Support NeoGAF

[Ghost of Caelid]

Roughly a year and a half ago Phil Spencer said “When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward,” said Spencer. “That’s not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we’ve invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years.”

After a year of game industry movement how do the comments stand today?

With Stadia having only roughly 2 million users the comment about google hasn't held up, and Luna still seems a ways away.

I'd say that MS biggest competition since then has not been Amazon or Google but Tencent who have been looking to go on a buying spree themselves. Xbox seems to be trying to lock up the cloud and console subscription space, but I think the comments held up less due to them being pretty aggressive from a standpoint of expanding their reach.

 

[jigglet]

Check back again in 5 years. A comment like that isn't supposed to be validated in such a short time frame.

 

[elliot5]

Microsoft is a cloud and subscription company first and foremost. Phil and his team at Xbox facilitate that business under Satya. No lies are detected. Amazon and Google are the main competitors to Microsoft in that space and by extension, the gaming space as well. He's thinking more broadly at the business level.

 

[Renozokii]

Cloud gaming is a minimum of 10 years away from even coming close to over taking anything. Sony will always be Microsoft’s largest competitor in gaming. Hell let’s say the cloud blows up tomorrow, if Sony hinted they wanted a partnership amazing, google, and Walmart would all be at Sony’s door in seconds for a partnership to take them to the cloud. Nintendo is never to be underestimated. It takes a fool to think they will ever be a non competitor. Their ip are literally just too valuable.

 

[Pagusas]

way to early to tell, that’s a 5-10 year comment, not a 1.

 

[KyoZz]

Check back again in 5 years. A comment like that isn't supposed to be validated in such a short time frame.

Microsoft is a cloud and subscription company first and foremost. Phil and his team at Xbox facilitate that business under Satya. No lies are detected. Amazon and Google are the main competitors to Microsoft in that space and by extension, the gaming space as well. He's thinking more broadly at the business level.

/thread

 

[SlimySnake]

I suspect they are thinking everyone in the future will just download the xbox app on their smart tv and start playing games. They think consoles and handhelds are an outdated mechanism in an age where everything from phones to tvs are capable of streaming video games just like how they stream games.

At that point, MS will make money with their cloud infrastructure as they compete with Google and Amazon to host Sony, EA, Ubisoft and Nintendo servers.

That said, they didnt buy Zenimax for $7.5 billion for cloud gaming ten years down the road. They bought them to compete with Sony and Nintendo. TBH, I dont know what the end game is. Maybe Zenimax is the first step towards buying bigger publishers like Ubisoft, Take2 and EA. Maybe they just want to make gamepass so big that when cloud gaming does become the norm, they can just put their hands up and say hey we arent making another console, if you want to play the next Elder Scrolls or Assassins Creed game, you will have to stream it.

 

[Kilau]

I'd say the moves Microsoft has been making are designed to cut Google and Amazon off at the knees in the game streaming space. From that standpoint I think they have been very successful. Tencent and Epic are emerging competitors but neither are in the console or streaming market yet.

 

[Captain Toad]

Well, when it comes to gaming they're miles ahead of Google and Amazon, yet still quite far behind PlayStation and Nintendo.

So mission accomplished?

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Check back again in 5 years. A comment like that isn't supposed to be validated in such a short time frame.

Is this the new long wait variant of wait until next E3?

Now, for MS as a whole Phil must have been talking to the investors, because he is right. That being said, big players try to enter markets all the time (MS has been at it for 20 years in gaming, for a while they had taken over the smartphones industry, etc. but broadly they miss—not just MS, all of them, but this is part of doing business, you need to take risks and look for opportunity).

Sony and Nintendo are very competent players in the home console market, they have been established and people like what they do for a reason (not just to piss off MS). If MS, or Amazon, or Apple, or Google shows up and offer something more enticing they will succeed.

 

[jigglet]

Is this the new long wait variant of wait until next E3?

No.

 

[Andodalf]

Gamepass has no competition, but it still looks like Amazon is the biggest threat

 

[Warablo]

I'd say the moves Microsoft has been making are designed to cut Google and Amazon off at the knees in the game streaming space. From that standpoint I think they have been very successful. Tencent and Epic are emerging competitors but neither are in the console or streaming market yet.

I agree, Microsoft could be Sony's greatest ally of cutting off advances from the tech giants of gaining ground in the gaming space. With that said, eventually everything will be streaming and nothing will stop them though.

