-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
(CNET) Phil Spencer: Project Scarlett likely isn't the last console. Best way to play games is on local device.
- Thread starter Khrol
- Start date
Phil is going to keep saying this until people stop needing to hear it whether he believes it or not.
He is absolutely right. Regardless of advances in streaming technology in the next 5-10 years, nothing beats having the hardware in front of you and playing locally. I fully expect that this upcoming PS5/Scarlett/Next Nintendo will most certainly not be the last hardware generation.
He's said this from day 1, he been very consistent on this, he knows its all about local gaming. You cant just change your generational roadmap based on whats sounds trendy, the teams have been given mandates, and technology is built around that.
Dedicated hardware isn't going away anytime soon, as we're a long way from having accessible, stable, quick, unlimited and not overly expensive high speed Internet available to everyone - and even then we're not counting mods and such. Streaming is definitely a future but not the only one, one I'm excited to explore but as a side activity, to bring with myself what I play at home on my console on the go, in a lunch break at work, on a commute, etc.. It's gonna be fun.
What exactly are you trying to say here? I think he's been saying something like this for awhile. Streaming isn't a replacement.
People don't like to hear this but streaming games will NEVER be the primary or best way to play, not unless someone develops faster-than-light communication.
It's not like music or movies at all, games are interactive. Response time and latency matters. Ping and jitter and packet loss all matter a lot. There will never be a perfect solution to game streaming, there will always be input lag and artifacting issues.
OP
OP
I think enthusiasts naturally feel threatened so I understand the concern. But you're right; streaming isn't meant to be a replacement. It's meant to pull in new consumers and enhance the experience by offering more flexibility.
Phil Spencer: "It would be nice to buy a Japanese studio"
It was always destined to be Xbox's E3.Unimpeded by its biggest competitor for the first time in its history, Microsoft…
www.gamesindustry.biz
I mean, if we assume that those games are actually ready, then yes, that would be good for 2020. For 2021 and 2022 however, not so much. Hugely unrealistic to expect MS to do more than a handful of first party games a year.
OP
OP
Phil Spencer: "It would be nice to buy a Japanese studio"
It was always destined to be Xbox's E3.Unimpeded by its biggest competitor for the first time in its history, Microsoft…
This is an even better quote.
Their current goal is 4 a year, 1 per quarter.
Streaming is for the convenience not for the fidelity and this applies to all streaming services.
I have no idea what this statement even implies. If he keeps saying it, it means we can continue expecting local devices from them. And when they stop selling, of course he'll stop believing in it and we'll stop getting them.
Till infrastructure is upgraded everywhere game streaming services are still going to be niche markets. I think the software and hardware technologies behind them are fantastic and some games are extremely playable via streaming, but games that require precise timings for inputs and require low latency to be competitive just aren't realistic at this time for a vast majority of people.
I feel like the only thing Microsoft hasn't made clear is whether adoption of the One X is a good idea this late in 2019 (or at all).
It sounds like the next Xbox is going to be a lot more powerful and it's only a year and a half away. I could, in the meantime, enjoy Game Pass for PC and get a lot out of that money. But there are plenty of games my PC can't handle and that makes a cheaper-than-PC alternative viable for me considering how infrequent my purchase of AAA games is... so do I go ahead with the One X and assume future games will work on it just fine? Or do I hold off, play the PC games I can, and dive in with the next system?
Or, third option, do I just buy a PC and tell myself most of the Xbox games are going to be available there anyway?
Microsoft is giving us a lot of options and I feel like that's a good thing, but the model is unfamiliar enough that I'm having a hard time deciding whether or not an Xbox-subscribed PC is really the best choice because I can upgrade it and not have to buy a new system every time I want better performance for newer games.
Where's the advantage in buying the console besides saving a little money in the short term?
It sounds like the next Xbox is going to be a lot more powerful and it's only a year and a half away. I could, in the meantime, enjoy Game Pass for PC and get a lot out of that money. But there are plenty of games my PC can't handle and that makes a cheaper-than-PC alternative viable for me considering how infrequent my purchase of AAA games is... so do I go ahead with the One X and assume future games will work on it just fine? Or do I hold off, play the PC games I can, and dive in with the next system?
Or, third option, do I just buy a PC and tell myself most of the Xbox games are going to be available there anyway?
Microsoft is giving us a lot of options and I feel like that's a good thing, but the model is unfamiliar enough that I'm having a hard time deciding whether or not an Xbox-subscribed PC is really the best choice because I can upgrade it and not have to buy a new system every time I want better performance for newer games.
Where's the advantage in buying the console besides saving a little money in the short term?
I was legit typing something similar to this out.
Until infrastructure and speeds increase globally, Streaming games to your TV will always be niche.
