-
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.
Rumour: Microsoft preparing Xbox App and GamePass for Nintendo Switch
- Thread starter Gormless Noodle
- Start date
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
Youre on a gaming forum talking to the 5 percent that follow the industry closely. We care about things like resolution, latency, fidelity. Your opinions here will almost always be towards the higher quality option.
Most of us have no reason to stream because we are the market that buys discs and digital.
And for the record I did sign up for PlayStation now. I've used it. But I found the library lacking not the tech.
Well, with 600-700 games it probably isn't going to get much better, not for $7-10 a month. There really isn't a business model that makes sense, even if you don't mind the tech disadvantage. Netflix is burning cash at an incredible rate to try and get content.
Last edited:
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
What exactly is your argument? They aren't first to market? They aren't using new tech? They won't make money?
No, it has nothing to do with first to market, although that doesn't help, Sony wasn't the first to market.... whole bunch of companies already went belly up.
They probably won't make money just like Sony isn't making money on it nor any streaming company, generally speaking.
1. Tech is subpar to native playing, but even if it were even...
2. There really isn't a business model to support it... at least one we have seen yet.
There are headwinds to streaming models, game streaming is worse, lots more processing and much more electricity usage than music/movie streaming.
Last edited:
ruvikx
Banned
I have a hunch their "end goal" is to get Nintendo's exclusives on Xbox. What does Nintendo do best? Exclusive games. What does Xbox do best? Hardware & software (especially online infrastructure). Combine both & voilà, win-win.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
And you think it's not sustainable because Hulu and Netflix have had issues becoming profitable in the streaming market?
Yes, but its worse than those, more costs and not as good as natively playing, and not cheaper that is if you want the latest and greatest, generally speaking. Game streaming is competing with native playing, native playing is better and over the long-run cheaper. Gaming streaming or say if they release a virtual Xbox, is like Virtual Desktops in the business world... the problem is... its cheaper to manage your own Xbox at the house than Microsoft manage it, now if you work for a business their can be savings in IT support for virtual desktops, but even that is marginal.... but we're talking managing 100s if not 1000s of desktops.
I can manage my cat cheaper and better than the animal kennel, so why would I give my cat to the animal kennel to manage? The same thing applies to a Xbox, you just plug it in, and give it some juice.
Last edited:
Spoiler: this runs like ass to anyone without an incredible wired internet connection, and people who spend that much on internet tend to have hardware more capable than a Nintendo Switch.
Nikana,
What they are doing can make sense in the business world, meaning virtual servers or desktops, this CAN (but not always) save a corporation money, thereby reducing head count to support the physical desktops/servers. For personal use, its much more hazy, who needs Sony to manage their PS4? Essentially that is what all this is.... you are renting a virtual box... they manage the underlying hardware, but there is no savings as you don't have to hire 5 guys to help keep your PS4 running. There are negative cost savings, streaming movies/music is less so, as streaming those are less process intensive. If you have right equipment you can stream your own music/movies. So, now it comes down to a service that generally is going to me more expensive plus you have the content costs.
The content costs never go away as Netflix, Spotify, etc. are finding out. What needs to happen, drastic rise in subscription fees. probably double for Netflix and then you are back up to cable costs or close Cloud services can save money, but anyone that has worked with them will tell you they can also cost you money, either way as a corporation you better have an exit plan.
As an option I see nothing wrong with it, if the market likes it, cool, I probably will not buy in - I'm not the market on that I would agree.
What they are doing can make sense in the business world, meaning virtual servers or desktops, this CAN (but not always) save a corporation money, thereby reducing head count to support the physical desktops/servers. For personal use, its much more hazy, who needs Sony to manage their PS4? Essentially that is what all this is.... you are renting a virtual box... they manage the underlying hardware, but there is no savings as you don't have to hire 5 guys to help keep your PS4 running. There are negative cost savings, streaming movies/music is less so, as streaming those are less process intensive. If you have right equipment you can stream your own music/movies. So, now it comes down to a service that generally is going to me more expensive plus you have the content costs.
The content costs never go away as Netflix, Spotify, etc. are finding out. What needs to happen, drastic rise in subscription fees. probably double for Netflix and then you are back up to cable costs or close Cloud services can save money, but anyone that has worked with them will tell you they can also cost you money, either way as a corporation you better have an exit plan.
As an option I see nothing wrong with it, if the market likes it, cool, I probably will not buy in - I'm not the market on that I would agree.
Last edited:
Kagero
Member
Who could play 4+ years ago? Not me. We just got good internet in my area 2 years ago. Like I said, tech in the hindrance. By 5 years most people should have reliable internet and streaming tech will be 100 times better.
Corrik
Member
Nintendo has zero reason to do this. Unless Microsoft is buying Nintendo.
It worked back 5 years ago, I think I tested OnLive I had around 10mb down back in 2010-11. 80-90% of people in this country probably had good enough internet to run this stuff when it was rolled out back in 2010ish. This issues with game streaming still exist and I have a 400+mb down pipe. It has nothing to do with bandwidth, generally speaking. I've run PS remote play off my T-Mobile account up in remote mountains years ago with my Vita.
Sony will be happy if you signed up, the masses haven't, the market isn't wrong.
Last edited:
ruvikx
Banned
Wait & see. I could be wrong, but in this economy, this market, I can see "why" Nintendo could gain from Zelda on a powerful machine with high settings & a new playerbase excited to get the best of Nintendo. One month ago people would have been labelled mad at the suggestion Halo & Gears of War were coming to Nintendo. So anything goes.
Kagero
Member
Well let's agree to disagree then. All of my friends that used these types of services told me the same things. That streaming tech isn't quite reliable enough to play competitive shooters. They also said they would be willing to adopt the tech once it's caught up and was reliable.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Netflix is profitable.
