Engadget: Xbox is fighting Google, not Playstation

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I think it will be more, a streaming sub & a few other subs which covers off 90% of the games coming out (which you can cancel if certain subs don't have new content out for a few months and you've completed the other games). Googles initial pricing I agree is awful, but this is only the start.

Click to shrink...

What I mentioned is really the bare minimum, sure.

Lots of people like to conflate Netflix like subs with streaming, but that's incorrect, as its exclusive to neither.

Thus, for a straight comparison of the value proposition between streaming and traditional hardware, the baseline sub. vs upfront hardware cost forms the main basis.

 

[Voytek]

The future of gaming sounds rather shitty to be honest.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

The future of gaming sounds rather shitty to be honest.

Click to shrink...

Nah, classic console business , streaming & subscription services like GamePass and PSNow will co-exist in the forseeable future. Players will have new choices, and maybe that's a good thing.

 

[ClarkusDarkus]

The future of gaming sounds rather shitty to be honest.

Click to shrink...

Nothing but subscriptions, Subscriptions everywhere with the luxury of paying for 4K being streamed on Stadia.........And it's Live!

Want Ubisoft's subscription and 4K stadia, £25 a month please.

 

[MXT]

But so far streaming doesn't really adress anyone. It isn't an option for people who care about quality and it certainly isn't an option for people on a tight budget because unlike the marketing likes to claim, the barrier of entry is higher than just putting a box under your TV.

And according to Mat from NPD market research tells us the exact opposite of what you are claiming here.

The undiscovered market streaming is supposed to cater to simply doesn't exist.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, all of this is wrong. As we've already gone over, 25mbps isn't a huge barrier. The 'care about quality' bit is nonsense as well. I don't know what NPD study you are referring to, but it sounds to me like they asked the wrong questions I'd they didn't arrive at the same place that others did.

 

[MXT]

The number of addressable people with decent internet is probably higher than the number of people that own a console. Fair enough.

But is the number of addressable people with decent internet and that want to play new console games, larger than the number of people that own a console?

Click to shrink...

Yes.

 

[thebishop]

Did you guys listen to Jeff Gerstmann's interview with Phil? It sounded very clear their main focus is still the physical box.

Click to shrink...

Yeah between that interview and the verge comparison, it sounds like XCloud is in a proof of concept phase rather than a "productization" phase. Phil seemed surprised Stadia was ready to go with a pre-order bundle and a business plan, etc.

 

[fiendcode]

You honestly think most gamers are using digital services to procure their titles?

Click to shrink...

Without question. Consoles are nearing 50% digital in major markets now, plus PC and mobile are basically all digital.

I wouldn't say physical media is niche per se, but it's definitely the minority delivery method in 2019 and it's going to shrink further in the coming years.

 

[MXT]

Can you post this research? Because there was a thread over the weekend that showed over 50% of the market didn't play console games simply because they don't want to and only 10% said cost was a barrier.

Also earlier you stated you believe in Stadia and Xcloud because they had demos at E3 and Sony didn't. Why would Sony need to demo PSNow?

Click to shrink...

I don't know If it's public. I'll look into it.

Second generation PS Now would have to be demoed. The current PS Now product is not competitive, it is not a next gen streaming product with impressive hacks to address input latency, with 4K support, with a business model that allows a consumer to buy a game for $60 and play it with no subscription required.

 

[khamakazee]

The future of gaming sounds rather shitty to be honest.

Click to shrink...

Sure, only if you want to take a narrow approcah on it. Microsoft already stated the best way to play is local hardware. It's called options but some of you seem so apprehensive with streaming as an option you are contantly opposed to it.

 

[reKon]

One thing has always remained consistent ever when it's comes to consoles. Content is king (applies to TV streaming subscriptions as well). Pricing is very important.

Take that as you will

 

[MilesQ]

The future of gaming sounds rather shitty to be honest.

Click to shrink...

Nah, hardware will still be a thing for a very long time.

Although I do feel sorry for those who live in countries that have data caps and garbage speeds, because even with hardware, we're going to see some crazy download sizes next gen.

I miss the days when I could download patches in seconds on the 360.

 

[TheGhost]

They might be fighting, but it's not for first place.

