Sony has NEVER been an innovator or a leader in the console space. They are really good at marketing and making their stuff look cool.
Sony has NEVER been an innovator or a leader in the console space. They are really good at marketing and making their stuff look cool.
My understanding is they will offer remote play style functionality for Game Pass subscribers, but there will also be a separate service competing with Stadia?
My understanding is they will offer remote play style functionality for Game Pass subscribers, but there will also be a separate service competing with Stadia?
Sony has NEVER been an innovator or a leader in the console space. They are really good at marketing and making their stuff look cool.
Right that's what the article I read cited. The other vague thing is if you will need Game Pass to use your Xbox as a server. In which case Microsoft will be charging gamers for functionality that has been free on the PS4 since 2013.I dont think anything has been officially announced. But rumors are that if you dont use your own xbox as the streaming device, youd have to pay for xcloud since youd be using their cloud xboxes.
Right that's what the article I read cited. The other vague thing is if you will need Game Pass to use your Xbox as a server. In which case Microsoft will be charging gamers for functionality that has been free on the PS4 since 2013.
I doubt they will be comparable.So the answer is 'gamepass'? Because that's really the coal that is keeping the Xbox train running at this point.
I doubt it's going to be the big differentiator for long seeing how Sony is all-in on PS Now. They'll likely end up as very comparable services.
See this is the problem with the Game Pass vs xcloud proposition though. Game Pass is designed for people who already own an Xbox, and already own a lot of games. If Microsoft wants to offer game streaming to people who don't own any console, they're going to have to license a lot more titles. Stadia will no doubt have every title under the sun. PS Now is better poised to offer more titles (and compete with Stadia), because Sony can offer downloads to subscribers who decide to buy a PS4. Their whole user base will consolidated under one umbrella, vs having "casuals" vs "hardcore" gamers pushing against one another.I would assume that one of those options would be through gamepass but lets say on an iphone. It allows them to get customers that dont own an xbox at all that way. So yes, thats a safe bet that it will happen.
But they said that if you use your home xbox as the server, its supposedly free.
The free service part of Xcloud is basically just Remote Play. The paid portion seems to be more like PlaystationNow is currently. The question is will they bundle xcloud with gamepass or make it a separate sub from everything else.I dont think anything has been officially announced. But rumors are that if you dont use your own xbox as the streaming device, youd have to pay for xcloud since youd be using their cloud xboxes.
edit: there will be 2 ways to stream: Using xcloud to MSs xboxes, or xcloud to your home xbox. Home xbox as the server would be free.
This might be my favorite tweet he's posted yet.
DOMINATING the conversation. Yes, just look at all the Xbox Scarlet discussion going on all around the internet. Microsoft isn't silent at all. Only Sony.
This is all so transparent.
No, the article isn't. Layoffs to creative / marketing departments aren't really indicative of trouble at Sony. If this was studio closures or something else, sure I'd be more "concerned". Yes, it sucks that people are out of a job, but let's not forget that this is dozens of people. That could be 24 people. It could be 99 people.
Sony not telling SIEE that they're announcing the PS5 isn't wild either. Information control in a big corporation about to announce their biggest endeavor leading into a new generation is literally as normal as it gets.
See this is the problem with the Game Pass vs xcloud proposition though. Game Pass is designed for people who already own an Xbox, and already own a lot of games. If Microsoft wants to offer game streaming to people who don't own any console, they're going to have to license a lot more titles. Stadia will no doubt have every title under the sun. PS Now is better poised to offer more titles (and compete with Stadia), because Sony can offer downloads to subscribers who decide to buy a PS4. Their whole user base will consolidated under one umbrella, vs having "casuals" vs "hardcore" gamers pushing against one another.
The free service part of Xcloud is basically just Remote Play. The paid portion seems to be more like PlaystationNow is currently. The question is will they bundle xcloud with gamepass or make it a separate sub from everything else.
Eye toy in motion controls(2003)
Moves (they shared a presentation for early move technology before 2000)
psp's remote play
First console VR with a design that the others follow now.
These are some of them
I will not talk about software, because there is a huge difference.
Technically it's not complicated. Like I was saying, the challenge is the subscription model. So they're already charging GamePass users a lot of money without giving them access to streaming from a server. So if you only have to pay $60/year for PS Now, you get a big library of games, and you get every game via server farms, it's a far superior value proposition. Assuming they discontinue or substantially reduce the cost of PS Plus, Sony will be able to consolidate more revenue around adding games to PS Now.Its not that complicated to bundle both if the cloud servers are themselves Xboxes. if it's available on gamepass, I don't see what's so complicated about including that service through xcloud.
