Microsoft Doesn't See Sony's PS5 as Competition for the Xbox

[GT6mebe]

The reason X360 sells more than PS3 is not only that its 100 - 200 dollars cheaper, but other factors such as better exclusives on the first half of their lifespans and (forgive me) easier to pirate. PS3 eventually sold quite well at the end, not as much huge sales margin as say XBone to PS4.

Bear in mind, PS3 outsold the 360 for every year it was on the market worldwide.

The reputation is now fixed and the sales of recent years is actually almost matching quite close to PS4.

This is wrong. PS4 has increased the gap between the XB1 as years have gone by. The gap is now 60 million or so.

 

[ImaRobot]

Because you overpay for it, because you overpay for it monthly, because it has Playstation adds everywhere saying buy Playstation, because it's limited for games witch not currently ongoing in a line up. This is showcase, test drive, in other words. And don't forget it's still streaming service with it's real flaws, when Playstation literally have none of them.

Overpay for it? I really don't think that's the case to be honest, or at least not for everyone. $9.99 a month, or $120 a year is equivalent of only buying two brand new games a year. I don't know about you, but I'm almost purchasing more than that on games in a month. Two months if I don't find anything interesting. Continuing that for any amount of time I'd be overspending on the games, rather than the pass in a direct comparison.

If they're already playing the games on a PC, why are they going to go out and buy a console for the games that they're literally already playing? Playstation Now is apparently a streaming service right? So how are they not dealing with what other streaming services are dealing with like you said?

 

[GT6mebe]

That's a good hypothetical that we don't know about yet, especially with their push in that direction with the next generation. Which was my point from the beginning. That they did worse doesn't seem to be affecting that area for next generation as they plan to only get more.

Thats a total fallacy. You ask for effect for next gen, but neither console has launched. Doesn't mean we can't infer.

I mean at any point do you ever try to have a decent conversation with out trying to just be a smart ass? I got that, you said that their exclusives are only getting worse, which I replied that no, that isn't exactly the truth. Yes those ones you specifically labeled did worse, but no, others also are doing much much better than they used to. So if you yourself that some are getting worse, and some are getting better, what exactly is the point of statement? Are the covering the gap right this moment? Absolutely not, but they are gaining large amounts of traction. Having a smaller base hasn't stopped that.

Look, I said their biggest exclusives have collapsed. These are massive system sellers and their new IP's or FH has not compensated for said loss.

This is a fact looking at the numbers.

FH3 had 10 million+ players. You yourself said that with GTS reaching 6million players than sales are around 5.5mil at one point, so we can also be on the same page and assume that Horizon was sitting at low 9 million point in sales. Thats a pretty large increase, and while the next iteration is on Game pass now, I would imagine that they're getting a good chunk from that as well. However that's just a guess since we have absolutely no info on that.

We've been over this. FH3 players include PC demo players. Different games have different player/sell ratio. The only reason I extrapolated for GTS is because we got 2018 UK sell through, and it was very close to number of players via the stat tracker website. There are many assumptions here that can fall through in reality.

I try my best to stick with sales numbers.

 

[ImaRobot]

Thats a total fallacy. You ask for effect for next gen, but neither console has launched. Doesn't mean we can't infer.

You're right, but were you not the one that laughed in the face of others when some would infer about GT's sales declining and those not being exactly sure if GTS would be a great seller going of past trends? I don't see what's wrong with what I'm doing if you yourself do it as well. That would have been a total fallacy on both our parts then.

Look, I said their biggest exclusives have collapsed. These are massive system sellers and their new IP's or FH has not compensated for said loss.

This is a fact looking at the numbers.

I never said otherwise. I simply said that even with you claiming Microsoft "lost" to Playstation, and how they are doing so absolutely terrible, that it has not affected the popularity of their exclusives as a whole as like a mentioned, you're right that some have, but others are only increasing in popularity no matter how much worse you think it's doing.

That is a fact looking at the numbers.