Click to shrink...

Traditional consoles will eventually die, this is a fight for the future real estate.

It's like fighting for a dying planet when you have a the tech needed to colonize other world's.

Sony teamed up with Micrsoft, they knew whatship will win the war eventuallyagaindt Google.

 

[Voytek]

Sure, only if you want to take a narrow approcah on it. Microsoft already stated the best way to play is local hardware. It's called options but some of you seem so apprehensive with streaming as an option you are contantly opposed to it.

Click to shrink...

Options huh? Yeah that would be nice. But funny that when I see people talking about this grand streaming/sub future they rarely want to include other options but instead just proclaim them as being dead. So which is it? Will streaming just be another option or is it the inevitable future were all others will die?

 

[MXT]

Options huh? Yeah that would be nice. But funny that when I see people talking about this grand streaming/sub future they rarely want to include other options but instead just proclaim them as being dead. So which is it? Will streaming just be another option or is it the inevitable future were all others will die?

Click to shrink...

While I hate to use this kind of terminology, I can't think of a better way to say it: the market will decide. Enthusiasts are a tiny, tiny portion of the market.

 

[Yerffej]

You vastly overestimate the value and importance of services like Gamespass or Stadia. Video games are not movies/tv. A "Netflix" like model is not going to work in the long run, thats not what consumers want.

Click to shrink...

lol this sentiment wil age very poorly.

 

[Drop Dead Ken]

Isn't everyone basically competing for the same thing? Consumer's time. Xbox, PS4, Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc. They all want the same thing.

 

[TheModestGun]

I think this take is really fucking silly.

They talk about the download sizes and updates, but they somehow fail to mention the massive amounts of data that will be used for video streaming. Streaming games will use more data than one time download ever will

Not to mention, this gen and what's currently happening sales wise makes it very clear that people still have a hunger for a full featured home experience.

Edit: that's not to say that streaming doesn't have a future; but for the time being it will be a complimentary service. Not a replacement. There are too many caveats still to just totally uproot home console and PC solutions.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

Let's forget about prospective libraries for a second and just talk about the service.

It always astounds me all the takes that say "Microsoft has a lead compared to Google and Sony in the streaming space."

Sony already has a live product.
Google is launching this year.
Microsoft committed to a beta this year.

What the what? Like whatever you think of either PS Now and Stadia, some of the public has had access to both of them (lesser in Stadia's Project Stream). It's frustrating and quite a bit disingenuous to produce takes like this.

 

[TheModestGun]

Let's forget about prospective libraries for a second and just talk about the service.

It always astounds me all the takes that say "Microsoft has a lead compared to Google and Sony in the streaming space."

Sony already has a live product.
Google is launching this year.
Microsoft committed to a beta this year.

What the what? Like whatever you think of either PS Now and Stadia, some of the public has had access to both of them (lesser in Stadia's Project Stream). It's frustrating and quite a bit disingenuous to produce takes like this.

Click to shrink...

I still don't understand why people think that PSNow isn't a viable service long term. Surely people realize that Sony isn't going to be asleep at the wheel. I guarantee there will be upgrades that keep it competitive with Stadia and Xcloud.

They've been the only game in town up until this point though, so there hasn't been a need to change it too much.

 

[DigSCCP]

It´s going to be a funny scenario if Playstation takes over the streaming market when it becomes a real thing.
And honestly anyone thinking that this is not posible is completely out of their minds.

 

[xabbott]

I still don't understand why people think that PSNow isn't a viable service long term. Surely people realize that Sony isn't going to be asleep at the wheel. I guarantee there will be upgrades that keep it competitive with Stadia and Xcloud.

They've been the only game in town up until this point though, so there hasn't been a need to change it too much.

Click to shrink...

As someone who has had PSNow for awhile Sony biggest addition has been adding downloads. They haven't improved streaming quality or experience so that's why saying they will improve it is hard to accept.

It´s going to be a funny scenario if Playstation takes over the streaming market when it becomes a real thing.
And honestly anyone thinking that this is not posible is completely out of their minds.

Click to shrink...

Sony doesn't have a good incentive to "take over" streaming as long as they want to sell consoles and games first. That's why the library and stream quality have been lacking.

