Phil Spencer acknowledges Amazon and Google as long term competitors, sidelines Sony.

Sep 23, 2016
361
73
230
#51
Interesting read. They don't sound like they want to buy a publisher. My question is what happens when Amazon, Google, unnamed new Chinese competitor straight bans gamepass cause Microsoft competes with their service. Guess you're back to 100-200 million users not 1 billion like he's thinking. But if you buy a multi-console publishers and you continue to have them sell their games everywhere you profit off the sales of you're competitors, too. Guess they could build one under the Minecraft umbrella or sell their AAA content third party like.

Why would Google or Amazon ban Game Pass?, even then Android allows to install outside the Play Store.
 
Mar 18, 2018
1,194
803
230
#53
He is right. When it comes to cloud based gaming, Sony will not be able to compete. They lack the infrastructure or resources that would be needed to build their own. How can Sony compete with Amazon or MS if they have to pay them to use their servers?
Netflix uses AWS and other. How does Netflix compete with Amazon Prime? By offering unique content.
 
Jul 30, 2013
843
70
340
The Netherlands
#54
Amazon can decide at any moment to cut off Sony access to their datacenters. This is why if you're going to be a primary player, you need your own cloud.
Hahaha, you really don’t know anything about cloud services do you? Why should they cut off if they are getting money for? So Google can shutdown Netflix every moment if they announce a “real” Netflix competitor tomorrow?

All those services (even Azure) are mostly build for clients.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
695
434
215
#55
Amazon can decide at any moment to cut off Sony access to their datacenters. This is why if you're going to be a primary player, you need your own cloud.
Pretty sure there are big long contracts involved.

Even if Amazon wanted to ditch another company using their servers, there would be amble time for the company to find another provider.
 
Aug 12, 2018
443
296
225
#56
Not interested in Amazon or Google with their optic data center internet cloud connection shennanigans or whatever it is called

I only care about company that produces game
 
Last edited:
Jan 30, 2018
83
21
165
#58
Why would Google or Amazon ban Game Pass?, even then Android allows to install outside the Play Store.
Well Google is competing to replace Microsoft's products with their products in every industry and Amazon is a walled ecosystem. When Microsoft starts drooling over the billion plus Android users , don't you think Google is thinking the same thing? Plus Microsoft wants to tie this to Azure, do you think Amazon would sell something that directly strengthens it's largest rival to AWS?If these companies were to spend billions to jump into gaming do you really think they would let a competitors product outshine theirs? Not with billions on the line. Unless Google somehow cons people into excepting ads in their games they aren't about to let a rival service become the next Netflix. They got burned last time when Microsoft was making more money off Android royalties then Google. These companies aren't dumb like Microsoft is sometimes, and would take appropriate steps to block Xbox and gamepass.
 
Last edited:
Likes: LittleBusters
Jun 4, 2018
674
316
200
#62
Well Google is competing to replace Microsoft's products with their products in every industry and Amazon is a walled ecosystem. When Microsoft starts drooling over the billion plus Android users , don't you think Google is thinking the same thing? Plus Microsoft wants to tie this to Azure, do you think Amazon would sell something that directly strengthens it's largest rival to AWS?If these companies were to spend billions to jump into gaming do you really think they would let a competitors product outshine theirs? Not with billions on the line. Unless Google somehow cons people into excepting ads in their games they aren't about to let a rival service become the next Netflix. They got burned last time when Microsoft was making more money off Android royalties then Google. These companies aren't dumb like Microsoft is sometimes, and would take appropriate steps to block Xbox and gamepass.
Yes Microsoft's biggest mistake was not blocking Google's services from running on Internet Explorer 15 years ago. Google services got traction through IE users. It's a form of tech parasitism.
 
Oct 17, 2005
1,844
36
1,110
#64
Nope. Having your own hyperscale cloud is THE strategic asset to have from 2020 onwards. Even Apple is in danger here if they don't build out the same.
Good thing Sony doesn't have to worry about any of that. They have several options at their finger tips and they don't have to pay for or maintain the DC. All they need is space and power. Even Azure is an option for Sony. lol
 
Last edited:
Apr 19, 2018
699
579
230
#65
People i see ignoring what MS is doing.
MS doesn't care anymore about console wars.

Because they are trying to build next netflix for games.
This is why they release now every exclusive on PC.
Because for them it doesn't matter if you play on PC or Xbox.
 