 

[ZehDon]

I'd say the moves Microsoft has been making are designed to cut Google and Amazon off at the knees in the game streaming space. From that standpoint I think they have been very successful. Tencent and Epic are emerging competitors but neither are in the console or streaming market yet.

Bingo.

With xCloud and Gamepass, Microsoft have basically destroyed anyone's ability to come in to the game's industry streaming space with a small offering, like Stadia, and build up a streaming product/service slowly. Now, from day one, competitors will need to compete with Gamepass' deep line up of titles across multiple generations of games on a service that offers the best value in gaming. It's a hell of a pre-emptive strike.

 

[mckmas8808]

Roughly a year and a half ago Phil Spencer said “When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward,” said Spencer. “That’s not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we’ve invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years.”

After a year of game industry movement how do the comments stand today?

With Stadia having only roughly 2 million users the comment about google hasn't held up, and Luna still seems a ways away.

I'd say that MS biggest competition since then has not been Amazon or Google but Tencent who have been looking to go on a buying spree themselves. Xbox seems to be trying to lock up the cloud and console subscription space, but I think the comments held up less due to them being pretty aggressive from a standpoint of expanding their reach.

It will always look stupid, because Xbox's main competition will be Nintendo and Sony. But one way to create a new narrative is to lie and say that your "real" competition is against 2 companies that you know you'll destroy within 2-3 years.

 

[mckmas8808]

Microsoft is a cloud and subscription company first and foremost. Phil and his team at Xbox facilitate that business under Satya. No lies are detected. Amazon and Google are the main competitors to Microsoft in that space and by extension, the gaming space as well. He's thinking more broadly at the business level.

If so, then this is bad business in my opinion. Which means, lies were detected. In the gaming space there already IS a mult-billion business happening! And it's been happening for decades. It's not up to Microsoft to completely change the terms as to what's considered "The Gaming Business".

Why would you think "The Gaming Business" will go towards a streaming-only model? The technology is NOWHERE NEAR ready yet. Plus the average gamer isn't even asking for this or (more importantly) wanting a streaming-only future.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

Roughly a year and a half ago Phil Spencer said “When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward,” said Spencer. “That’s not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we’ve invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years.”

After a year of game industry movement how do the comments stand today?

With Stadia having only roughly 2 million users the comment about google hasn't held up, and Luna still seems a ways away.

I'd say that MS biggest competition since then has not been Amazon or Google but Tencent who have been looking to go on a buying spree themselves. Xbox seems to be trying to lock up the cloud and console subscription space, but I think the comments held up less due to them being pretty aggressive from a standpoint of expanding their reach.

They are still just him trying to frame the conversation in a way that makes them look like they are "winning" because he can't say that they are when it comes to consoles or games sold or money brought in by his division. He's a used car salesman I keep telling people that but some just don't want to listen, he's going to blow as much smoke up your ass as you let him, he's no better or worse than anyone else in that industry.

 

[Methos#1975]

If so, then this is bad business in my opinion. Which means, lies were detected. In the gaming space there already IS a mult-billion business happening! And it's been happening for decades. It's not up to Microsoft to completely change the terms as to what's considered "The Gaming Business".

Why would you think "The Gaming Business" will go towards a streaming-only model? The technology is NOWHERE NEAR ready yet. Plus the average gamer isn't even asking for this or (more importantly) wanting a streaming-only future.

Because the writing is already on the wall that gaming is headed that way, just as music, film, TV, even books and magazines already have. The mass consumer mass has already shown a proclavity towards streaming and cloud based entertainment and it now decimates all other forms of media consumption and there is little to show that gaming will fare differently, rather the tech is near ready or not today is frankly irrevelant for it will be soon. And those companies planning towards that eventuality now and building the ecosystems and infrastructure that will be needed today will dominante while those that aren't will be swept aside just as has happened in every other media industry.

 

[Silent Viper]

I don't remember or pay attention to comments made by any executives

 

[Negotiator101]

Well, when it comes to gaming they're miles ahead of Google and Amazon, yet still quite far behind PlayStation and Nintendo.

So mission accomplished?

They are not behind at all, they have more first party studios than both. They have made bigger strides in moving their gaming division forward in the last five years than both put together. Sales are obviously still in Sony and Nintendo's favour but both are just doing the same old thing they've always done. Is that going to be enough for the next generation? By then Azure will be fully up and running, Gamepass will have a huge subscription user base and will be accessible through most electronic devices.