 

[Kerotan]

Yeah MS are no longer trying to compete with Sony because after 3 gens two of which they went all out they just couldn't do it. Sony and Nintendo despite the disruption are still the console Kings. It's wise of MS to reposition themselves and target elsewhere.


I'm sure in 10 years when streaming has a bigger market share they'll cross paths again but until then Sony are going to make bank off traditional consoles.

It´s going to be a funny scenario if Playstation takes over the streaming market when it becomes a real thing.
And honestly anyone thinking that this is not posible is completely out of their minds.

Click to shrink...

Yeah and because games are what matter we all know they will. They already have PS NOW which can stream almost 800 games and 250 to download. When this service is fully realised and when the time comes for Sony to put their first party on it they will take over the streaming market.

 

[Bradbatross]

Netflix's primary benfit isn't convenience AT ALL.... it's cost.

The service offers so much TV and movie content at a mere fraction of thw cost of traditional TV services.

E.g. here in the UK if you want Satelite TV you have Sky at around £40 for the basic package. Then if you want movies its an extra £10, HD channels an extra £10 on top... so it's a no brainer that Netflix wins out when they charge essentially £7 per month for everything.

Game Streaming services will charge you a sub for the privilege of using your own internet connection and then you'll need to buy each game for $60, with no access to a used games market to pressure pubs into reducing game prices over time.

To equate game streaming to Netflix is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to why Netflix is so successful in the first place.

Click to shrink...

You can't equate game streaming alone to Netflix, but Xcloud x Game Pass will offer all the same benefits that Netflix does. Convenience, wide variety of content, tons of value.

Yeah MS are no longer trying to compete with Sony because after 3 gens two of which they went all out they just couldn't do it. Sony and Nintendo despite the disruption are still the console Kings. It's wise of MS to reposition themselves and target elsewhere.


I'm sure in 10 years when streaming has a bigger market share they'll cross paths again but until then Sony are going to make bank off traditional consoles.

Click to shrink...

MS couldn't compete with Sony last gen? Sony would be smart to follow MS in targeting a much larger audience than just console gamers.

 

[Imitation Of Life]

Netflix spends way more on movies than most video games cost to make. Bright was like $90MM.

Cloud gaming is going to be the dominant form of core gaming in 3-5 years.

Click to shrink...

No it won't.

 

[The Bookerman]

Ugh not this again. Trying to reframe the argument to make it look better for Xbox? Nope, Sony is still the main competition.

Click to shrink...

Playstation Now is completly irrelevant to her. that's my biggest issue.

 

[riotous]

I really think there's too much "this is the future" going on and not enough curiosity about whether or not the entire thing is going to work. Both for consumers, and for the businesses involved I think there are still huge question marks.

It reminds me of the early dot-com boom days; huge expensive projects with technology that isn't proven to be wanted nor profitable.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

I still don't understand why people think that PSNow isn't a viable service long term. Surely people realize that Sony isn't going to be asleep at the wheel. I guarantee there will be upgrades that keep it competitive with Stadia and Xcloud.

They've been the only game in town up until this point though, so there hasn't been a need to change it too much.

Click to shrink...

And Playstation have put people specifically in charge of researching how best to combine their different entertainment properties (movies, music, games, TV etc) for next Gen too so i can see PS Now changing dramatically and increasing its value a lot, especially compared to its competitors.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

Sony doesn't have a good incentive to "take over" streaming as long as they want to sell consoles and games first. That's why the library and stream quality have been lacking.

Click to shrink...

And yet they were the first of the major console manufacturers or publishers to come to streaming.

 

[Jom]

American tech media loves Google and MS.

 

[Mcfrank]

What I'm saying is there is a massive portion of the world where internet speeds necessary for streaming just aren't there and won't be for quite some time. Those people will require and embrace the traditional model of playing off of a local device instead of streaming.

For people who do live in areas with sufficient internet speeds, well the market will decide which options they prefer. We can only guess at what will happen and my guess is streaming will find its place during next gen but the majrotiy will still prefer to play locally.

Click to shrink...

This argument isn't working so well for blockbuster.

 

[Kemono]

People really seem to forget that game-streaming has entirely different problems than movie-streaming.