Likes: Pallas
May 1, 2010
13,545
412
755
#67
Yeah, you know, when I think about who I see as our long-term competitors over the next decade in this gaming category, I think you're going to see the big tech companies that Microsoft competes with in many different areas entering. And you see it. Amazon has

Amazon Game Studios. They have for a while. AWS has a very large workload in the gaming space. Google has just started working on Project Stream. And they are -- you can see the work that they're starting to do to enter this category. Tencent is a huge gaming company.

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op...?version=65af4809-9575-21b7-784d-aaf4da3823c6


There should be no surprise of this, both companies have the Cloud infrastructure to scale globally, both have the money and platforms to allow Cloud gaming to happen. Sony has none of this other than PS4. The fundamental fact is, you need data centers in physical locations in other to reduce latency. Microsoft, Google and Amazon are investing aggressively in this field and Sony hasn't anything.

If you want to know why PSNow has a very small availability, lack of global data centers is why.



Sony buys Gaikai cloud gaming service for $380 million



Sony buys streaming games service OnLive only to shut it down
 
Jan 14, 2018
1,052
765
235
#71
I'm not entirely sure what their strategy is. Those who care about latency and a good gaming experience will be more interested in just playing games that are on their local storage devices (disc, ssd, HD). Those don't care probably rather play match 3 games on their phones or tablets. It's there really such a big potential market of people who kinda sorta want to play games and don't care if they control like walking through honey, but would be OK with paying a subscription for said pleasure?

My impression is that most folks who don't care enough to play games on a PC or console aren't the kind of people who want to pay much for their gaming.
 
Oct 17, 2005
1,844
36
1,110
#72
Microsoft has spent $40-$50 BILLION building out Azure. Think about that!
What are you on about? You obviously don't understand why companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft invest heavily into their cloud infrastructures and what it even means. These companies invest and push their infrastructure to attract customers like Sony and other huge Enterprise and SMB customers. Microsoft would kill to have Sony's services running on Azure just so Microsoft could tout that they have the biggest gaming platform running on their cloud infrastructure to attract other clients.
 
Jun 21, 2012
12,499
139
615
twitter.com
#73
If some of these online streaming services work well, and I can avoid buying consoles, then I'll consider them. But if we end up having to subscribe to multiple different services to play all the games, it might be cheaper to just buy the consoles, lol.

Let's see how it progresses.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,273
368
1,600
#77
So what kind of advantage can Microsoft have because of owning the infrastructure? Personally, I think the only thing Sony won't be able to match (without taking a hit) is price.
They make a LOT more money renting out capacity and supporting third parties well (true for AWS and Azure) than from their own services so screwing over Nintendo, Disney, Netflix, or Sony is not only bad for business in the short term but would lead to the business opportunity for consolidation of smaller cloud suppliers into a bigger one / or growth of one of those suppliers to compete with Azure / AWS.
 
Likes: lynux3

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,273
368
1,600
#78
This is just a fact with a streaming service future. Amazon, Google, and MS are fucking giants in cloud infrastructure.
They are giants and profitable in cloud infrastructure because they do not screw third parties using their services over (even Google is pushing the platform more and more for third parties use to stimulate growth).
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,273
368
1,600
#79
What are you on about? You obviously don't understand why companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft invest heavily into their cloud infrastructures and what it even means. These companies invest and push their infrastructure to attract customers like Sony and other huge Enterprise and SMB customers. Microsoft would kill to have Sony's services running on Azure just so Microsoft could tout that they have the biggest gaming platform running on their cloud infrastructure to attract other clients.
*ding ding ding* and we have a winnner ;).
 
May 30, 2018
233
316
175
#80
I've got a question.

I remember hearing that Sony basically had PS3's stuffed into racks or something similar as that was needed to stream for PSNOW.

How exactly does that work, and why was that needed? Do they still do that?

Will MS need to do this as well for their service?
 
Last edited:
Jul 30, 2013
843
70
340
The Netherlands
#82
Microsoft has spent $40-$50 BILLION building out Azure. Think about that!
Not for gaming, that's why they need to build it for gaming right now with new datacenters or they buy capacity from other datacenters suppliers. There are also data center suppliers who rent capacity to these big boys.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

I've got a question.

I remember hearing that Sony basically had PS3's stuffed into racks or something similar as that was needed to stream for PSNOW.

How exactly does that work, and why was that needed? Do they still do that?