Yeah, in one thread there's he saying that sell consoles is not the most important thing for microsoft and in this he says that consoles are the best way to play. lol
I really don't understand how people gives so much attention for what he says, as so many other said here he will always say what the person that's asking the question wants to hear. For me it's all marketing bullshit most of the time.
well in fairness it is his job really. But yes most of these corporate types take what they say with some salt.
Amen. Stadia may well be a wonderful thing for lots and lots of people, but it's not at all the same as a home console.
My point is he could believe in an all digital streaming future deep down but would never express it because gamers are ultimately luddites and would flip out at the mention of it.
Some people feel the same way about steaming as some feel about VR; that it'll replace traditional gaming as a whole. However, that won't be the case for a while. All forms of gaming will co-exist but none can really replace the other yet.
The mainline new machines will likely still have optical drives and people predicted the end of that ages ago. People predict the end of technology too early. There's still going to be enough people buying physical and playing locally to keep these things around.
He really comes off as he if he doesn't believe in the technology himself. If he's not bought in as if xcloud is an equal alternative to console gaming, why should we?
Thanks to the laws of physics, the lowest latency will also be on local systems. If you want the best quality for something, it's got to be local, there is not nor will there ever be a way around that.
I'm really glad that he's a gamer, and he "gets it," and that MS is on board for traditional console gaming because they realize that's what traditional console gamers want.
Over the last 10 years, we saw 3D being sold as the "next big thing," and then we watched it come and go. We saw this generation's VR launch mostly to collective shrugs; it is still just a small niche. Not a single AAA developer has actually gone all in on it; gamers have noticed, and few of them care all that much. It was hardly the "next big thing." And now streaming is being positioned as "the next big thing," which it is not. I'm happy that Xbox as a brand has mostly ignored all of these fads and focused more on the games and entertainment that the masses actually consume on a daily basis. I hope that console streaming/xCloud turns out to be a nice way to access your game library remotely when you're traveling, and nothing more...definitely not a focal point of the business.
I'm sure we'll see a lot of posts like this over the next 12-24 months. And then we'll forget about streaming, and we'll all move on.
Over the last 10 years, we saw 3D being sold as the "next big thing," and then we watched it come and go. We saw this generation's VR launch mostly to collective shrugs; it is still just a small niche. Not a single AAA developer has actually gone all in on it; gamers have noticed, and few of them care all that much. It was hardly the "next big thing." And now streaming is being positioned as "the next big thing," which it is not. I'm happy that Xbox as a brand has mostly ignored all of these fads and focused more on the games and entertainment that the masses actually consume on a daily basis. I hope that console streaming/xCloud turns out to be a nice way to access your game library remotely when you're traveling, and nothing more...definitely not a focal point of the business.
I'm sure we'll see a lot of posts like this over the next 12-24 months. And then we'll forget about streaming, and we'll all move on.
Not what he said, is this a deliberate distortion or did you not read what he said?
- Xbox local is the best way to play games, thats his statement
- Streaming is an option if you want, but it will not deliver the same quality as local.
Its not hard to understand, he's quite clear actually.
Hardware does matter but isn't the main goal of their business.
1. Sub to MS gaming services (or buy individual games digitally through MS/partner online stores)
2. Download games from the service/store to MS console (or Windows PC) [this is the preferred method he's most likely speaking of, when he says local device; sure, you can still buy physical discs too, but that is no longer the business focus; max performance will naturally be on local hardware installation]
3. ALT - Stream to MS console or Windows PC or smartphone or tablet or smart TV [this is the alternative gaming solution they are promoting/working on, in lieu of a dedicated local gaming console and physical discs]
OP
OP
What? He's clearly bought in. He's constantly using it and has mentioned times where he's used it while he was in Japan and Africa. He understands that it's not the best way to play, local is.
That's not what he said. Also that would lead to almost no first party games in 2021-2023.
I don't really think there's any inherent contradiction. Both can serve a role simultaneously. And furthermore as long as one isn't pitched as a replacement for the other they can co-exist. The pitch of cloud gaming is not needing to buy expensive hardware. It's not something I myself am very excited about, but I get it. Stadia may be all in on selling their product as being just as good if not better than the hardware being in your living room because they're only selling a cloud product (for now at least), but Microsoft is trying to exist in both places. They don't need to convince you that xcloud is just as good as buying a Scarlet. They just need to convince you that xcloud is worthwhile enough if you don't want to spend the money on Scarlet. Conversely, if you're undecided on whether you value performance or convenience but skew towards the former, it's their job to convince you that the investment in Scarlet is worth it.
As Sony uses azure. Ms will probably get a cut of psplus or psnow revenue. Also Microsoft is giving gamers so many choices in how to buy and play their games and where to play them. It's all about maximizing opportunities. Game pass will be a monster next gen as word of mouth continues to spread.