Consoles or handhelds will only be a portion of the market as we move forward. Microsoft are by far the company best positioned to take advantage of this. I don't understand why people think the console market will stay the same as it has been, things will always change and evolve my friend.

 

[Dr Bass]

Microsoft is a cloud and subscription company first and foremost. Phil and his team at Xbox facilitate that business under Satya. No lies are detected. Amazon and Google are the main competitors to Microsoft in that space and by extension, the gaming space as well. He's thinking more broadly at the business level.

Then their plans better start making some money.

I don’t understand this kind of rah-rahing of a multi trillion dollar company unless you have major stock. I recently sold my MSFT but even when I had it I looked at things as they were, not how I wished they would be.

To suggest Phil is “thinking more broadly” about business seems pretty disingenuous to me.

They are losing and will probably continue to lose for awhile. They don’t have the desired software still. Forza, Halo, and Floght Sim are simply not going to move the needle this year. These are known entities with many entries on the market and there just isn’t an untapped audience that wants these games but hasn’t gotten into them.

Streaming is a solution looking for a problem. It’s been available for many, many years. And there isn’t a high barrier to entry with services like AWS continually growing and improving. Sony can easily ramp up PS Now to a larger scale using whatever PaaS provider they want, IF that model becomes an in demand one.

But I’m not seeing it. Worse visuals via compression, latency, network dependencies, bandwidth caps. These are all things gamers do not want just to play a game.

Here is another analogy. When the iPhone was revealed it was obvious it was the future. Clearly. When the iPad was released it was also obvious it would never be a laptop replacement in its current form. Ten years later the iPhone is massive and, despite good sales, the iPad is an also ran. A novelty for apple fans. Developers think Apple is massively holding it back and are not happy with it.

But these things are obvious if you have decent intuition and insight for what people actually want. MS just doesn’t seem to have this, to this day, on the video game side. Their current “strategy” is old franchises on delivery platforms that have never succeeded.

How is this supposed to one day magically turn around into massive success? Do you think there is a large contingent of people who want to pay 15 dollars a month to play elder scrolls on their phone?

How is this “thinking broadly” about anything? On the contrary, the focus on GamePass and streaming, at the expense of everything else, comes across more like tunnel vision. We will see how this plays out but at the very least, let’s examine things as they are. Not as MS would wish it were.

 

[ZywyPL]

Tencent is a 3rd party publisher, so them investing into/buying studios makes no difference for Sony and MS, those games will be available on their platform regardless to maximize profits, which Tencent is all about.

Like it's already pointed out, it's way too early to judge, Google and Amazon can still turn things around, they are the biggest players in the world when it comes to cloud/streaming business after all, the question is whether they're willing to. Stadia seems like a sinking ship as of today, so either Google does something with it or will pull the plug in 5-10 years, while Luna is still in its baby steps, so the initial results are still yet to be seen.

The problem I see in MS' strategy to be present on multiple platforms at once is that they have a strong competition in each one of them, while having to divide the resources, like with the recent xCloud servers upgrade instead of releasing more consoles to the market. As always, time will tell how it'll play out.

 

[yazenov]

Reminds me of the hardware sales dont matter gibberish, and now software sales don't matter apparently.

Fact is, Sony and Nintendo are their direct competition now. The bulk of MS gaming revenue are from hardware and software sales, not Gamepass. This may change in the future, but the here and now is that they are getting destroyed by the 2 main competition.

This quote by Phil about Google and Amazon being their main competition is just to save face and divert the attention to a more winnable front instead of getting embarrassed by their current performance.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Are we still playing the game where we pretend that Sony and Nintendo (and Steam/Epic in the PC space) don't exist and pick two random peripherally-connected-to-gaming companies as MS's new competitors in order to ascribe some kind of "win" to MS?

I love it when we play make-believe.

 

[longdi]

Roughly a year and a half ago Phil Spencer said “When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward,” said Spencer. “That’s not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we’ve invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years.”

After a year of game industry movement how do the comments stand today?

With Stadia having only roughly 2 million users the comment about google hasn't held up, and Luna still seems a ways away.

I'd say that MS biggest competition since then has not been Amazon or Google but Tencent who have been looking to go on a buying spree themselves. Xbox seems to be trying to lock up the cloud and console subscription space, but I think the comments held up less due to them being pretty aggressive from a standpoint of expanding their reach.

I think we are moving there, not just streaming but also through Gamepass.

Phil has played his part in pushing this promise. Games launching day 1 on Gamepass, iOS, Android streaming, Win11 Gamepass dropping UWP.

