-
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 would like to see Game Pass on all platforms.
- Thread starter IbizaPocholo
- Start date
Depends on what the price is and strategy is, and internal capacity is - moving to cloud services does not guarantee savings, it can actually cost significantly more depending on the situation . They are not currently using Azure for PSN or PS Now in any meaningful manner that we as the public can tell.... one day that might change. Of course, we're pretending like any of this matters as there is literally no real demand for game streaming.
As far as Game Pass - Microsoft will have to go where the customers are, with or without Game Pass. Personally, I think Spencer sold Nadella a bill of goods on all these "services". Time will tell, I give it until 2024 before the wheels start falling off.... I'm not sure any of this was well thought out.
Microsoft as:
- a traditional publisher
- a game developer
(at least I might at some point be interested in their games, maybe)- as a hardware provider i.e. console
- as some type of platform service
Most of this is going to fail, imo.
Last edited:
Vawn
Banned
That is odd. I could have sworn I have streamed games on PS4 FOR YEARS.
It must have been a weird fever dream.
ph33rknot
Banned
why do you need steam
Zog
Banned
So when I use PS Now, am I really connecting to Nintendo's servers?
If you are referring to third party developers and publishers, that is where the customers are. My particular comments were actually as to Playstation consoles, they already have digital distribution, game rental and game streaming - why would devs/pubs go thru a third party (Microsoft) to gain access to PS consoles when they can go directly to Sony and PS consoles themselves? That just doesn't make too much sense to me and sounds terrible inefficient.
Sony is allowing EA Access, I assume for a fee or percentage, but that is also only for EA titles. Is Microsoft going to allow me free access to Xbox consoles and I can release my own store? (I think not... unless they just make them Win10 machines)
So, to answer your question... I don't need steam on my PS console. Spencer sold Nadella a bill of goods, imo.
I see nothing wrong with Microsoft wanting to develop and publish games.... I'm rather suspect on all this platform as a service talk though, I just don't really see a business there.
Last edited:
Mass Shift
Member
D
DanielsM
That was a DIRECT quote from Nadella. The interviewer asked him and he clearly categorized the arrangement between MS and Sony as a partnership and that Azure server networks would be used by Sony.
There's really no other way to put it. Sony didn't approach Google or Amazon either. They aren't exploring any possibilities with any other Cloud service provider.
If you still find that not believable or perhaps unacceptable, I would say that the wait for further clarity won't be much longer. Sony will have to start transitioning the back-end of their game development to Azure networks for testing well in advance of the PS5's launch. If they haven't started already.
That was a DIRECT quote from Nadella. The interviewer asked him and he clearly categorized the arrangement between MS and Sony as a partnership and that Azure server networks would be used by Sony.
There's really no other way to put it. Sony didn't approach Google or Amazon either. They aren't exploring any possibilities with any other Cloud service provider.
If you still find that not believable or perhaps unacceptable, I would say that the wait for further clarity won't be much longer. Sony will have to start transitioning the back-end of their game development to Azure networks for testing well in advance of the PS5's launch. If they haven't started already.
EverydayBeast
thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
There's still life in the Xbox console brand to completely abandon the console game but its going to be fun to see SONY dominate yet another generation.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Microsoft will always sell hardware in the future, it will just be cloud based, similar to Amazon fire stick, Stadia etc.
£75 for a plug and play box that allows you to access all of your gamepass games.
It would like sell like hotcakes.
£75 for a plug and play box that allows you to access all of your gamepass games.
It would like sell like hotcakes.
I'll never have gamepass even if it's on my ps4.
I use amazon prime, netflix with the disc option, and playstation plus. I won't subscribe to anything else. Especially not microsoft since they barely have any games I want to play really. I can't even keep up with the ones I do want to play. Xb1s is the last microsoft anything gaming I'll probably have. I just don't have time for more games, especially not Microsoft's games since they haven't released anything in 2019 that has gotten me to even turn on my xbox this year.