Maybe that will happen one day, I have my doubts that the speed of light will be broken by game streaming technology anytime soon, but even if the technology was just as good - breakdown how its going to make money?
Having game stream equal to native playing is only one problem, of many. (maybe someone will come up with something, I'm not sure we have seen anything like that yet though)
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And he blocks me because I told him he has no clue with what he is talking about. Shit that is literally a Google stroke away.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/n...-streaming-to-record-profit-totals-2018-04-16
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-netflix-surges-user-gains-strong.html
zenspider
Member
I don't think I ever made claims about performance - just that it existed - but from what I've heard, if you're in Japan it's runs good. Furthermore, IGN Japan reported the difference between LAN and Wifi at home negligible, so it seems like it has more to do with national infrastructure than your ISP tier.
I'm sure plenty of people had performance issues trying to play from across the world, but that's not really a fair or accurate measure.
Last edited:
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
You're looking at this way too close and in my opinion using extremely narrow minded arguments based on segments that don't apply to the Mass consumer.
Especially when you consider Microsoft's current roadmap with core OS/windows lite.
If your main argument is cost of goods on both ends, the supplier being Microsoft and the cost of hardware for the consumer, then sure at this moment it makes way more sense to just buy an Xbox. But when you factor in future projects like windows lite, it will be far cheaper to have a device that is capable of streaming for the Mass consumer
at one point it also made more sense to buy a CD than go through the hassle of ripping music. But now that idea seems nuts.
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
EDMIX
Member
Cause it helps them too. They get more content. I called this a while ago that MS ultimately would likely seek to go 3rd party as the writing is all over the walls. They are now putting everything on PC, we have rumors from many sources saying they will do the same on Switch and it will likely continue til they are putting games on PS4 / PS5. To folks still trying to pretend this isn't a thing happening, all I got to say is....remember when folks kept saying you wouldn't see MS games on Mac? How about Steam? At this point, we've heard this before and MS isn't really new to putting games on many platforms so I think this is not only likely, but was planned for some time now if they couldn't move a significant amount of units.
So this would make sense for Nintendo as they get more games, this would make sense for Sony as ....they get more games, this also makes sense for MS as they get the money. Maybe this makes more sense for MS.
Silent Viper
Banned
I
Guess it's one way deal. MS giving games for them allowing Game pass.
EDMIX
Member
Exactly. Why on earth would Nintendo need to put their games on XB? This is from a place that MS is coming in as the lessor ie beggars can't be choosers, Nintendo has little reason to put their games on XB or PS because they are moving enough units to the point where its not needed.
One day when that changes, sure you might see that happen, but this sounds like a one way street type thing. Nintendo may have sold 14 mill Wii U, but they also sold over 80 million 3DS and that portable install base is continue that support on to Switch.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
But if people play more Xbox games on their Switch, how would that help Nintendo?
Indeed. But I think that Microsoft would go this way one way or another.
I think it would because they would get revenue from it, and it would fill in the gaps between 1st party releases. IMO, chances are if you bought a Switch already you are not likely to say no to 1st party games just because of the availability of more 3rd party games. So IMO very little would be lost there, and certainly not enough to offset whatever revenue is gained.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
So you are thinking that Nintendo would get a good percentage of the money of every game bought from a Switch? Or are you saying MS would be paying Nintendo a yearly fee (Example: $100million a year for Switch access) to host Gamepass on all Nintendo Switches?
If so, then yeah I can see Nintendo selling Switch real estate space to MS for a 9 figure per year fee in order to make this happen.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
I'd have to assume it would be a typical licensing play.
EDMIX
Member
They have more games to market a reason for folks to buy a Switch . More games very much helps Nintendo
In theory, Nintendo could give access upon fees paid by Microsoft. Apple has stopped (or last time I checked) Valve from providing streaming via its Steam Link app for instance -there is no free ride.
I would imagine the device manufacturers will put the squeeze on more, in the future.
I would imagine the device manufacturers will put the squeeze on more, in the future.
Last edited:
How it would monetize for game pass I am not sure, but I really doubt Nintendo would let MS profit from Switch in any way without a cut. On game sales I would assume a percentage would be paid just like for games on any system, Steam, Epic, etc. Of course, MS might have the clout for a smaller percent than others via volume and /or incentives like help making a better online service, or server hosting, etc. The game pass thing - that one is tricky. Probably easy if they subscribe via Switch, but outside of that not sure. The incentives could certainly help there I would think.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Of course Nintendo would get a cut.
Why would MS get a free pass when every digital sale of anything on console digital marketplaces or Steam has the marketplace owner getting a cut?
What may get tricky is how Nintendo/MS/game maker gets a cut of a digital download. If a gamer buys a game that is currently already on Switch, but bought it because it's tracked he played it on GP then went out and bought it. Maybe MS stills gets a cut..... just like a website getting a tiny affiliate rate.
Why would MS get a free pass when every digital sale of anything on console digital marketplaces or Steam has the marketplace owner getting a cut?
What may get tricky is how Nintendo/MS/game maker gets a cut of a digital download. If a gamer buys a game that is currently already on Switch, but bought it because it's tracked he played it on GP then went out and bought it. Maybe MS stills gets a cut..... just like a website getting a tiny affiliate rate.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
That seems extremely tricky. Like what happens if MS bans that account?
Last edited:
EDMIX
Member
Could work. They are going into MS service to stream so if MS bans it, it would be like Youtube or something banning you. Your system will still work, you simply can't use that app on that account.
Isn't that a risk consumers take for any digital purchase on any system whatsoever? I'm not saying I approve of banning anything other than online play outside of pirating. I just don't see that as a concern for many people.