The goal is to serve not just 100m of hardware sold with only 3-5m on average of per software sold, with outliers like GTA or COD.

Phil wants the same outreach as Amazon and Google, he wants 200m, 300m, 1b(even! eventually!) of active gamers, playing a full bc library of games on Gamepass.

 

[yazenov]

Are we still playing the game where we pretend that Sony and Nintendo (and Steam/Epic in the PC space) don't exist and pick two random peripherally-connected-to-gaming companies as MS's new competitors in order to ascribe some kind of "win" to MS?

I love it when we play make-believe.

Yeah Its hilarious. They just name dropped two companies that are just dipping their toes in shallow waters when it comes to gaming. They aren't even serious about the games industry yet and its just their side pet project.

 

[longdi]

Yeah Its hilarious. They just name dropped two companies that are just dipping their toes in shallow waters when it comes to gaming. They aren't even serious about the games industry yet and its just their side pet project.

I believe Phil was aiming at the active users of Amazon and Google. Going forward, even sony is trying hard to lock more gamers actively into their PSN services.

 

[CAB_Life]

Well, when it comes to gaming they're miles ahead of Google and Amazon, yet still quite far behind PlayStation and Nintendo.

So mission accomplished?

They're objectively ahead of PS in terms of streaming: numbers, capabilities, reach, MAO, whatever you want to pick. They're objectively behind the other two console makers in terms of hardware unit sales.

Amazon and Google are currently irrelevancies. Google will probably give up, as they do with all their underperforming products. Amazon will be interesting to watch, since they tend to throw money at things like MS.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

To me, they will always compete with Sony and Nintendo as game creators.

They may see things differently with push to subscription service and all.

Personally I don't care all that much if I am a subscriber or buying stuff as long as I enjoy what they make.

 

[ReBurn]

I don't remember or pay attention to comments made by any executives

Thanks for letting us know

 

[ReBurn]

Phil has been pushing on cloud gaming pretty hard so I think he's trying to make it happen. XCloud is kind of out there now. It's going to take more time.

 

[MDSLKTR]

It holds about better than "we believe in generations"

 

[ZywyPL]

The goal is to serve not just 100m of hardware sold with only 3-5m on average of per software sold, with outliers like GTA or COD.

Phil wants the same outreach as Amazon and Google, he wants 200m, 300m, 1b(even! eventually!) of active gamers, playing a full bc library of games on Gamepass.

Which makes me think how many xCloud blades they will need to achieve that? Because realistically, all those mobile phones, tablets, laptops, netbooks, TVs etc. will have to be served by xCloud, there's no other way around it, now imagine people paying for GP/xCloud monthly only to be put into a queue whenever they want to play something, that would completely kill the entire idea of being able to play whenever you want on whatever device you want. And before they'll be able to feed let's say 200-300M users, those blades will be already dated as there will be new, much more capable consoles/PCs on the horizon already. So IMO they are storming the streaming front a bit too prematurely, and should've focus on Play Anywhere/cross-saves/cross-play between just PC and consoles first and foremost, before thinking about jumping on all possible platforms there are.

 

[mckmas8808]

Because the writing is already on the wall that gaming is headed that way, just as music, film, TV, even books and magazines already have. The mass consumer mass has already shown a proclavity towards streaming and cloud based entertainment and it now decimates all other forms of media consumption and there is little to show that gaming will fare differently, rather the tech is near ready or not today is frankly irrevelant for it will be soon. And those companies planning towards that eventuality now and building the ecosystems and infrastructure that will be needed today will dominante while those that aren't will be swept aside just as has happened in every other media industry.

If you are correct (and I know you aren't), then Nintendo will cease to exist within the next 10 years. But we all know that's not going to happen. I'd make a wager that content matters more than "streaming" videogames does by the year 2030 gets here.

I believe the BIG hole in your arguement is that in the video game's space we can download our content and get a way better overall experience, than streaming will ever give us. The interactivity is what seperates videogames from music, movies, and TV shows.

I do think one obvious thing that MS has done right is figure out how to monetize (in a real way) how to create a subscription service that provides those games to people. Both Sony and Nintendo haven't really figured that out at all. And THAT'S probably the next big change that'll happen in the gaming space.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Microsoft wants to win the generation, buying companies is a huge break for them.

