Support NeoGAF

[sendit]

Wishful thinking, he wants Nintendo and Sony to be service customers. I could see Sony partnering with a cloud service provider for backend support but there is no reason for the thing called Xbox to be a middleman. The things Phil is rolling out has no use to Sony i.e. Xbox services. Sony and most of the large publishers already have their external and internal systems.

What (Xbox) Phil is trying to sell is almost unsellable to the large publishers, the basic and general services in Azure, possibly. The application layers are already built, as you are saying. Sony/Nintendo/EA/Ubisoft/Take Take/etc might have uses for basic cloud services (AWS,Azure,Google), but most of the application layers and services are generally in place, especially in the case of Sony or will have to be custom built.

Nobody (large publishers) wants to give Microsoft percentages of transactions, there is no reason to.... which is why Phil selling anything is going to be a tough road. The thing called Xbox has limited to no use outside of Xbox as a Hardware to large third parties.

AWS, Azure, and Google don't just provide services. They provide data centers globally, something Sony does not have the capability to do so. Which is why Sony inked a deal with Azure. When you think in terms of streaming games, more data centers closer to the customer results in less latency.

 

[mckmas8808]

I would say there are at least two hurdles and possibly three depending on the situation:

1. The quality of the game play will never match native playing
2. More expensive, generally (additional hardware, additional electricity, additional bandwidth)
3. Could diminish ownership, independence or lack of

There literally is limited to no upside for most gamers when it comes to cloud gaming. The question is why?

There are no real benefits for cloud gaming over native gaming, although game streaming can come in handy in a pinch.

One clear positive for cloud gaming, is allowing gamers to play their "already owned games" on the go. In this case there would be no need to buy a Switch if you want to play games on the go (but don't love Nintendo made games).

 

[ethomaz]

MS looks like these spoiled rich children.

They start a fight against boy and they are beat up.
Then they choose another boy that seems weaker and they are beat up again.
At the end they choose to fight against other weakest boy and are beat up.


They just can’t compete and start to choose weaker opponents to maybe win and feel better.

 

[DanielsM]

AWS, Azure, and Google don't just provide services. They provide data centers globally, something Sony does not have the capability to do so. Which is why Sony inked a deal with Azure. When you think in terms of streaming games, more data centers closer to the customer results in less latency.

You can rent co-locations you want, more or less. You can actually be closer to the customer, of course, the more locations you have... why not just process locally at your home?

Sony doesn't have a contract with MS for Azure, the last we heard, but you wouldn't notice anyhow.

They just can’t compete and start to choose weaker opponents to maybe win and feel better.

They can't compete and move to a market that makes huge negative returns, I guess to make Satya feel better.

(fixed for correctness)

One clear positive for cloud gaming, is allowing gamers to play their "already owned games" on the go. In this case there would be no need to buy a Switch if you want to play games on the go (but don't love Nintendo made games).

Possibly, but we can already do that today through game streaming from local equipment.

 

[mckmas8808]

Possibly, but we can already do that today through game streaming from local equipment.

And this is what both MS and Sony HAVE to get right with the next-gen consoles. They both need to push this BIG! And it needs to work on all iPhones, iPads, Android phones and tablets, laptops, and desktops.

 

[wolywood]

2. There is something disjointed and distracted about streamed gaming on a subscription service, where you have access to hundreds of titles on demand. We have limited attention spans as it is, and they're getting shorter by the year. As we move in the direction of streaming games from large catalogs, I think you'll see gamers have fewer of the deep, immersive experiences in single games. That will be replaced by people who jump from game to game like they jump from TV show to TV show, quickly bored, looking for the next dopamine hit.

Ya this is a good point. I'ts one of the reasons I cancelled my PS Now subscription - not because the technology didn't work, but because I was jumping from title to title and not really playing anything, so ultimately I wasn't getting any value from the service. Ironically Stadia's limited catalogue of full priced games has actually provided me with more of the deep, immersive experiences you mentioned as I feel compelled to 100% complete each game/get my money's worth for something I paid top dollar for.

 

[Humdinger]

Ya this is a good point. I'ts one of the reasons I cancelled my PS Now subscription - not because the technology didn't work, but because I was jumping from title to title and not really playing anything, so ultimately I wasn't getting any value from the service. Ironically Stadia's limited catalogue of full priced games has actually provided me with more of the deep, immersive experiences you mentioned as I feel compelled to 100% complete each game/get my money's worth for something I paid top dollar for.

You see the same dynamic in other service industries, too. For instance, I used to work as a therapist, and I know from the research that if someone pays for their therapy, they value it more, invest more deeply in it, and get more out of it. If, on the other hand, they get their therapy for free or very low cost, they value it less, invest less in it, and get less from it.

I think that's true across the board. People like getting access to lots of stuff for a low fee -- and I tend to be a tightwad, so I get it -- but there's a downside. You tend to invest less energy and attention in those things, spend less time with them individually, and have more superficial experiences. I think it has something to do with an internal calculus in our heads, where we treat things that cost more money with more seriousness and respect, and we treat things that come cheaply less so (that's a generalization, of course). It also has to do with how easy it is to jump to the next shiny object, if the first one fails to give immediate gratification.

 

[mckmas8808]

You see the same dynamic in other service industries, too. For instance, I used to work as a therapist, and I know from the research that if someone pays for their therapy, they value it more, invest more deeply in it, and get more out of it. If, on the other hand, they get their therapy for free or very low cost, they value it less, invest less in it, and get less from it.

I think that's true across the board. People like getting access to lots of stuff for a low fee -- and I tend to be a tightwad, so I get it -- but there's a downside. You tend to invest less energy and attention in those things, spend less time with them individually, and have more superficial experiences. I think it has something to do with an internal calculus in our heads, where we treat things that cost more money with more seriousness and respect, and we treat things that come cheaply less so (that's a generalization, of course). It also has to do with how easy it is to jump to the next shiny object, if the first one fails to give immediate gratification.

This has happened with me and music. Back in the day when I had to spend $10 on one CD, I'd play it for weeks and know every song. Now with streaming, I'll stream the album a few times and then I'm on to the next one. Albums today don't sit with me like they used to and that's mainly due to technology.

 

[Humdinger]

This has happened with me and music. Back in the day when I had to spend $10 on one CD, I'd play it for weeks and know every song. Now with streaming, I'll stream the album a few times and then I'm on to the next one. Albums today don't sit with me like they used to and that's mainly due to technology.

Very true. That's another good example. I used to memorize the lyrics to songs, and I played them so often, they are burned into my brain permanently. I can still remember how they go, even if I haven't heard them for 20 years. But not so with streaming music. Now it's in one ear and out the other. Music is now a very evanescent experience that leaves little residue in memory.

I don't think gaming will ever become THAT superficial an experience, but with the move toward both mobile and streaming, I think that it's inevitable that it becomes more superficial.

That doesn't apply to everyone, of course. There will always be hardcore gamers who dig in deep on individual games. But I think the general gamer 20 years from now will be having a more superficial, transient experience with gaming.