to reach 7b people doesn't mean those 7b people are going to buy your product.

These are kind of sales pitch they laugh at on Shark Tank, "we only need to get 5% of the world's population!".

As all you lagitimate arguments say, it's all about the accesibility, both in terms of platform and price, so allowing all those people to play video games on their already owned TVs, smartphones, laptops etc. for a small fee can turn into a really huge revenue figures, which is what all the companies are going after. The smartphones market alone already clearly demonstrates that if the user base goes into billions, even a mere 1$ every now and then can turn into unimaginable profit.
1, Well, maybe, the problem is all these services already exist and nobody is really subscribing..... so....
2. "a small fee", no it has to be a large fee over time as that is how the hardware, infrastructure and additional costs are paid for.... it will have to cost more than natively playing, generally speaking

even a mere 1$ every now and then can turn into unimaginable profit.
This again sounds like a silly amway pitch. If everyone in the world just gives me $1 each, I'm super rich! Duh, the problem is everyone isn't going to hand over a dollar..... everything sounds fucking easy... but there is no demand for 7 billion people to hand me a fucking dollar.

(I blame the school system at this point, all of this can't be serious :messenger_tears_of_joy:) Life is simple, you just have 7 billion people hand you money, instant success.

"I like money.... I would like to put more in that jar....that's where you come in...."

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: demigod

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
17,279
4,362
1,410
While those 7BLN are indeed just a wet dream, the actual number of people playing video games, be it on PC, laptops, tablets, smartphones, current as well as old gen consoles, and what's not, is clearly way, WAY higher than the ~150MLN current-gen consoles cover.
They already have access to all of these people and they are not capitalising on it in the slightest.

I don't see how streaming will suddenly change that. If anything, streaming creates more friction than the current solutions for people who wish to play games on those devices.
 
Last edited:

iNvid02

Member
Aug 16, 2009
18,334
98
1,075
The irony is... that is how it works today through PSN (digital distribution) and PS Now (streaming/rental), its a closed eco-system. Where do you guys come from?

(I've said for some time that there has to be marketing/astro-turfing campaign going on as so many people seem to have their facts fucked up behind belief... .they still act like these companies invented game streaming. :messenger_tears_of_joy:)
Lol, ive been here for over a decade. Nice post history champ. Didnt realise in the mass exodus to era all of the drooling fanboys decided to flood this place
 

mckmas8808

Gold Member
May 24, 2005
42,775
5,710
1,665
They already have access to all of these people and they are not capitalising on it in the slightest.

I don't see how streaming will suddenly change that. If anything, streaming creates more friction than the current solutions for people who wish to play games on those devices.
It does. davidjaffe davidjaffe said it best, adding any extra layer to creating video games, makes it that much harder to make a good game. So if you want the game to have multiplayer, well now you've just introduced a new point of failure that has to be tested daily.

Streaming is a new point of failure. For some people, it'll make playing video games easier and more accessible. But for the average person, it's just another layer of friction like you said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: demigod
Oct 16, 2017
627
904
335
The one thing Microsoft might be banking on is.... no longer selling Windows to OEMs (native)... thereby the only Windows that would exist are VDs. The PC world as a whole would have to find a new OS or solutions like containers, etc. to run win32 or convert win32 to some other format for execution. There are lots of rumors of only being able to run win32 via emulation via the cloud.

(maybe a discussion for another time)
What did you think Steam OS and Steam Machines are?

Valve didn't create Steam OS to rival MS. Valve created them as emergency lifeboats. If MS gets fiesty and decided to ban Steam from Windows, Valve would have Steam OS as an outlet to continue selling games.

Remember, Gaben was the man who first reprogramed Doom to run on Windows. He knew what Microsoft is like, he worked for them. If Ms decided to play hardball, so will Valve. The lifeboats are still there, ready to be used.
 

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
What did you think Steam OS and Steam Machines are?

Valve didn't create Steam OS to rival MS. Valve created them as emergency lifeboats. If MS gets fiesty and decided to ban Steam from Windows, Valve would have Steam OS as an outlet to continue selling games.

Remember, Gaben was the man who first reprogramed Doom to run on Windows. He knew what Microsoft is like, he worked for them. If Ms decided to play hardball, so will Valve. The lifeboats are still there, ready to be used.
Linux, Mac, etc can be alternatives but we're talking millions of programs in the world... not just gaming. Yes, there are alternatives, but those alternatives will take years to decades to get up to speed, imo, and require 10s of billions of investment dollars, if not trillions. Generally, agree with your post though.

I would not be surprised if VDs is not the end game for Microsoft, they finally rolled their VDs out.

 
Last edited:

SNG32

Member
Jul 19, 2018
91
94
230
Honestly it seems like to me it's only a matter of time before Microsoft goes third party and provides it as a service to Sony and Switch and other muliple platforms. I mean they can still provide exclusive content on the service but I wouldn't be surprised if Series X is the last console they produce.
 

wolffy71

Member
Feb 19, 2014
128
91
390
No its not coming, its been here for 10+ years, if you can't get that right... you don't have an argument, you have a denial problem. I'm going to put you on ignore the next time you go down this road... you're not making any sense on stuff that is known facts.

You are setting up a strawman by acting like this is new and services already don't exist, so having a discussion with you seems more like an impossibility at this point.
Am I supposed to care if some rando on neogaf puts me on ignore? lol please

And its coming just like all those examples of new tech in that list you posted. Its not that its a new idea. its just currently the things needed for it to work are converging. The tech to reduce latency is much better, the hardware in peoples hands is more powerful, internet speeds are improving, and people are more comfortable with the concept of going digital.
 