 

[DonF]

In a global market, cloud is sooooo fucking niche, I can't believe they keep persuing it.
To me, it sounds like they are using gaming budget to expand data center capabilities.
As someone from south America, I will never have the infrastructure to even think about cloud as a valid option.

 

[nemiroff]

Are we still playing the game where we pretend that Sony and Nintendo (and Steam/Epic in the PC space) don't exist and pick two random peripherally-connected-to-gaming companies as MS's new competitors in order to ascribe some kind of "win" to MS?

I love it when we play make-believe.

I suspect most of these businesses don't ask you console warriors on either side for your shallow and childish opinions before aiming at the future.

 

[longdi]

Which makes me think how many xCloud blades they will need to achieve that? Because realistically, all those mobile phones, tablets, laptops, netbooks, TVs etc. will have to be served by xCloud, there's no other way around it, now imagine people paying for GP/xCloud monthly only to be put into a queue whenever they want to play something, that would completely kill the entire idea of being able to play whenever you want on whatever device you want. And before they'll be able to feed let's say 200-300M users, those blades will be already dated as there will be new, much more capable consoles/PCs on the horizon already. So IMO they are storming the streaming front a bit too prematurely, and should've focus on Play Anywhere/cross-saves/cross-play between just PC and consoles first and foremost, before thinking about jumping on all possible platforms there are.

I dont think the number of xCloud matters now...in the long run...there will be internal numbers and milestones to hit certain amount of subs at each phase,, even up the costs, and profits will follow soon after.

Right now, Phil is in aggressive users acquisition mode. Cloud gaming is here but also not here. Those with good internet and 5G early adopters make up the first wave. More to come!

Nobody wants to keep a loss making business around, Nadella must have seen the profitability and approved with his full support.

 

[mckmas8808]

But I’m not seeing it. Worse visuals via compression, latency, network dependencies, bandwidth caps. These are all things gamers do not want just to play a game.

Here is another analogy. When the iPhone was revealed it was obvious it was the future. Clearly. When the iPad was released it was also obvious it would never be a laptop replacement in its current form. Ten years later the iPhone is massive and, despite good sales, the iPad is an also ran. A novelty for apple fans. Developers think Apple is massively holding it back and are not happy with it.

But these things are obvious if you have decent intuition and insight for what people actually want. MS just doesn’t seem to have this, to this day, on the video game side. Their current “strategy” is old franchises on delivery platforms that have never succeeded.

How is this supposed to one day magically turn around into massive success? Do you think there is a large contingent of people who want to pay 15 dollars a month to play elder scrolls on their phone?

How is this “thinking broadly” about anything? On the contrary, the focus on GamePass and streaming, at the expense of everything else, comes across more like tunnel vision. We will see how this plays out but at the very least, let’s examine things as they are. Not as MS would wish it were.

I don't think I've seen a better way to speak truth to power (when it comes to this "will streaming take over gaming" conversation), than this post! Great job Dr Bass . And the bolded is what struck me. So many people compare gaming going the direction of streaming to music, TV shows, and movies. Yet they don't understand the history with those pieces of content. Sometimes it makes me think some of them are under 18 years old.


1. We've ALWAYS had streaming when it comes to music. It's called THE RADIO! The only difference now is that you can stream the music\songs you want in a better quality than what was delievered over the airwaves decades ago. We've been streaming music since the 1900s.

2. We've ALWAYS had streaming movies and TV shows. We been streaming movies and TV shows by using something called an antenna! Luckily for us kids in the 80s the technology got better and something called CABLE was invented. It improved the quality of what we were watching and gave us the ability to watch more stuff. Now today's streaming gives us the ability to watch what we want, when we want to watch it! That's the HUGE difference, when comparing it to the past. But the ability to stream movies has existed for decades. Do you know how long I've been watching movies on HBO?! My goodness........HBO has been good to me and I never had to "buy" any of that content. I watched a whole season of The Sopranos on HBO through my "cable" streaming package.

3. There's NEVER been a way to stream video games that's succeeded on Planet Earth! NEVER! Not yet at least. MS is just another company that's trying to make it work out of many. I think they have the money, content, and expertise to get it right more than anybody else on Earth. But that doesn't mean that within 10 years it'll be the only way to play video games. That's where some of you guys are getting silly and start to sound like Xbox fanboys to be honest. Streaming video games will be a part of gaming going forward, yes. But the main way? Nah man.

 

[Magnific0giganticus]

He just chose the fights he can win.