I use amazon prime, netflix with the disc option, and playstation plus. I won't subscribe to anything else. Especially not microsoft since they barely have any games I want to play really. I can't even keep up with the ones I do want to play. Xb1s is the last microsoft anything gaming I'll probably have. I just don't have time for more games, especially not Microsoft's games since they haven't released anything in 2019 that has gotten me to even turn on my xbox this year.
DeltaPolarBear
Member
And you assume game streaming would cost very little... Because you don't realize borrowing processing power costs money.
This isn't like Youtube or Netflix. Those are just streaming files. Or doing it backwards, which makes the likes of Google Drive or Cloud Save.
Game Streaming is about processing, about renting CPUs and GPUs by the hour. And renting hardware like that already exists; but they are all also expensive.
The day you realize what the difference means to the costs, is the day you realize what you are saying doesn't make sense.
Streaming games and remote processing is NOT cheap.
VAL0R
Banned
D
DanielsM
Wow, you are really, really downplaying Sony's pursuit of a partnership with Microsoft. You mock
Mass Shift
, yet the very slide reel and Q&A you post to rebut him destroys your position. Aren't you one of those "MS bad Sony gud" trolls on this forum? So perhaps this blossoming corporate romance upsets you? Sony is thirsty for Azure. Please understand.
Here are some quotes from your link [my comments in brackets]:
(Slide 23) Ryan says:
"our vision is to augment our next gen console with a streaming proposition that allows our community to seamlessly enjoy rich PlayStation experiences with or without a console"
Slide 24 summarizes the exploration of a "strategic partnership" with Microsoft. The Title of the slide is "Using Partnership to Achieve Scale"
Ryan says: "We believe the streaming era is upon us and is about to begin a period of rapid growth", "leveraging partnerships to grow our business", "using major partnerships as we continue to grow our very large PSN business."
Translation: Microsoft are going to help us scale up PSN. How? Azure, obviously. Read on.
(Slide 34) Sony is asked, "Why choose competitor Microsoft?"
Ryan responds:
"Broad MOU between Sony Corp. and Microsoft which touches on a number of areas of which game streaming is only one. That said we have comprehensively reviewed landscape of potential partnerships and we view the possibility of working with MS as one that provides great fit between two partners."
Translation: This is a broad agreement that goes beyond streaming, but that is a piece of it. We have exhaustively studied other major companies' streaming tech (Amazon, Google, etc.) and MS' Azure is the best fit for Sony going forward. Note: He calls the two parties "partners."
A Japanese female Sony rep (Kuderosan? I know I'm butchering that) elaborates (quoting her exactly, awkward English and all):
As for the partnership [with Microsoft], if I may supplement, PSN is a very good example. The growth of PSN has been based on the utilization of our own strengths and while refining this using the partnership [with Microsoft] we ensure the scalability and have a very efficient the cost and the maintaining high quality [….]the cloud, the streaming, will further expand in future. So in doing so, the Azure team of Microsoft there'll be a have a discussion with them and what kind of possibilities we can further we can explore [….]from that perspective in a quite open way by utilizing our strengths we utilize the asset of Microsoft and in open minded we continue to utilize their asset [Azure].
Translation: PSN is a good example of how we will leverage our partnership with MS. With Azure we can ensure scalability, cost efficiency and high quality as our streaming business expands in the future. We will continue discussions with the Azure team at Microsoft regarding strategy and business possibilities. We will continue to utilize their Azure asset with an open mind.
(Slide 36)
"we start to plan for a much bigger long-term commitment to the streaming space"
Note: This is why Azure is an essential part of their strategy going forward. Streaming is about to explode. If I remember correctly, in one her responses Kuderosan(?) likens Sony's use of Azure to a vehicle that can suddenly use an axle for course correction. In other words, as streaming needs skyrocket, Azure ("the partnership") can be utilized to ramp up extremely fast, meeting those needs.
(Slide 37) A question is asked about the scale of streaming and the MS partnership.