We've been over this. FH3 players include PC demo players. Different games have different player/sell ratio. The only reason I extrapolated for GTS is because we got 2018 UK sell through, and it was very close to number of players via the stat tracker website. There are many assumptions here that can fall through in reality.

I try my best to stick with sales numbers.

Yes I know we've been over it, and it's still relevant if you're continuing the train of thought. GTS is also padded with numbers from the demo and the beta but that didn't stop you from coming to the conclusion that you did. So with that said, we can come to the same conclusion for both sides.

You didn't stick to sales numbers because we have none, really.

 

[GTV0819]

Funny, I get the feeling that you're strawmanning now.

What is this and what does it have to do with the topic at hand?

Congratulations, you had a laptop in 2013 with an SSD...when they were already on the market years prior to that. And I had just built a new PC with my second SSD because the tech was still new and expensive. So?

Probably to prove that he's a solid Sony user.

 

[Bloodytears]

Overpay for it? I really don't think that's the case to be honest, or at least not for everyone. $9.99 a month, or $120 a year is equivalent of only buying two brand new games a year. I don't know about you, but I'm almost purchasing more than that on games in a month. Two months if I don't find anything interesting. Continuing that for any amount of time I'd be overspending on the games, rather than the pass in a direct comparison.

If they're already playing the games on a PC, why are they going to go out and buy a console for the games that they're literally already playing? Playstation Now is apparently a streaming service right? So how are they not dealing with what other streaming services are dealing with like you said?

Buying games, and rent them isn't an equal. I didn't said about other streaming services a word. I don't understand how you jump from one thing to another. When you buy a game on Playstation, you use it whenever you like, day one and without input and other lags.

 

[ImaRobot]

Buying games, and rent them isn't an equal. I didn't said about other streaming services a word. I don't understand how you jump from one thing to another. When you buy a game on Playstation, you use it whenever you like, day one and without input and other lags.

I never said they were equal, where did you even get that from? You said it's overpaying, I showed that it's just really not. You're the one talking about a streaming service, so I continued to talk about streaming services. When you buy a game on Xbox it's really no different either so I'm not sure of your point.

 

[GTV0819]

Bear in mind, PS3 outsold the 360 for every year it was on the market worldwide.

This is wrong. PS4 has increased the gap between the XB1 as years have gone by. The gap is now 60 million or so.

He thinks that the Xbox One has reached a hundred million units sold already?

 

[Bloodytears]

I never said they were equal, where did you even get that from? You said it's overpaying, I showed that it's just really not. You're the one talking about a streaming service, so I continued to talk about streaming services. When you buy a game on Xbox it's really no different either so I'm not sure of your point.

You did started quote me for that I said, about Sony has what it takes to have their own infrastructure, especially they have what it needs to be offered in gaming and console segment. You even now defend Playstation Now, that part of Playstation infrastructure, making money on exclusive Sony games.
I'm buying may be one game for 2 or even more month, and still have games, that I bought in 1999, say if I still pay 9 bucks for it.

And you continue it to talk about another streaming services, that will show their offers may be on E3 2020. What exactly you want to proof, if anything you currently trying?

 

[ImaRobot]

You did started quote me for that I said, about Sony has what it takes to have their own infrastructure, especially they have what it needs to be offered in gaming and console segment. You even now defend Playstation Now, that part of Playstation infrastructure, making money on exclusive Sony games.
I'm buying may be one game for 2 or even more month, and still have games, that I bought in 1999, say if I still pay 9 bucks for it.

And you continue it to talk about another streaming services, that will show their offers may be on E3 2020. What exactly you want to proof, if anything you currently trying?

There seems to be a massive language barrier here, and it's getting increasingly difficult to hold a conversation with you. I don't mean that in offense, but you're really not even responding to things I'm saying.

 

[Bloodytears]

There seems to be a massive language barrier here, and it's getting increasingly difficult to hold a conversation with you. I don't mean that in offense, but you're really not even responding to things I'm saying.