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
744
707
335
Oh that is true, but they already have access to everyone that is running Win10 via the MS Store (say 1 billion people), yet, they probably only sell a few copies of video games on the Store. Just because you want to reach 7b people doesn't mean those 7b people are going to buy your product.
They already have access to all of these people and they are not capitalising on it in the slightest.

I don't see how streaming will suddenly change that. If anything, streaming creates more friction than the current solutions for people who wish to play games on those devices.
That's exactly the case - all those Win10 machines out there need to be quite beefy to run games on their own, and they simply aren't, there's a reason most played games on PC are Sims, LoL, WoW, CS and so on, whereas streaming technology completely eliminates the insufficient computing power issue , and would actually allow all those people with even sub-1TFlop iGPUs to play any game they want. And on top of that, services like MS Game Pass, EA Access, etc. eliminate the price barrier for the vast majority of those kind of people, who don't want to spend a fortune on either the hardware or the software, they won't drop 60$ on a video game, but 5 or 10$? Now that's more likely. It isn't much, sure but multiplied by millions of people? That's a revenue otherwise unreachable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gavon West

Gavon West

Member
Jan 12, 2018
1,294
1,120
375
Honestly it seems like to me it's only a matter of time before Microsoft goes third party and provides it as a service to Sony and Switch and other muliple platforms. I mean they can still provide exclusive content on the service but I wouldn't be surprised if Series X is the last console they produce.
Sounds more like that's what you're hoping will happen when in truth, that's not how this works.

With Google and Amazon coming aboard, Microsoft would probably keep themselves precisely how they are now as Cloud gaming puts their service on a wide array of devices without having to be third party. It gives them the edge against two other behemoths while retaining the brand as well. You don't invest billions of dollars to beef up your gaming division to simply go third party.

Don't do this yoski! Lol
 

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
That's exactly the case - all those Win10 machines out there need to be quite beefy to run games on their own, and they simply aren't, there's a reason most played games on PC are Sims, LoL, WoW, CS and so on, whereas streaming technology completely eliminates the insufficient computing power issue , and would actually allow all those people with even sub-1TFlop iGPUs to play any game they want. And on top of that, services like MS Game Pass, EA Access, etc. eliminate the price barrier for the vast majority of those kind of people, who don't want to spend a fortune on either the hardware or the software, they won't drop 60$ on a video game, but 5 or 10$? Now that's more likely. It isn't much, sure but multiplied by millions of people? That's a revenue otherwise unreachable.
Everything has to be paid for, nothing is eliminated in this model, but additional expenses and requirements are added. So... for a normal gamers... cloud gaming will have to be more expensive and have worse performance, generally speaking. There is no way around this.

EA Access only has 3m users after 6 years of being available @$30-50 per annual bill, this doesn't even keep the lights on.... very small revenue stream sure, eliminate or compete with sales.... not even close. Cloud streaming adds even more unnecessarily expense... although a casual user could use it.... but the real money generators are the normal gamers.... casuals play $1 games on their phone.... no money there.

That's a revenue otherwise unreachable.
Small revenue stream just like rentals have always been..... sure.

What Phil is talking about is already being done today... its just nobody throws the baby (real $) out with the bath water (loser business). A person can subscribe to PS Now... download and rent games and stream even.... its just most PS users don't really care as its just a rental service, its a nothing burger. Phil has to sell this bullshit because without it.... the axe man cometh.🔪

So, Phil is trying to sell what he doesn't actually have operational, which already exists from other competitiors... which is not really a money making business.... and he is making this his core business.... what could go wrong? :messenger_tears_of_joy: Phil knows this... he knows he is selling bullshit, but he has a job until the bullshit smells so bad even Nadella can figure it out.... gamers already figured it out years ago, heck, none but the stupid ones even gave it a second.

Rinse and repeat the OnLive, Gaikai, PS Now, Stadia, etc. lines over and over... the future of gaming. :messenger_tears_of_joy: All it is, is a rehash of the power of da cloud bullshit... it was bullshit then and its bullshit now.... that doesn't mean there can't be small revenue streams.
 
Last edited:

SNG32

Member
Jul 19, 2018
91
94
230
Sounds more like that's what you're hoping will happen when in truth, that's not how this works.

With Google and Amazon coming aboard, Microsoft would probably keep themselves precisely how they are now as Cloud gaming puts their service on a wide array of devices without having to be third party. It gives them the edge against two other behemoths while retaining the brand as well. You don't invest billions of dollars to beef up your gaming division to simply go third party.

Don't do this yoski! Lol
You say that but Phil did say he would like to see halo on the PS4 and they've puts games on Switch already and like I said they would still have exclusive content with there service.
 

DanielsM

Banned
Feb 11, 2019
3,316
3,299
620
You say that but Phil did say he would like to see halo on the PS4 and they've puts games on Switch already and like I said they would still have exclusive content with there service.
I think that is the only future Microsoft has in gaming... as a traditional game publisher/developer. Obviously, they want to be a middleman (services) though or at least what was sold to Nadella.... the comments make it seem like they will forgo direct publishing to other devices in favor of cloud gaming... I mean its starting to seem that way. To me it almost sounds like they completely threw in the towel on software distribution on PC as well.

Let's scratch all of Microsoft's competition off the list now:

iOS (Apple)
Android
Nintendo
Sony
Valve (or any other digital software distributor on PC)


At this point, I would imagine the big publishers (EA, Ubisoft, Take Two, etc.) see Microsoft as unneeded competition, why help them out? How long before Microsoft pulls the plug on non-VD Windows?

(my guess is game revenue is going to drop like bricks from a plane, they'll be changing financial report metrics in due course)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: demigod