Ryan responds:
"as of now there is no partnership between Sony and MS, there is simply an MOU which commits the two parties to explore talks in certain areas, one of which is obviously game streaming. And those exploratory talks, at some point if agreement is reached on high level principles, we'll then start to look at business model. And you know, PlayStation NOW, we've had a rather more capitally intensive approach. Clearly if we start to work with a partner [Microsoft] the opportunity to move to something that is less capitally intensive and has greater variable cost component is definitely opportunity."
Translation: Though we keep mentioning a "partnership" with MS, let's clarify and state there is technically only a legally non-binding MOU at this point in time. This commits us to explore talks in certain areas, one of which is obviously game streaming, utilizing MS Azure tech. If we can come to a business agreement we will then look into business model. Consider Playstation Now. We have an approach with running PS NOW that is very expensive on our end. Obviously if we work with a Microsoft, leaning on their streaming tech, we will have a much more variable cost component, which is an opportunity for us.
Mass Shift
, yet the very slide reel and Q&A you post to rebut him destroys your position. Aren't you one of those "MS bad Sony gud" trolls on this forum? So perhaps this blossoming corporate romance upsets you? Sony is thirsty for Azure. Please understand.Here are some quotes from your link [my comments in brackets]:
(Slide 23) Ryan says:
"our vision is to augment our next gen console with a streaming proposition that allows our community to seamlessly enjoy rich PlayStation experiences with or without a console"
Slide 24 summarizes the exploration of a "strategic partnership" with Microsoft. The Title of the slide is "Using Partnership to Achieve Scale"
Ryan says: "We believe the streaming era is upon us and is about to begin a period of rapid growth", "leveraging partnerships to grow our business", "using major partnerships as we continue to grow our very large PSN business."
Translation: Microsoft are going to help us scale up PSN. How? Azure, obviously. Read on.
(Slide 34) Sony is asked, "Why choose competitor Microsoft?"
Ryan responds:
"Broad MOU between Sony Corp. and Microsoft which touches on a number of areas of which game streaming is only one. That said we have comprehensively reviewed landscape of potential partnerships and we view the possibility of working with MS as one that provides great fit between two partners."
Translation: This is a broad agreement that goes beyond streaming, but that is a piece of it. We have exhaustively studied other major companies' streaming tech (Amazon, Google, etc.) and MS' Azure is the best fit for Sony going forward. Note: He calls the two parties "partners."
A Japanese female Sony rep (Kuderosan? I know I'm butchering that) elaborates (quoting her exactly, awkward English and all):
As for the partnership [with Microsoft], if I may supplement, PSN is a very good example. The growth of PSN has been based on the utilization of our own strengths and while refining this using the partnership [with Microsoft] we ensure the scalability and have a very efficient the cost and the maintaining high quality [….]the cloud, the streaming, will further expand in future. So in doing so, the Azure team of Microsoft there'll be a have a discussion with them and what kind of possibilities we can further we can explore [….]from that perspective in a quite open way by utilizing our strengths we utilize the asset of Microsoft and in open minded we continue to utilize their asset [Azure].
Translation: PSN is a good example of how we will leverage our partnership with MS. With Azure we can ensure scalability, cost efficiency and high quality as our streaming business expands in the future. We will continue discussions with the Azure team at Microsoft regarding strategy and business possibilities. We will continue to utilize their Azure asset with an open mind.
(Slide 36)
"we start to plan for a much bigger long-term commitment to the streaming space"
Note: This is why Azure is an essential part of their strategy going forward. Streaming is about to explode. If I remember correctly, in one her responses Kuderosan(?) likens Sony's use of Azure to a vehicle that can suddenly use an axle for course correction. In other words, as streaming needs skyrocket, Azure ("the partnership") can be utilized to ramp up extremely fast, meeting those needs.
(Slide 37) A question is asked about the scale of streaming and the MS partnership.