 

[ZywyPL]

I do think one obvious thing that MS has done right is figure out how to monetize (in a real way) how to create a subscription service that provides those games to people. Both Sony and Nintendo haven't really figured that out at all. And THAT'S probably the next big change that'll happen in the gaming space.

Truth be told it's been already talked to death back in PS3/X360 times when services like OnLive, Gaikai etc. were already trying to bring streaming/subscription model to the market, that paying a monthly sub AND paying per each game additionally is now what people want, you pay the sub you get access to the whole library, that's how it should've been done, and MS didn't reinvent the wheel here, they just listened to what people want and learned on other's mistakes. So there's also Stadia with the same old pay-per-title model, which already been proven to fail, dunno why Google thinks it will all of a sudden work out for them, and Amazon's Luna which is even worse with its packages concept, imagine having to pay for entire FPS/racing/fighting package every month just because there's a single title within that package that interests you, this won't work unless the packages cost literally just a few bucks.

 

[nush]

The market has shown time and time again that the masses will accept "Good enough". Are all streaming services CD quality? Is a 4K stream as good as a UHD disk?
Gaming does have some specific issues that need to get solved but the masses will accept or not be aware of flaws if it means they can play the hot new game without paying full price or having to buy the console.

We're not there yet, but we will be.

 

[ArtemisClydeFrog]

The market has shown time and time again that the masses will accept "Good enough". Are all streaming services CD quality? Is a 4K stream as good as a UHD disk?
Gaming does have some specific issues that need to get solved but the masses will accept or not be aware of flaws if it means they can play the hot new game without paying full price or having to buy the console.

We're not there yet, but we will be.

 

[mrBandoza]

I think it is clear their strategy is aimed at "games as a service" or a subscription service. That's what we are seeing now where Gamepass is the main message and hardware secondary. To drive a successful subscription service you need content and that's why the have acquired so many studios. Now they need to bring content and make sure their subscription service is interesting coming years.

Gameplay streaming will serve as a "bate" don't know how to frase it in English. What I mean is lowest point of entry? Easy for everyone to start a subscription and after that, if you like it hopefully you will buy more competent hardware to play on. I think streaming will be very popular come 5G but traditional gaming will still be a thing, years to come.

So yes the statement is true although I think they are trying to change the message to not be compared with Sony and Nintendo a little bit swell. It's hard for them to ignore those ecosystems. If it were all about the players, Starfield would be Multiplatform.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I suspect most of these businesses don't ask you console warriors on either side for your shallow and childish opinions before aiming at the future.

Oh the irony.

If you're THIS sensitive to negative comments about your precious videogame company, then instead of calling others platform warriors, perhaps you need to look closer to home.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Have people not learned from Google's failure? Nobody wants cloud gaming. It will never take off. I dont care how much money or infrastructure you have. Theres no real demand to play games that way. What would change that all of a sudden?

Even the casuals and masses dont care. You know why? Because they only play like 1 or 2 games and they have no issue buying and downloading their games. Its already piss easy. Nobody wants the shitty cloud.

 

[GuinGuin]

Cloud gaming isn't the future. VR is the future and cloud gaming has too much lag to ever work with VR.

 

[mckmas8808]

The market has shown time and time again that the masses will accept "Good enough". Are all streaming services CD quality? Is a 4K stream as good as a UHD disk?
Gaming does have some specific issues that need to get solved but the masses will accept or not be aware of flaws if it means they can play the hot new game without paying full price or having to buy the console.

We're not there yet, but we will be.

The market was always okay with streaming music. We liked streaming music when we had access to it on the radio. What's makes you think we needed 4K streaming of movies to convince us to go to Netflix? Have you ever had cable in the 90s or 2000s?

People would have been okay with that quality of "streaming" TV and movies if it was available 20 years ago through the internet.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

If you are correct (and I know you aren't), then Nintendo will cease to exist within the next 10 years. But we all know that's not going to happen. I'd make a wager that content matters more than "streaming" videogames does by the year 2030 gets here.

Nintendo has strong enough IP to easily survive as an old school gaming company. They're already proving it with being stuck in 2010 with both their hardware and online capabilities, and yet being the most profitable gaming company.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

Of course he is correct when looking at the long game, which companies the size of Microsoft have to do. They be sometimes looking and planning 20 - 50 years ahead and trying to predict / guide where technology goes.

If technology can get latency down to unnoticeable for real time apps like games, then that will be the obvious way to go. Time will tell. But from their position they have already laid the global foundations, which smaller companies like Nintendo and Sony can’t really do in house.