Will MS need to do this as well for their service?
yes xCloud also uses xbox One S hardware in clusters. It's more expensive to build new custom hardware only to emulate previous software.
 
Last edited:
Oct 17, 2005
1,844
36
1,110
#83
I've got a question.

I remember hearing that Sony basically had PS3's stuffed into racks or something similar as that was needed to stream for PSNOW.

How exactly does that work, and why was that needed? Do they still do that?

Will MS need to do this as well for their service?
No, this is simply not a sustainable or cost effective solution. Sony developed a custom motherboard that is equivalent to eight PS3's to service PlayStation Now subscribers for that specific platform. The same thing is being done with PS4 and PS4 games. PS2 games are likely run through emulation via the PS4.

What you're referring to is Warhawk's rack mounted PS3 server farm/cluster when the game came out.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1255/997953788_9ecb23125e.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1291/997953862_f602966618.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1020/997953812_f2cbd6139a.jpg

Microsoft is also doing the same exact thing Sony is doing by creating custom solution. Based on their video it looks like they're stuffing four Xbox One S motherboards into a single blade and then racking the unit.
 
Last edited:

Kdad

Member
Sep 20, 2018
86
87
160
#84
He is right. When it comes to cloud based gaming, Sony will not be able to compete. They lack the infrastructure or resources that would be needed to build their own. How can Sony compete with Amazon or MS if they have to pay them to use their servers?
By maintaining and growing their internal studios to create must have content only available on their service (note what MS is currently bulking up on). On the other hand...still think sometime in the next 5 years Amazon will buy Sony to expand aggressively into gaming/music/movie/hardware/insurance ownership all in one fell swoop (or Rakuten could do the same I imagine).
 
Apr 18, 2018
4,993
7,004
395
USA
dunpachi.com
#87
I think this is a symptom of where Microsoft plans to take their gaming division.

Over the past few years they've said:
- streaming is an important part of their plans for the Xbox brand
- streaming to the device of your choice is a part of that, too
- Xbox Play Anywhere further de-emphasizes an Xbox-branded console
- cross-play to other systems is important

And now they view Amazon and Google (big players in the mobile space) as their long-term competitors.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "Xbox service" launched on competitor's systems next gen and the next Xbox system was a subsidized system that requires a subscription.
 

ZywyPL

Neo Member
Nov 27, 2018
80
43
105
#90
I think everyone in the thread forgets about one, crucial thing - XBL and PSN. Sony might base their streaming service on a rented platform, even MS Azure as someone already mentioned, but everything will have to be streamed through PSN nevertheless, as you will have to be logged into Sony platform to play the games, and we all know how terrible its bandwidth is, the "slow PSN download speed" threads pop up basically every single week all over the gaming forums, there are hundreads of tricks on YT how to speed up the internet connection on PS3/PS4, and even they work only for a very narrow amount of users. XBL on the other hand, since that one patch where they make some sort of wizardy, works pretty much the same way internet on PC does - you just plug in the cable and anjoy the full speed of your connection, without even going to the settings menu. Even the wifi, with XB1 using weak antenas, works way better than the cable on PS3/PS4.

And then you have moments when PSN isn't available at all, how on earth they want to go into streaming games with such a critical issue in the first place? Back in the PS3 era they had excuse, "hey, it's bad but at least it's free", but since PS4 and forced paid online, one would think at least some of those money will go into upgrading their infrastructure to remove the bandwidth and out of service issues, but nooo, Sony prefers to put all the money into their own pocket. And this will be one of the many acts of arrogance of this gen that might pay them back in the upcoming generation.
 
Likes: DrAspirino
Oct 17, 2005
1,844
36
1,110
#91
Well it helps to be more expensive, plus they have been out a whole lot longer. PS now launched officially in 2015, and earlier if you count the beta. Plus PlayStation obviously has the much larger player base currently.
More expensive monthly? Yes. Quarterly? They're the same. Yearly? No, PS Now is cheaper by $20. It also depends on what kind of content you're consuming. If you download or play online games with PS Now you don't require a PS Plus subscription whereas with Xbox Game Pass an Xbox Live subscription is required.