Ryan responds:
"as of now there is no partnership between Sony and MS, there is simply an MOU which commits the two parties to explore talks in certain areas, one of which is obviously game streaming. And those exploratory talks, at some point if agreement is reached on high level principles, we'll then start to look at business model. And you know, PlayStation NOW, we've had a rather more capitally intensive approach. Clearly if we start to work with a partner [Microsoft] the opportunity to move to something that is less capitally intensive and has greater variable cost component is definitely opportunity."
Translation: Though we keep mentioning a "partnership" with MS, let's clarify and state there is technically only a legally non-binding MOU at this point in time. This commits us to explore talks in certain areas, one of which is obviously game streaming, utilizing MS Azure tech. If we can come to a business agreement we will then look into business model. Consider Playstation Now. We have an approach with running PS NOW that is very expensive on our end. Obviously if we work with a Microsoft, leaning on their streaming tech, we will have a much more variable cost component, which is an opportunity for us.
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Thanks for the lecture but £75 is about $120 dollars. The price of Stadia.
So I dont' know what your point is? I never discussed how much it costs to run, because IMO, game streaming is DOA.
It wouldn't surprise me if MS offered a small, cheap, console like Stadia
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Well my issue is the claim that Gamepass would survive without an Xbox. A large chunk of Gamepass value lies in its third party offerings, but that assumed the Xbox console still existed.
The Third Party wanted access to the Xbox walled garden. That was why they signed up to gamepass. But the second that walled garden no longer exists, the incentive is gone. This would make Gamepass look much worse.
And the Xbox Live Gold subscription fees also goes away with no console hardware, without me needing to explain why.
And those who say "Microsoft can do both Console and 3rd party", are ignoring the massive costs of designing and building new consoles. That they would reach a critical point of lost userbase whereby it no longer makes sense to continue with the console. That trying to go both ways is losing both.
WouldYouKindly
Banned
If game pass is coming it better have everything that game pass offers or that's gonna be a hard sale. "Get game pass now on switch"(fine print only 12 titles work not the rest have to get an xbox for that!) Seems like a bad idea honestly
Vawn
Banned
I still don't like the idea of EA having a monthly fee program on PS4. Please let's not allow Microsoft, Ubisoft, SquareEnix, etc all have their own. Because you have to see where it will eventually lead.
We will be spending a lot more money for the games we want, while getting dozens of games we have zero interest in at a "great value".
We will be spending a lot more money for the games we want, while getting dozens of games we have zero interest in at a "great value".
nikolino840
Member
Ahaha no way
They lose Money if they don't sell hardware + software + services (gamepass,Gold, xcloud)
Is much Better have 2 ways to make Money instead of only One(If you cut hardware they don't earn nothing from Gold)
Last edited:
Shakka43
Member
I bet they would, why would Sony though? Having Xbox exclusive Games coming to Playstation would be a nice get, but having MS cannibalizing their third party software sales doesn't make much sense for them, and also the fact that it would be directly competing with their own PS Now.
Mattyp
Gold Member
D DanielsM Wow, you are really, really downplaying Sony's pursuit of a partnership with Microsoft. You mock
Don't waste your breath honestly, he's been sprouting this shit for eons.. This end date theoretic of Microsoft gaming & hardware keeps getting pushed back 2024 now, I await 2022 when it's 2028 instead.
Xbox hardware isn't going anywhere.
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Sony wouldn't outright refuse; Sony would just demand 30% share of the profits as industry standard, which means MS has to actually lose their own share, or lose their third party games on Gamepass.
Gamepass on PlayStation would contain only MS games, which makes it really bad value.
The issue is in the long run, the matter could be out of MS's hands. They need a certain amount of install base to sustain a console, but this diversion into Gamepass and even multiplatform would hurt that.
Short term profits, sure, but losing the XBOX install base would have compound effects. The less people own an Xbox, the less likely new gamers would want an Xbox. That's basically what happened in Japan, where Xbox might as well not exist because the player base dropped too low.