I'm guessing to some ppl last gen never happened.PS didn't give a shit about cross-play with Xbox or Nintendo, well that's not accurate they straight up don't want to, so they probably give a shit. They were doing cross-play with others before the gen even started and the only thing the forced them to change was locking Fortnite accounts, as they had full cross-play and progression for that game from the get go and anyone who took advantage was getting fucked when they opened it up to XB1 and Switch.
Is this what shit posting looks like? Everything I've read recently indicates that Sony's VR headset is the most successful enthusiast VR platform. It's sold through 4.2 million units as of March this year. What are you even talking about lol
Technically it's not complicated. Like I was saying, the challenge is the subscription model. So they're already charging GamePass users a lot of money without giving them access to streaming from a server. So if you only have to pay $60/year for PS Now, you get a big library of games, and you get every game via server farms, it's a far superior value proposition. Assuming they discontinue or substantially reduce the cost of PS Plus, Sony will be able to consolidate more revenue around adding games to PS Now.
Not really seeing the thing about the layoffs as the real point either. Point is that Sony isnt clear at all on what it wants to achieve and what it will be offering next gen. That's the whole issue here.
But go ahead and reply with a defensive statement about why they do have a message or better yet why they dont need one!
Is this what shit posting looks like? Everything I've read recently indicates that Sony's VR headset is the most successful enthusiast VR platform. It's sold through 4.2 million units as of March this year. What are you even talking about lol
Right, I agree. You will subscribe to Netflix if you want to watch House of Cards. You will subscribe to Hulu if you want to watch Handmaid's Tale. But what Microsoft is proposing is selling a streaming version of Gears of War to people who don't own Xboxes. And selling a local version of Gears of War to people who do own Xboxes. They're not offering different content with different subscription services. They offering the same content with different delivery systems, each with their own fee attached.ya but that's the same difference between any services. Will psnow include day1 releases of all 1st party games?
depending on what you wanna play, you'll sub to multiple services just like movie streaming is now.
Being the largest platform and early supporter of a fledgling technology IS innovation, bro. Like, how is it not? LmaoI'm talking about innovation. You appear to be talking about sales numbers. I can see where you got confused.
The eye toy was nothing new. Those types of games existed in the early 90s. Hell, Nick Arcade build a whole gameshow around them. Dreamcast also had a camera addon. And crucially, the eyetoy SUCKED. Like take everything bad about kinect and make it worse. EVERYONE played around with motion control tech before the wii. There were motion sensing addons for the dreamcast and even the n64 and ps1. Hell microsoft released a motion controller in 1998. Again, sony didn't do anything significant with Motion controls until a week before e3 06 when they wanted to steal the wii's thunder. And don't get me started on the power glove and sega activator.
"First console VR" is such an overly narrow superlative that I feel like you have to be aware of how low in the barrell you are scraping. VR already existed. There were multiple VR formats. PSVR didn't change anything or evolve VR in any respect. It was just the sony branded version of it. By all accounts it is the least impressive of the main VR solutions as a result of being tethered to a console instead of a gaming PC. Simply coming up with a thing is not enough to be innovative. You actually have to figure out how to make it work.
Remote play? I'll give you that one. Neat concept. Like a really early prototype for modern streaming services.
Now match that 1 peripheral function against nintendo inventing like 90% of modern controller functions as well as the game mechanics that would use said functions, and Msoft doing effectively all the heavy lifting for creating online gaming on consoles, with their efforts proving so influential they doubled back and became standard features on PC as well. Take away those two and the vast majority of how we play games today vanishes. Take away sony and we might get some different looking analogs or face button clusters. Almost certainly a big change in how games are marketed. But in terms of their creation and use? Very little changes.
Right, I agree. You will subscribe to Netflix if you want to watch House of Cards. You will subscribe to Hulu if you want to watch Handmaid's Tale. But what Microsoft is proposing is selling a streaming version of Gears of War to people who don't own Xboxes. And selling a local version of Gears of War to people who do own Xboxes. Both through a subscription service. Then there's the fact that funneling your first party titles into a subscription is problematic unto itself. How will that affect quality of the content? Are you really going to be able to finance multiple AAA, generation defining experiences for $10 a month?
Who's aware of what scenario?well considering that gears5 right now is being played by a bunch of people who play on gamepass and didnt pay for the game, I'd say they are fully aware of this scenario.
Right, I agree. You will subscribe to Netflix if you want to watch House of Cards. You will subscribe to Hulu if you want to watch Handmaid's Tale. But what Microsoft is proposing is selling a streaming version of Gears of War to people who don't own Xboxes. And selling a local version of Gears of War to people who do own Xboxes. They're not offering different content with different subscription services. They offering the same content with different delivery systems, each with their own fee attached.