Have no idea why you throw all this information to me and don't know what you wanted to hear. Just buy Playstation, and you'll be fine

 

[ImaRobot]

Have no idea why you throw all this information to me and don't know what you wanted to hear. Just buy Playstation, and you'll be fine

This illustrates what I just replied before you completely. I threw the information at you because it directly related to everything you were saying, and what I wanted to hear was a response to those things, but I'm not getting them because of the language barrier between us.

However, I am leaning towards a Playstation first this next console generation regardless. Just not set in stone yet.

 

[GT6mebe]

You're right, but were you not the one that laughed in the face of others when some would infer about GT's sales declining and those not being exactly sure if GTS would be a great seller going of past trends?

Thats because I inferred it. There's a difference between blind guessing, and looking at data and trends and basing predictions off from that.

Anyone who had basic data on the gaming industry knew GT6 was hindered by being a PS3 release. Hence all the people saying GTS will be a decline we're totally off. Not to mention, a hindered GT6 still sold near 6 million. GTS launch numbers handily beat GT6.

I never said otherwise. I simply said that even with you claiming Microsoft "lost" to Playstation, and how they are doing so absolutely terrible, that it has not affected the popularity of their exclusives as a whole as like a mentioned, you're right that some have, but others are only increasing in popularity no matter how much worse you think it's doing.

That is a fact looking at the numbers.

Cool, the point was they couldn't compensate for said loss, which is still a fact. Try to stick with the point being made.

GTS is also padded with numbers from the demo and the beta

Wrong again. GTS official numbers do not include beta players and the numbers from the stat website identifies them separately

 

[Terronium-12]

Probably to prove that he's a solid Sony user.

And simply saying that without all of the additional nonsense would have worked fine. I wouldn't have responded as I did, because who am I to question what company/product someone is most comfortable with? Whatever works for, works for you. End of discussion.

This comes across as someone boasting about something simply for the sake of boasting without understanding what any of it is.

 

[ImaRobot]

Thats because I inferred it. There's a difference between blind guessing, and looking at data and trends and basing predictions off from that.

Anyone who had basic data on the gaming industry knew GT6 was hindered by being a PS3 release. Hence all the people saying GTS will be a decline we're totally off. Not to mention, a hindered GT6 still sold near 6 million. GTS launch numbers handily beat GT6.

So you think if GT6 had released on a new console with a massively smaller player base it would have done better? Didn't you just insinuate that if hardware sales were much larger than it would have done much better? This seems to contradict what you're just pointing fingers at.

I'm also finding it odd to believe it was hindered - you think PD just made a blind choice to do that rather than producing for next gen? It sounds like they had data that supported that they would have had a better outcome releasing on the older hardware.

Cool, the point was they couldn't compensate for said loss, which is still a fact. Try to stick with the point being made.

I am sticking to the point. You've started here saying:

XB exclusives have cratered in popularity. Halo, Gears, FM have all massively declined since the 360 era.

and have been saying that while you're correct in pointing out those, you're incorrect in pretending it's painting the full picture. How is that not sticking to the point? So I'm guessing you just mean that I'm not following the goal posts you're moving.

Wrong again. GTS official numbers do not include beta players and the numbers from the stat website identifies them separately

I can't seem to find the post that illustrated differently for the life of me so I'll retract that. However, where was it said that Horizon includes beta players?

 

[GTV0819]

And simply saying that without all of the additional nonsense would have worked fine. I wouldn't have responded as I did, because who am I to question what company/product someone is most comfortable with? Whatever works for, works for you. End of discussion.

This comes across as someone boasting about something simply for the sake of boasting without understanding what any of it is.

What do you mean? The one which he said earlier? Sorry if I sound confused.

 

[Terronium-12]

What do you mean? The one which he said earlier? Sorry if I sound confused.

...That's so weird. I quoted you replying to me, but it ended up moving up a few posts to me quoting you...replying to someone else entirely.

I've fixed it now.

 

[GT6mebe]

So you think if GT6 had released on a new console with a massively smaller player base it would have done better? Didn't you just insinuate that if hardware sales were much larger than it would have done much better? This seems to contradict what you're just pointing fingers at.

Or PS3/4. Some games have long legs, so even if they launched at a low install base they will continue selling. GT is one of those games.