Last edited:
Psykodad
Banned
Obviously, they're safely stored on store shelves.
Next-gen is make it or break it.
MS is already shifting towards other platforms. It's happening right in front of you.
nikolino840
Member
Where? I see only second party titles on switch (cuphead,ori)
Minecraft was already on PlayStation when ms bought It
These are Xbox games studios First party devs
Canada
- Compulsion Games
- The Coalition — Gears of War series
United Kingdom
- Ninja Theory — Kung Fu Chaos, Bleeding Edge
- Playground Games — Forza Horizon series
- Rare — Battletoads series, Killer Instinct series, Banjo-Kazooie series, Conker series, Perfect Dark series, Grabbed by the Ghoulies, Kameo: Elements of Power, Viva Piñata series, Rare Replay, Sea of Thieves
- 343 Industries — Halo series
- Double Fine
- Internal Age of Empires studio
- inXile Entertainment
- Microsoft Casual Games — Solitaire, Mahjong, Minesweeper, Wordament
- Obsidian Entertainment
- The Initiative
- Turn 10 Studios — Forza Motorsport series
- Undead Labs — State of Decay series
Psykodad
Banned
MS is talking more and more about bringing their games/services to competitive platforms.
They're already preparing to change direction (and it the same time they're setting up everything to finally push their original XBO plans, only as a streaming service).
People can quote me on this, but if Sony pulls another PS4 next-gen, xbox consoles will be no more.
nikolino840
Member
And again where you see that
In the article of the OP it's cleary that ms don't have Plan for that...he Simply answered to the journalist question
we asked head of gaming services Ben Decker about what the future would hold for the service in an ideal world, to which he said:
Yes maybe in the 2030 but what about if in the next gen ms earn Money
I Imagine our sons and daughters in the next 50 years when someone Say : yes my father said that One day ms don't sell hardware anymore
Even Sony can close PlayStation in the next 50 years Who know that?
Psykodad
Banned
Guess we'll see next-gen. Won't take much longer anyway.
Zog
Banned
PS Now?
alabtrosMyster
Banned
Where I think there may be some overlap in their needs for cloud gaming infrastructure would be the AMD chips in the future generation of cloud gaming devices. However, I also think that Sony would have more volume than in its provider in that case, so it would make no sense to pay the other company to do this for you, unless they can't find the expertise by themselves..
But the deal could be to host the infrastrucutre for the Sony Entertainment Network where people buy and download movies, games, music, maybe store their images with play memories, etc. Azure would be a great choice for this, you don't even have to have windows servers!
The statements coming out of MS management are always vague, I think this is on purpose as it let people imagine the rest in whatever direction they want, then when they are disappointed they get to say they did not lie (which they don't do directly). This is taken straight out of the book The Prince from Machiavelli
(slightly off topic)
PS Now you can stream or download games, the downloadable games are limited to PS4/2 games though, meaning PS3 games are not able to be played natively.
Last edited:
MiyazakiHatesKojima
Banned
A desperate move, if true.
Vawn
Banned
Someone who makes three times my annual income and I should just pool our money equally.
Last edited:
Yeah, but the OS, underlying applications, authentication networks, etc are not similar. There is really no incentive for Sony make an unified anything with Microsoft, generally speaking, if anything Xbox as a Hardware is basically over. Imo, there is less incentive as Microsoft is more or less jailbreaking their own hardware at this point or equivalent.... Sony should continue to gain market share by doing what they are doing and Microsoft doing what it's doing.
Just because the hardware is similar doesn't really mean much... I mean primary PC players are like eliminate dedicated console altogether as they are using similar hardware as PCs at this point.
If Microsoft wants a "gaming" business they are going to have to go to where the customers are which means other devices and digital storefronts.... the whole platform as a service (PaaS) is a pipedream, imo, which spencer sold nadella.
Last edited:
Zog
Banned
You only have to stream PS3 games. PS2 and PS4 games are downloadable.