Service Monthy Quarterly Yearly
PS Now $19.99 $29.99 $99.99 (Online multiplayer included)
XboxGP $9.99 $29.99 $119.99 (+ Xbox Live for online multiplayer)

https://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/Notebooks/News/_nc3/PS_Now_market_share.JPG

PS Now generated ~3.5x the revenue Xbox Game Pass did in Q3 of 2018. Granted yes, PS Now has been available for much longer; however, PS Now is available in only 12 countries whereas Xbox Game Pass is available in 40 countries. That's a significant difference. We'll never know what the subscriber count is for awhile if ever, but one thing I think most can agree on (outside of day one first party availability) is that PS Now is definitely the more attractive offer considering over 700+ titles (275+ downloadable) vs. 248 titles are available respectively.
 
Last edited:

Blam

Member
Jun 7, 2016
5,925
897
430
#92
Amazon can decide at any moment to cut off Sony access to their datacenters. This is why if you're going to be a primary player, you need your own cloud.
And get absolutely fucking dicked by Sony for doing so hahaha you do understand what you're talking about right? Because you clearly don't.
 
May 24, 2005
38,492
1,513
1,320
#93
Sony is much bigger danger than Nintendo. Nintendo has weathered 33 years of console generations and shifting tastes. Their IP is rock solid and bulletproof forever. Sony however isn't and I feel they will be displaced by Google/Amazon as a primary competitor to Microsoft in gaming space.
You must be 12 years old, because nothing that you said here makes sense.
 
Jul 30, 2013
843
70
340
The Netherlands
#94
I think everyone in the thread forgets about one, crucial thing - XBL and PSN. Sony might base their streaming service on a rented platform, even MS Azure as someone already mentioned, but everything will have to be streamed through PSN nevertheless, as you will have to be logged into Sony platform to play the games, and we all know how terrible its bandwidth is, the "slow PSN download speed" threads pop up basically every single week all over the gaming forums, there are hundreads of tricks on YT how to speed up the internet connection on PS3/PS4, and even they work only for a very narrow amount of users. XBL on the other hand, since that one patch where they make some sort of wizardy, works pretty much the same way internet on PC does - you just plug in the cable and anjoy the full speed of your connection, without even going to the settings menu. Even the wifi, with XB1 using weak antenas, works way better than the cable on PS3/PS4.

And then you have moments when PSN isn't available at all, how on earth they want to go into streaming games with such a critical issue in the first place? Back in the PS3 era they had excuse, "hey, it's bad but at least it's free", but since PS4 and forced paid online, one would think at least some of those money will go into upgrading their infrastructure to remove the bandwidth and out of service issues, but nooo, Sony prefers to put all the money into their own pocket. And this will be one of the many acts of arrogance of this gen that might pay them back in the upcoming generation.
I don't know where you live, but here in Europe we have have the most stable connections in the world and almost no bandwidth problems. There are also a lot of moments that Live is not available for people, what does that say?
 
Likes: mckmas8808
Oct 17, 2005
1,844
36
1,110
#95
I think everyone in the thread forgets about one, crucial thing - XBL and PSN. Sony might base their streaming service on a rented platform, even MS Azure as someone already mentioned, but everything will have to be streamed through PSN nevertheless, as you will have to be logged into Sony platform to play the games, and we all know how terrible its bandwidth is, the "slow PSN download speed" threads pop up basically every single week all over the gaming forums, there are hundreads of tricks on YT how to speed up the internet connection on PS3/PS4, and even they work only for a very narrow amount of users. XBL on the other hand, since that one patch where they make some sort of wizardy, works pretty much the same way internet on PC does - you just plug in the cable and anjoy the full speed of your connection, without even going to the settings menu. Even the wifi, with XB1 using weak antenas, works way better than the cable on PS3/PS4.

And then you have moments when PSN isn't available at all, how on earth they want to go into streaming games with such a critical issue in the first place? Back in the PS3 era they had excuse, "hey, it's bad but at least it's free", but since PS4 and forced paid online, one would think at least some of those money will go into upgrading their infrastructure to remove the bandwidth and out of service issues, but nooo, Sony prefers to put all the money into their own pocket. And this will be one of the many acts of arrogance of this gen that might pay them back in the upcoming generation.
For me personally, my PSN download speeds are as fast as when I pull something down on Xbox Live's marketplace. Nothing beats Steam, though. What you're seeing on YouTube, Reddit and other sources are related to the crappy hardware which is literally almost identical to PS3's NIC/WiFi hardware. There was also at one point a bug in the protocol stack that reduced window sizes to crap and affected download speeds significantly... as far as I know, this has all been corrected and it's now a big finger pointing at the subpar NIC/WiFi cards.