Even if the bandwith isn't the problem with gaming there can't ever be a single second of downtime for streaming to work as intended. Movies buffer the next vew seconds/minutes so that even if the connection is down for a few seconds here and there the user isn't even aware of this.

With gaming this is not possible. Every single image has to be rendered in the cloud and has to travel to the consumer as fast as possible. There's no technology that can help with that. The hardware can never predict to 100% what you're going to do in the game and therefore the service can't buffer anything.

This technology sounds good on paper but is completely different to movie-streaming.

Maybe someday when the isps can guarantee a 99.9% perfect minimum speed but until then this whole thing is nothing more than new tech dragged out into the wild before it's ready.

 

[Deleted member 18379]

If streaming takes off in a big way, I think what you will see is companies leaving Stadia/Xbox/PSNow left and right to pursue their own services. Want to stream Bethesda games. Well you better subscribe to the BGS. Want to stream Anthem 2? Well EAStreams is going to be opening with a 10 dollar a month subscription fee. This is what is happening with television, I don't see why it wouldn't happen with gaming as well. As always it's worth remembering that even after years of offering affordable streaming services, apps like Netflix and Spotify still haven't killed off physical media for either of their respective mediums. The fact that game streaming has latency that can hinder the quality of your experience in a big way and can't run on potato internet like the other two; means this conversation people are desperate to have is happening a few decades too early.

 

[Ant_17]

Lol, YEAH, suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure they are.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

This argument isn't working so well for blockbuster.

Click to shrink...

Streaming of movies and streaming of games are not equivalent. Compression algorithms on movies are different because they have finite lengths. This isn't the case with game streaming. I'm not saying we won't get there where it's as ubiquitous as Netflix but I don't think a Blockbuster comparison is apt.

 

[Funky_Monkey]

Engadget: Sony's E3 happened without you noticing.

XBox fanboys: "this is clickbait trash"

Engadget: Xbox is fighting Google, not Playstation.

PS4 fanboys: "this is clickbait trash"

 

[MXT]

If streaming takes off in a big way, I think what you will see is companies leaving Stadia/Xbox/PSNow left and right to pursue their own services. Want to stream Bethesda games. Well you better subscribe to the BGS. Want to stream Anthem 2? Well EAStreams is going to be opening with a 10 dollar a month subscription fee. This is what is happening with television, I don't see why it wouldn't happen with gaming as well. As always it's worth remembering that even after years of offering affordable streaming services, apps like Netflix and Spotify still haven't killed off physical media for either of their respective mediums. The fact that game streaming has latency that can hinder the quality of your experience in a big way and can't run on potato internet like the other two; means this conversation people are desperate to have is happening a few decades too early.

Click to shrink...

The issue that publishers will find with that idea is that Microsoft (at the very least) is going to mandate xCloud support as part of publishing for the Xbox platform. You can either publish on xCloud (business model being up to the publisher, including just offering a title for $60 and not as part of a subscription) or not on Xbox at all. Is EA going to give up FUT money to chase platform holders? I don't see it, and I don't see EA investors tolerating such an effort.

 

[DigSCCP]

Sony doesn't have a good incentive to "take over" streaming as long as they want to sell consoles and games first. That's why the library and stream quality have been lacking.

Click to shrink...

You´re right they don´t.
Not in this moment.
But they are working to be ready if/when necessary.
Others companies like Google and MS would love to be in their confortable position to have an already succesful gaming market owned while investing and waiting for the streaming future.

 

[travisbickle]

The issue that publishers will find with that idea is that Microsoft (at the very least) is going to mandate xCloud support as part of publishing for the Xbox platform. You can either publish on xCloud (business model being up to the publisher, including just offering a title for $60 and not as part of a subscription) or not on Xbox at all.

Click to shrink...

I don't see how this is going to work unless MS is going to cover all the costs of hosting/streaming the games on the servers?

 

[Mcfrank]

Streaming of movies and streaming of games are not equivalent. Compression algorithms on movies are different because they have finite lengths. This isn't the case with game streaming. I'm not saying we won't get there where it's as ubiquitous as Netflix but I don't think a Blockbuster comparison is apt.

Click to shrink...