Then there's the fact that funneling your first party titles into a subscription is problematic unto itself. How will that affect quality of the content? Are you really going to be able to finance multiple AAA, generation defining experiences for $10 a month? Theoretically you could do a tiered model, where you get premium games day of release for $20/month, but you still need to offer streaming and downloading on the same subscription. And then you're threatening to piss off your user base, when a AAA game comes out and it's anything but a 10/10 classic title.
We are talking about consoles. In the console space is an innovative movement you like it or not. When it was out it had the less screen door effect and the best design for at least 2 times lower entry price than the headsets you suggest.I'm talking about innovation. You appear to be talking about sales numbers. I can see where you got confused.
Sony has NEVER been an innovator or a leader in the console space. They are really good at marketing and making their stuff look cool. But they've never been the ones pushing boundaries. Or making new concepts work.
Yet their output this generation has been so paltry. I think Sony took the right tack by pushing indies through PS Plus, and then saving big titles as $60 releases. I'm in the position where I want AAA games to get bigger, not lesser. Adapting FFVII over multiple $60 releases is closer to the right tack than trying to fit multiple entire games into one fee.I mean, the quality of their titles hasn't gotten worse. Gears 5 was ambitious as hell and more content rich than most games.
Well actually Netflix is deeply in debt. Their content quality has decreased precipitously over the past few years. They used to be at HBO quality. Now they're at like, CW quality for much of their content. And finally, games aren't movies/shows. Completely different investment in terms of time and money. We all know how technically demanding it is to construct a new game, vs shooting a film in a few months.Microsoft, who else? Netflix don't make you buy movies or a box to play it's movies on, and yet they still manage to make more than enough profit to create original content on a monthly basis. MS are still selling games and consoles, game pass and xcloud are additive to this.
Im not sure what part of this confuses you.
Let's go with your logic even if I disagree completely. So MS was not innovating with any Xbox at all. Because everything already existed(you also spoke about devices outside gaming divisions arcade etc, ). You were wrong. Thanks :)
Either way, your post is full of nonsense and I don't know from where to begin. You said for example ''there was a Dreamcast camera'' and in fact the camera was used only for webcam/digital still camera. On the other hand, you praise Microsoft for online gaming when Dreacmast was the innovator...
ok I get it as I said ;)
Well actually Netflix is deeply in debt. Their content quality has decreased precipitously over the past few years. They used to be at HBO quality. Now they're at like, CW quality for much of their content. And finally, games aren't movies/shows. Completely different investment in terms of time and money. We all know how technically demanding it is to construct a new game, vs shooting a film in a few months.
I mean, I think internet infrastructure is greater barrier to entry than accessing a consumer product like a game console for most people. Microsoft's theory behind their structuring of xCloud separate from GamePass, is more to capture a "casual" audience that finds game consoles unseamly. It's about marketing, and revenue streams, not about growing the Xbox platform itself. Again, if someone buys xCloud for Stadia like service, GamePass is a competing value proposition, not a complimentary one. It won't draw them into Xbox. It will make them an alternative audience that pays money to Microsoft.The point is everything Microsoft is doing now is to help the brand grow. If you can have access to consumers in countries that don't have the option of buying an Xbox or gaming pc, then that helps them grow. If they can download an app on the phone and play Xbox games, that helps them grow.
They might not make a ton of money off gamepass and xcloud the first few years, but with new ideas most companies don't. You need to grow the market first. That's where we're at now.
And Microsoft will go through ups and downs just like Sony has and everyone else.
This might be my favorite tweet he's posted yet.
DOMINATING the conversation. Yes, just look at all the Xbox Scarlet discussion going on all around the internet. Microsoft isn't silent at all. Only Sony.
This is all so transparent.
Unless Sony offers all of its 1st party titles day one, then no they are not comparable.So the answer is 'gamepass'? Because that's really the coal that is keeping the Xbox train running at this point.
I doubt it's going to be the big differentiator for long seeing how Sony is all-in on PS Now. They'll likely end up as very comparable services.
This guy is nowhere near as bad as that awful hipster woman from Engadget, and her multiple articles justifying Xbone's "always online" plan.This tweet is kind of weird. Maybe I'm not understanding the full context but this sounds like something I would say if I'm caught making a bad argument and I try to shift the definition of the word so I don't have to give up being right but also I'm coming across more softly committed to it than I originally seemed.
Unless Sony offers all of its 1st party titles day one, then no they are not comparable.
My understanding is they will offer remote play style functionality for Game Pass subscribers, but there will also be a separate service competing with Stadia?