Not really.

 

[ImaRobot]

Or PS3/4. Some games have long legs, so even if they launched at a low install base they will continue selling. GT is one of those games.

Not really.

Glad we’re on the same page that install base doesn’t affect everything the same way and that while some games popularity decreased, others are increasing and that painting one solid picture as if it’s all decreasing isn’t the full truth 👍

for someone that likes to bring up things being ignored you sure did ignore a lot there.

 

[MXH]

I’m personally not interested in streaming games, at all.

However, I can understand Phil’s vision but I have a hard time seeing anyone outside the US, UK and some parts of Europe giving a — about what MS has to offer in the gaming space. As always though, I don’t mind being proven wrong.

 

[rhalgr]

Isn’t PlayStation now a cloud based streaming service?

With an official capacity of 5 million people, since Sony doesn't have the back end like Microsoft, Amazon and Google do. PSN runs on AWS.

Yeah I think it's the other way around...

i think you didn't understand what spencer talked about...

Talk about being delusional..

talk about not understanding his point...

What he actually meant to say was...

"We're no competition for the PS5"

Nope. What he means is amazon, google and Microsoft are main competitors, because those companies can provide a global infrastructure to provide services and cloud gaming to businesses and consumers alike.

I'm sensing an echo of: "...fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity; it's called Xbox 360."

Read the article please.

Claiming not to be in competition after years of competition, is a sign of defeat

No, he is talking from an service provider point of few. PSN doesn't run on Sony infrastructure. It runs on Amazon. Getting Sony on board on Azure is what MS is interested in. And competing with google and Amazon.

Sony will be way out in front with no competition from Microsoft once again.

Sure... Sony are in talks with Microsoft for cloud gaming, because they don't have the infrastructure to reach billions of people. Simple as that. And the reason PSN runs on AWS, while PS Now doesn't iirc and has a limit of 5 million people and is only available in very few countries.

Sony needs either Google, Amazon or Microsoft to provide a service as big or bigger than PSN.

Meanwhile Sony are just keeping busy on their project without bragging their asses in half and spilling the beans too early...

Are we living in a parallel universe? Sony started the talk and we know almost the same about both consoles. Excluding the box itself.

Xbox saying that Playstation's traditional games console will be obsolete is like when Elon Musk of Tesla said that all non-driverless cars will be worthless in the future...

Spencer didn't say consoles are obsolete. In fact he often says consoles are here to stay.

A more accurate response would be Microsoft has been handily beaten in the traditional console gaming market by Sony/Playstation.

Your response would be an more inaccurate response, because Spencer was talking about infrastructure for services. Sony needs an partner and are in talks with Microsoft, because they or Amazon or Google have the infrastructure to make an service like PSN a reality. Remember PSN runs on AWS.

Sony doesn't and that's why they are talking to Microsoft and trying to reach an partnership for cloud gaming.

Xbox doesn't compete with Playstation... interesting. Guess I'll cross it off my list of things to consider buying instead of the next Playstation then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

huh? Read the article xD

 

[TokoTurismo]

Don't bother telling them to read the article. The title was more than enough to get them triggered. 2020 is only starting folks, and Phil is going right in.

I don't do cloud gaming but Phil is not wrong in what he's saying. After all, Sony DID partner with them for said gaming sooo, certain people can keep skipping the article all they want. The truth is all there.

Nuff said.

 

[Wolfe]

Read the article please.

I did; I actually already read what Spencer said via Nintendo Life before it appeared here. I know exactly what Spencer meant, and meant what I said. Don't lump me in as a Sony fanboy, please. I'm a Nintendo fanboy. I'm not playing the console war, though.

Spencer said:

...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.

Sorry, I think that's nonsense, and similarly out-of-touch to the Don Mattrick quote I referenced. Not prioritizing an unwanted 🤬 idea like game streaming -- which is no good for millions of gamers around the globe and a blow to end-user privileges regardless, much like the initial plan for the Xbox One -- does not leave Nintendo and Sony "out of position". I'm pretty sure they'll be fine exactly where they are.