It is very apt. Once you play a game in your browser at good enough fidelity with no perceptible lag (my experience with the project stream beta on an old ass iMac with an integrated GPU) the thought of spending 500 on a video card or new console gets really unappealing. The transition will happen fast (3-5 years) just like it did with Netflix. One day you are going to blockbuster to rent a movie, the next you have Netflix and never think about blockbuster again.

 

[MXT]

I don't see how this is going to work unless MS is going to cover all the costs of hosting the games on the servers?

Click to shrink...

MS is going to cover that. That is what platform holders do.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

It is very apt. Once you play a game in your browser at good enough fidelity with no perceptible lag (my experience with the project stream beta on an old ass iMac with an integrated GPU) the thought of spending 500 on a video card or new console gets really unappealing. The transition will happen fast (3-5 years) just like it did with Netflix. One day you are going to blockbuster to rent a movie, the next you have Netflix and never think about blockbuster again.

Click to shrink...

Yeah if I wanted to listen to someone talking at me about streaming, I'd watch that Giantbomb panel again with the Google Stadia guy. I thought we were having a discussion. You basically said "no" and continued talking like what I mentioned not only isn't relevant but not even worth addressing. Seriously what's the point?

 

[Deleted member 8752]

You vastly overestimate the value and importance of services like Gamespass or Stadia. Video games are not movies/tv. A "Netflix" like model is not going to work in the long run, thats not what consumers want.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure this is true anymore. PS Plus basically came from nowhere and established itself solely on the basis of offering a great subscription value for games in the PS3/PSP/Vita eras. It wasn't until PS4 came around that it became required for online play.

So, believe it or not, Sony sort of pioneered this trend. And it became the original basis of their most popular video game subscription service for a few years.

I actually bought a PS3 and a Vita solely due to this subscription model - and it was worth it. And how many times to you see that people say "I'll wait until it's released on PS Plus or discounted" before buying an indie game?

If Microsoft subsidizes the cost of a console with a Gamepass subscription - something similar to what they did on xbox 360 with live - I think you'll see many people going this route to be the main way they consume video games in those ecosystems.

Plus, it can benefit developers as well. It's commonly known that Rocket League would not have been nearly as successful if it didn't debut as a PS Plus title. I think GamePass is basically the same idea but beefed up.

We have already been going this way for a while. Whether streaming takes off or not, however, is anyone's guess.

 

[TheRulingRing]

Except if you pay attention all the moves Microsoft are making are against Google.

Hence MS partnering with Sony on cloud computing.

Click to shrink...

MS partnering with Sony is very different to Xbox partnering with Playstation.

 

[Mcfrank]

Yeah if I wanted to listen to someone talking at me about streaming, I'd watch that Giantbomb panel again with the Google Stadia guy. I thought we were having a discussion. You basically said "no" and continued talking like what I mentioned not only isn't relevant but not even worth addressing. Seriously what's the point?

Click to shrink...

I don't understand this pushback. You didn't exactly layout a compelling case or well reasoned argument against my post You said compression algorithms make them not comparable - customers don't give a shit about compression algorithms. They care about value and streaming will offer a better value just like Netflix did.

I have played PSNow (garbage), Project stream at home (really good), and Xcloud on a smart phone at E3 ( really good). At no point did I care about compression algorithms. Just like I don't give a shit at how Netflix is compressing video. I care that I can stream infinity war and it looks good and I didn't have to drive somewhere to rent a dvd.

 

[MXT]

Yeah if I wanted to listen to someone talking at me about streaming, I'd watch that Giantbomb panel again with the Google Stadia guy. I thought we were having a discussion. You basically said "no" and continued talking like what I mentioned not only isn't relevant but not even worth addressing. Seriously what's the point?

Click to shrink...

What you mentioned isn't really a substantive point that can be addressed. The methods of compression used in game streaming are similar to that used in 4k video content. The content not being a specific length isn't an actual thing of importance or value. It does not change how the streaming works. The game isn't compressed 'all at once' and then streamed down to you.

 

[TheModestGun]

As someone who has had PSNow for awhile Sony biggest addition has been adding downloads. They haven't improved streaming quality or experience so that's why saying they will improve it is hard to accept.


Sony doesn't have a good incentive to "take over" streaming as long as they want to sell consoles and games first. That's why the library and stream quality have been lacking.