Fox Mulder
Member
MS is currently more open to this than sony, so great. I dont play on pc and dont see buying an xbox again. I'd get gamepass, but it would probably be a streaming only service if it ever did come to a playstation.
That's the issue, the devs/pubs would be paying two middlemen instead of one middleman, they can deploy directly to PS just like they do today.... there is no reason for GP on PS to really exist except for maybe Microsoft's own games on PS or any other closed system i.e. like EA Access, generally speaking. I mean, streaming is a money loser, imagine adding another middleman who is going to want to get paid more than what is available on their own device i.e. PS Now, if at all.
The whole concept of Game Pass on all platforms (meaning closed systems either hardware/software) doesn't really make much sense in the real world... generally nobody needs another middleman.
I'm also assuming Sony would require MS to release their games natively on PS hardware via the PSN Store like EA does. There is no free lunch, and it hard to imagine how this "business model" can ever make any money to start with, let alone paying hardware manufacturers (Sony, Nintendo, etc.) to gain access.
Its kind of like calling Apple and Microsoft telling Apple, let's use the Microsoft Store for iOS.
Generally, none of this makes much sense.... hard to see a real business here, at least on closed platforms/devices/stores.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Member
EDMIX
Member
nikolino840
Member
Really you base this theory with Minecraft dungeon?
Minecraft have too much fans with billions of Active players to be exclusive
EDMIX
Member
No theory, fact.
I don't care what the reasoning is, the fact is simply that MS have already put titles on PS and Nintendo.
Amazon.com: Blue Dragon: Awakened Shadow - Nintendo DS : Video Games
Amazon.com: Blue Dragon: Awakened Shadow - Nintendo DS : Video Games
www.amazon.com
Amazon.com: Viva Pinata: Pocket Paradise - Nintendo DS : Artist Not Provided: Video Games
Amazon.com: Viva Pinata: Pocket Paradise - Nintendo DS : Artist Not Provided: Video Games
www.amazon.com
Neither IP btw have "too much fans with billions of active players".
So you asked, it was answered, you state the IP is too big to keep on 1 platform, I've given you several MS owned IPs that appeared on Nintendo systems clearly that don't have "billions" playing it.
Asked and answered.
Last edited:
Kagey K
Banned
So basically you could pay 100/month or so and have every game released or subscribe piecemeal when a game comes out you want to play. Nobody says you have to be subscribed to all of them all of the time. If you don’t like either of those I’m sure the 59.99 plus DLC option will always be available.
You are right, I can see why MS wouldn’t want to give Sony free Money based on actual income and market caps. Whoever suggested that wasn’t thinking clearly.
SaucyJack
Member
I think you’re applying a level of significance to the choice of cloud provider beyond reality. They’re just providing infrastructure, there are alternatives and they can change in the future.
Sure Sony are talking partnership with MS Azure, but they already use two other providers - AWS and Rackspace.
Also, their “back-end” game development won’t transition to Azure. Any development they do should be architected to be platform agnostic so that they should be able to move to another infrastructure provider e.g. GCP or AWS fairly easily if they want to. I’ve been involved in these sort of projects for way more complex apps than anything Sony are doing and they won’t lock themselves into anything proprietary.
HeresJohnny
Member
Ah so it’s good to know I don’t need to buy the next Xbox if there’s a game I want on it.
Thanks Microsoft!
Thanks Microsoft!
alabtrosMyster
Banned
Excellent post. Yeah, that is a discussion for most cloud product development... whether to build them to be able to move them from cloud provider to cloud provider. I think the issue for Microsoft and Sony is their present solution is just custom racked mounted consoles instead of ones they can just spin up. All both companies are doing is rack mounting existing hardware instead of having the ability to spin up VMs.
2 days ago they said no more MS exclusives on other platforms
You are going to hear lots of contrary information from Microsoft, all of the "services" are not completed and they are trying to slow cook the frog. The issue I think, even if one thinks they can be successful with all the "services" on other platforms, is they are moving way too slow.