Streaming will never, ever serve all game genres, for all players, in all contexts. I'm not even worried about it...I'm very sure Nintendo knows better, and I think Sony does too. Or I could turn to PC gaming if I have to. I spent hours researching an affordable way to upgrade to an HD display with minimal input latency for gaming. I'm not going to turn around and adopt beaming those inputs back and forth over the internet.

Microsoft and fans of the streaming concept can go right ahead. To each their own. It's no skin off my nose if streaming settles in as just another way to play games, like motion controls, mobile gaming, and VR before it. To suggest otherwise, as Spencer did with his statements, just creates unnecessary friction. We still have buttons and sticks, we still have consoles and PCs, we still want to play games on freestanding screens, and we will continue to play games locally.

 

[IngRobNy]

much like the initial plan for the Xbox One

True, the fans wasn't really happy about Xbox One would need to be online all the time, so Microsoft just had to take a few step back and change their mind, before losing a lot of their fans, I'm not sure if the noise would be less this time either if they tried this again.
Streaming games sounds wonderful in theory, but in practice? Nope, be used to latency, disconnects, lag, frame rate drops etc, etc.

 

[Terronium-12]

Sorry, I think that's nonsense, and similarly out-of-touch to the Don Mattrick quote I referenced.

Not by a longshot, for reasons I'll touch on in a bit.

Not prioritizing an unwanted 🤬 idea like game streaming -- which is no good for millions of gamers around the globe and a blow to end-user privileges regardless...

It's not ideal for everyone certainly, but this, at least to me, paints the situation as it weren't very well considered. According to Ookla, the global average for fixed broadband 73.5 Mbps. The majority of streaming services recommend nothing less than 10-15 Mbps for 720p, and 20-25 for 1080p. 4K requires the most at upwards of 35, but that's an entirely different equation. Even the global average mobile speed meets two out of the three, easily.

Cloud gaming, as a whole, is more viable than not.

much like the initial plan for the Xbox One -- does not leave Nintendo and Sony "out of position". I'm pretty sure they'll be fine exactly where they are.

To Spencer's point, both Sony and Nintendo are out of position once they delve into the service. Why? They don't have their own infrastructure, instead having to rely on Microsoft and Amazon. They'll either have to continue relying on their tech and eventually branch off into pseudo development of their own based on that infrastructure, or start from zero. As it stands now, I'm fairly certain Sony has partnered with Amazon for PlayStation Now...but I can't find anything on it so don't quote me on that. Or do, and correct me.

Look at Google Stadia and how that turned out. Now, look at GeForce Now which Nvidia has been tweaking for years now and is having a far better jumping off point simply because it's been in the works for the past several years.

To suggest otherwise, as Spencer did with his statements, just creates unnecessary friction. We still have buttons and sticks, we still have consoles and PCs, we still want to play games on freestanding screens, and we will continue to play games locally.

Cloud gaming doesn't alter or affect any of this though. The principle behind it is immediacy, not supplanting input devices or removing platforms. You're on a trip and want to continue progress in whatever game you left behind at home? You have that option. Want to pick up an item from a weekend vendor while you're not at home? You can do that, too.

A home console or PC can never permit that kind of freedom because their functionality and availability are static.

 

[IngRobNy]

A home console or PC can never permit that kind of freedom because their functionality and availability are static.

I guess I'm a rare breed (or a dying breed ), I don't even surf on my phone outside my home, I don't know why I have a laptop and not a stationary PC, because my laptop is always at home on the living room table , so a static/stationary gaming console or PC for that matter suits me just fine.

Cloud gaming doesn't alter or affect any of this though. The principle behind it is immediacy, not supplanting input devices or removing platforms.

I cross my fingers and really hope you are right, my biggest fear is what will happen to gaming consoles in all this focus on game streaming, of course not worried for PS5, Xbox X Series or next Nintendo, but the future gaming consoles, although Sony have secured copyright for the PS5 logo and up to the PS10 logo and the Series name Microsoft will be using now for Xbox gives me some comfort that gaming consoles will probably not disappear in the nearset future.

 

[Wolfe]

It's not ideal for everyone certainly, but this, at least to me, paints the situation as it weren't very well considered. According to Ookla, the global average for fixed broadband 73.5 Mbps. The majority of streaming services recommend nothing less than 10-15 Mbps for 720p, and 20-25 for 1080p. 4K requires the most at upwards of 35, but that's an entirely different equation. Even the global average mobile speed meets two out of the three, easily.

Cloud gaming, as a whole, is more viable than not.

Average speeds are little consolation to gamers with no internet at home, satellite internet, or unreliable internet -- the same sort of users Mattrick told to enjoy their Xbox 360. And it's all moot for input latency. "Viable" by cloud gaming standards is not equivalent to the gameplay experience of an offline singleplayer game on a local device.

A common HDTV is already not equivalent to the gameplay experience of my setup at home. It's as obvious as <30fps vs 60fps. And I have not already put all my faith in digital distribution, either. Cloud gaming is no good for expectations like mine, and based on reactions to Stadia, I feel comfortable with the amount of company I have.

To Spencer's point, both Sony and Nintendo are out of position once they delve into the service.

I personally see no reason to assume they should. Same as there being little reason for all three companies to invest deep into mobile gaming, or for Nintendo to try to seriously compete with Sony et al. on VR.

I interpreted Spencer's comments as another "streaming is the future of all gaming" refrain. I stand by what I've said about cloud gaming, but if you think I've misinterpreted him, I can concede that. 👍

The principle behind it is immediacy, not supplanting input devices or removing platforms. You're on a trip and want to continue progress in whatever game you left behind at home? You have that option. Want to pick up an item from a weekend vendor while you're not at home? You can do that, too.

A home console or PC can never permit that kind of freedom because their functionality and availability are static.

The Switch doesn't require an internet connection for this. Inputs from the joy-cons travel inches, not miles. Your games are on local storage or nifty physical carts, not behind an account sign-in. And it doesn't drain the battery on your phone, which you might need for other things.

Not like my phone can do apps anyway...nor have I ever been terribly keen on the hand cramps, neck aches, or eye strain of handheld gaming in the first place.

 

[rhalgr]

Sorry, I think that's nonsense, and similarly out-of-touch to the Don Mattrick quote I referenced. Not prioritizing an unwanted 🤬 idea like game streaming -- which is no good for millions of gamers around the globe and a blow to end-user privileges regardless, much like the initial plan for the Xbox One -- does not leave Nintendo and Sony "out of position". I'm pretty sure they'll be fine exactly where they are.

He means out of position in the sense that they don't have a cloud business build on double digget billions over several years.

To your second point:
Sony and Nintendo wouldn't be fine, if they didn't have partners in google or Amazon to run their services. This is not only about game streaming. It's about nintendo online and PS network, too. These services run on Google and amazon respectively.

it...I'm very sure Nintendo knows better, and I think Sony does too.

One of the pillars next gen will be PS Now next gen....

As it stands now, I'm fairly certain Sony has partnered with Amazon for PlayStation Now...but I can't find anything on it so don't quote me on that. Or do, and correct me

As i recall PS Now runs still on gakai. Sony only stated that the supported capacity of Now is 5 million currently.

 

[Terronium-12]

I guess I'm a rare breed (or a dying breed ), I don't even surf on my phone outside my home, I don't know why I have a laptop and not a stationary PC, because my laptop is always at home on the living room table , so a static/stationary gaming console or PC for that matter suits me just fine.

Oh, don't get me wrong — I'm not an advocate for cloud gaming. I'm fascinated with the idea of an infrastructure that solely relies on the end-user having adequate internet speeds. It's highly presumptuous for one, but having the tech to minimize ping/latency to make it viable is...well, I'm a nerd anyway so of course I'd have a passing interest in it.

I cross my fingers and really hope you are right, my biggest fear is what will happen to gaming consoles in all this focus on game streaming, not worried for PS5, Xbox X Series or next Nintendo, but the future gaming consoles, although Sony have secured copyright for PS5 and up to PS10 logo.

Believe me, you have nothing to worry about for the foreseeable future. Fiber optic connections aren't in enough communities for everyone to suddenly think "Stop spending money on external hardware devices we sell to consumers, just sell them games as a service."

Consoles aren't going anywhere for a while, but technology moves at a dangerously fast pace so expect cloud gaming to become more and more of a prominent selling point.

Average speeds are little consolation to gamers with no internet at home, satellite internet, or unreliable internet -- the same sort of users Mattrick told to enjoy their Xbox 360. And it's all moot for input latency. "Viable" by cloud gaming standards is not equivalent to the gameplay experience of an offline singleplayer game on a local device.

Certainly, issues like latency will always be a concern. The solution is to minimize that to the point where isn't one, or as much of one. This is where my earlier comment to @IngRobNy comes in: fiber optic connections aren't widespread enough at the moment. At best (or worst, depending on your viewpoint) game streaming will work best on said network infrastructures as there's greater throughput and far lass interference than electrical and copper-based networks.

A common HDTV is already not equivalent to the gameplay experience of my setup at home. It's as obvious as <30fps vs 60fps. And I have not already put all my faith in digital distribution, either. Cloud gaming is no good for expectations like mine, and based on reactions to Stadia, I feel comfortable with the amount of company I have.

The problems with Stadia seems to begin and end with how much Google boasted about the service. There were problems at launch, which were to be expected, and it's seemingly gone downhill since. I'm not a subscriber nor have I kept up with what's going on with it, so I'm not the best conversationalist on it in that regard.

You're definitely not wrong though about issues with streaming games to potentially millions of users at once. If anyone can tackle that though, it would be Microsoft and Twitch. Both have prime experience in that sector already with Twitch and Mixer; Amazon much more than Microsoft, of course.

I personally see no reason to assume they should. Same as there being little reason for all three companies to invest deep into mobile gaming, or for Nintendo to try to seriously compete with Sony et al. on VR.

They will. Hell, both already have in some form. Sony has PlayStation Now (which, admittedly, as I said to another person, is more about backwards compatibility, but I expect that to change this year) and Nintendo is already dabbling with an online service. Sure, for them it may not move beyond being an online service but Nintendo has a monstrous backlog of games that costs them money to host on their consoles.

Whereas they could bypass that entirely by hosting them on a paid service model.

I interpreted Spencer's comments as another "streaming is the future of all gaming" refrain. I stand by what I've said about cloud gaming, but if you think I've misinterpreted him, I can concede that. 👍

Phil strikes me as one of the few people in the industry that isn't smarmy. Look at how much good he's done for Xbox since taking over Mattrick's position. It's to the point where they're steadily moving toward the "Xbox" brand being nothing more than a namesake. You have a Windows PC? Congrats, you have an Xbox. Mobile phone? Xbox. Tablet? Xbox. Xbox console? Xbox.

The Switch doesn't require an internet connection for this. Inputs from the joy-cons travel inches, not miles. Your games are on local storage or nifty physical carts, not behind an account sign-in. And it doesn't drain the battery on your phone, which you might need for other things.

And here (and your closing sentence) highlights exactly how I think Nintendo will tackle cloud gaming: handhelds. They're uncontested in that space and will remain that way for quite some time because the install base is simply too much for anyone to handle. It's why Microsoft never bothered, and why Sony ultimately failed. I've always said to myself that Sony was a little too arrogant with the PSP and PS Vita venture.

When you're competing with a body that can literally sell the same handheld in a different color by the millions, you need to pack it up and move on. You're not penetrating that.

 

[IngRobNy]

well, I'm a nerd anyway so of course I'd have a passing interest in it.

So am I, I don't fear technology we have now or future technology (although streaming music in MP3 and such is not good as analog master tapes to vinyl, so that was together with CD's a step down in quality in my opinion at least when you play it back in a proper HIFI system and not listen to it through you phone etc.), but game streaming as the only option is scaring the crap out of me.