Click to shrink...

They haven't needed to upgrade yet. They have been the only game in town. With their partnership with Microsoft, it's obvious that they are investing resources into improving the service.

 

[thebishop]

If streaming takes off in a big way, I think what you will see is companies leaving Stadia/Xbox/PSNow left and right to pursue their own services. Want to stream Bethesda games. Well you better subscribe to the BGS. Want to stream Anthem 2? Well EAStreams is going to be opening with a 10 dollar a month subscription fee. This is what is happening with television, I don't see why it wouldn't happen with gaming as well. As always it's worth remembering that even after years of offering affordable streaming services, apps like Netflix and Spotify still haven't killed off physical media for either of their respective mediums. The fact that game streaming has latency that can hinder the quality of your experience in a big way and can't run on potato internet like the other two; means this conversation people are desperate to have is happening a few decades too early.

Click to shrink...

This will probably happen eventually, but Google still has a big differentiator in Youtube. All existing cloud streaming services require some installed app. Stadia is one click away from a Youtube video.

It's not totally clear how complicated the software side of streaming is. Google is talking up all these factors they have to balance in real time using AI to deliver a smooth experience. If Google's not blowing smoke, then it could be difficult for publishers to half-ass a streaming competitor as they have done with PC digital distribution.

Using the Spotify/Netflix example to say that game streaming is "a few decades too early" is silly. Streaming doesn't have to kill consoles/pcs to become a major force in gaming. Given how many impressions of Stadia claim they noticed no difference from a local render, what level of improvement are you proposing THIRTY years from now? It sounds like they've pretty much cracked the nut already.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

I don't understand this pushback. You didn't exactly layout a compelling case or well reasoned argument against my post You said compression algorithms make them not comparable - customers don't give a shit about compression algorithms. They care about value and streaming will offer a better value just like Netflix did.

I have played PSNow (garbage), Project stream at home (really good), and Xcloud on a smart phone at E3 ( really good). At no point did I care about compression algorithms. Just like I don't give a shit at how Netflix is compressing video. I care that I can stream infinity war and it looks good and I didn't have to drive somewhere to rent a dvd.

Click to shrink...

You talked about how quickly this was going to be adopted. I'm giving you reasons why comparing it to Netflix, which people do ad nauseum, isn't a good comparison. So if there are technical reasons why the tech could be held back, they aren't worth mentioning? If these reasons make people not adopt it at the rate (you give 3 to 5 years, which I find absurd) that you're projecting, they aren't worth mentioning? Live streaming of real world events/gaming is always going to be more problematic with the speed of light limiting data transmission. There are going to be ways around it and with stuff like 5G I'm sure it will become less of an issue. But to completely discount it without even bothering to explain why is pretty lazy.

What you mentioned isn't really a substantive point that can be addressed. The methods of compression used in game streaming are similar to that used in 4k video content. The content not being a specific length isn't an actual thing of importance or value. It does not change how the streaming works. The game isn't compressed 'all at once' and then streamed down to you.

Click to shrink...

Actually it is. Netflix indeed uses compression algorithms that gaming streams cannot, because they can predict what pixels are where at what time and can compress it accordingly. This cannot be done with game streaming as the content is based on user input. To say that it's the same as 4k content is disingenuous. Not to mention you say it cannot be addressed and you indeed addressed it!

 

[MXT]

You talked about how quickly this was going to be adopted. I'm giving you reasons why comparing it to Netflix, which people do ad nauseum, isn't a good comparison. So if there are technical reasons why the tech could be held back, they aren't worth mentioning? If these reasons make people not adopt it at the rate (you give 3 to 5 years, which I find absurd) that you're projecting, they aren't worth mentioning? Live streaming of real world events/gaming is always going to be more problematic with the speed of light limiting data transmission. There are going to be ways around it and with stuff like 5G I'm sure it will become less of an issue. But to completely discount it without even bothering to explain why is pretty lazy.

Click to shrink...

You did not provide technical reasons, you listed things you misunderstand. Unless I am misreading your post, you believe that the compression algorithms differ on account of game content not being a defined, finite piece of content in the way that a movie is. That belief is completely incorrect.