Regardless, PS Now and PSN are entirely separate services going through separate pipes, and you're tying to tie the fact that you have to authenticate to PSN to start using PS Now as if it's using PSN itself which is not the case, at all. Every online service has its hiccups including Xbox Live so that point is moot. Another thing is that PS Now only requires 5Mbps down which the PS4/PS4 Pro's NIC and WiFi hardware is more than capable of achieving.

You have to remember that when it comes to PSN vs. XBL we're talking about 80+ million monthly active users versus 57 million monthly active users. PSN is a much bigger service and that doesn't even include PS Now's subscription user base because we don't know what it is.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2013
15,535
7,602
555
#96
Amazon can decide at any moment to cut off Sony access to their datacenters. This is why if you're going to be a primary player, you need your own cloud.
You have no idea what your talking about, just stop. This sounds like an argument coming from a place of zero understanding of business, and just led with fanatic (petty) emotions.
 
Last edited:
May 9, 2018
560
289
205
Somewhere
#97
More expensive monthly? Yes. Quarterly? They're the same. Yearly? No, PS Now is cheaper by $20. It also depends on what kind of content you're consuming. If you download or play online games with PS Now you don't require a PS Plus subscription whereas with Xbox Game Pass an Xbox Live subscription is required.

Service Monthy Quarterly Yearly
PS Now $19.99 $29.99 $99.99 (Online multiplayer included)
XboxGP $9.99 $29.99 $119.99 (+ Xbox Live for online multiplayer)

https://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/Notebooks/News/_nc3/PS_Now_market_share.JPG

PS Now generated ~3.5x the revenue Xbox Game Pass did in Q3 of 2018. Granted yes, PS Now has been available for much longer; however, PS Now is available in only 12 countries whereas Xbox Game Pass is available in 40 countries. That's a significant difference. We'll never know what the subscriber count is for awhile if ever, but one thing I think most can agree on (outside of day one first party availability) is that PS Now is definitely the more attractive offer considering over 700+ titles (275+ downloadable) vs. 248 titles are available respectively.
Normally I’d agree with you price wise, but game pass has been relatively cheap with constant deals springing about, so consumers have had opportunities to buy up months to years worth of service for fairly cheap.

I’m not saying one service is better than the other, in just pointing out that PS Now has had more time to saturate the market, that with the bigger player base, it’s not surprising that they generate more revenue currently but it also doesn’t grant them immunity(same to game pass) against tougher competition in the streaming space/subscription service when other competiting platforms emerge that have very deep pockets and seem amped on making their mark.
 
Nov 4, 2017
317
283
190
san diego
#98
Well it helps to be more expensive, plus they have been out a whole lot longer. PS now launched officially in 2015, and earlier if you count the beta. Plus PlayStation obviously has the much larger player base currently.
Psnow made more in Q3. I don't care who's been out longer. Or when it started. Or who's more expensive. It made 52% of game streaming revenue compared to MS 15%
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2014
2,932
237
305
#99
Well it helps to be more expensive, plus they have been out a whole lot longer. PS now launched officially in 2015, and earlier if you count the beta. Plus PlayStation obviously has the much larger player base currently.
A yearly PS now subscription is cheaper than gamepass at normal RRP.

Pricing matters though, price matters more than almost anything when we are dealing with consoles and services. If Microsoft and say Amazon offer a cheaper, more stable service, it will be noticed. The benefits of owning your own cloud services not to mention the two biggest services around. It will be interesting to see how Sony deals and handles the cloud services as they evolved.

I don’t think Sony is dead in the water, they do have a great loyal fan base, but I can only imagine the eventuality of... lets say Google or Amazon attempts to buy out Sony, I don’t see Microsoft doing it, but it’s one way Sony may be out of the picture in the future.
Why would amazon or MS offer a cheaper or better service? Look at every leading streaming or content service out ther now and ask yourself do they own their own cloud. Does Netflix own their own cloud infrastructure? Do Spotify own their own cloud infrasturcture? Do itunes/iCloud own their own?

These are the leading providers yet they don't own their own cloudservers. Prime Video is not leading. Have you even heard of Groove Music? Does google music offer more? The answer to all this is no and probably no.
 
Likes: DeepEnigma
Feb 2, 2009
7,965
728
700
game pass isn't streaming though
GamePass will have to become at least in part a streaming solution if they want to expand onto multiple (non-x64) client devices.

That's the point of streaming as opposed to simply porting to every platform under the sun; expanding addressable market without having to worry about massively increasing the load on QA and support.
 
Last edited: