• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Eeyore

User requested ban
Banned
Dec 13, 2019
9,029
You do know since you're trying pseudo science on me it's 7ms of latency per 1000 miles. You would need 17000 miles before buffering issues at 125MS would ever be an issue. Games aren't made with cloud in mind nor are they adjusted for it. cloud studies, overwatch and rollback fighters prove you can do a lot when you account for latency and build around it.

You don't need zero latency games locally have latency now ranging microseconds to just under 10 MS depending on what you're polling.

As I said in other topics I'd focus on routing than queueing but most aren't. The data center solution is pure hyperbole and not even necessary.

7 ms of latency is nothing but a number because I can give you a thousand examples of hitting various services way closer than that and having 30+ ms of latency. Real world experience matters and you basically calling me a liar for bringing up actual issues with streaming is insulting. Overwatch is an online game and so are the fighting games you're talking about. It's clear that while you have no issue insulting others, you don't feel bad about being disingenuous yourself.

I have been clear that I don't want games built solely around streaming that take away from the games we're getting today. If you have a different opinion than that fine, but that opinion on its own is not based on pseudo science nor does it lack merit.

Obviously my data center example is pure hyperbole, you have still not offered a solution to the problem however. Concentrating on routing is all well and good, but that problem is incredibly immense and involves negotiating with various ISPs, government entities, etc.
 

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
Their messaging about series of hardware, their brand in currently PC hardware which will at some point be sporting XBox branding as well. Their whole strat is service/streaming in how you consume your content. They seem keen on making it possible to play your games any way you want.

I give it less than 5 years until we see XBox branded PC/ laptop/surface when they do their summits for Windows. It runs full OS, but built in UI for xbox for Gamepass/xCloud.

That is the direction they are heading in. Anyone can see that. They don't care where you play your games has been their thing for a while.

Weird how you're detailing how Microsoft is prepping tons of options as to how you play your games, yet you claim they're 'putting all eggs in one basket'

Which is it?
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,018
Florida
lmao sure phil

google will drop stadia in a few months, such great competition

some weird things coming out of xbox leadership lately

unless he's talking specifically about cloud infrastructure, and that doesn't seem like it from the article itself

You either didn't read the article or you're hyper focused on console gaming without accounting for emerging tech.
 

MykhellMikado

Alt account
Banned
Jan 13, 2020
823
Lmao, Why does MS have to make GPUs? xCloud runs on Xbox hardware and that is readily available.
They have the games...a very large game library.
They have the network infrastructure.

I suspect you're the one in for a rude awakening if you truly expect xCloud to go the way of Stadia.
There are few companies in the world who have the kind of Server and Network infrastructure that Microsoft does on a global basis. Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are it. Definitely not Nvidia. Now I am not saying that Nvidia can't compete in this market in the long run, but they definitely don't have any built-in advantages other than one single piece of the hardware puzzle (might as well call AMD and Intel competitors). The other competitive advantage you totally ignored is the games. Nvidia relies on you buying the game on another platform (that they don't make money off of) and paying them for a service to stream the game to you. Nvidia is the middleman in one way only (streaming service). Microsoft has exclusive games, their own platform for buying games or DLC (where they get a cut of every sale), a game subscription service, plus the cloud infrastructure to back it all up.

At no point did I claim xcloud wouldnt be success or that they do not have competitive advantages. What I did say is that Phil Spencer is leaning way too heavily in their strength in cloud infrastructure, just like Google Stadia, to the point of hubris where they can't see other competitors who already exist in the market and are doing so successfully.

Regardless of what you may think there are only three major cloud gaming services on the market today and Phil is saying they aren't even competition. That Hubris, that smaller companies cannot compete against their resources, is going to hurt them the same way it hurt Stadia and the same way it's hurt them previously in other markets like Mobile and consoles.
 

Papacheeks

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,620
Watertown, NY
Weird how you're detailing how Microsoft is prepping tons of options as to how you play your games, yet you claim they're 'putting all eggs in one basket'

Which is it?

I answered you question all their eggs is into a service type platform that is not tied to specific hardware. All their eggs are into xCloud/Service for you to access either locally through your choice of device.

Putting all their developers into the gamepass/xCloud basket. Xcloud will be a feature that will be part of gamepass. WHich already encompasses XBox live and PC game access.

SO add streaming to it for 14.99 a month you get access locally or streamed of your gamepass sub.

All in one basket.

The device doesn't matter.

I prefer the specified device. And I think this move which is a enterprise pushed move is something that can bite them in the ass if it doesn't take off. And like Matt.P said in his tweet to achieve the potential consumers they are ultimately after, the games to go after those consumers are the ones that a lot of us are not interested in model wise.
 

LordBlodgett

Member
Jan 10, 2020
806
PS5 or Series X only reaching 100-150 million is the problem.
Exactly. Console gaming hasn't grown in reach for the last 20 years. Console makers have been mostly fighting for their share of the pie. Fortunately spend on gaming per user has escalated tremendously, but there is a limit to what the hardcore gamer can spend per person. Mobile gaming has exploded though, as people in every country in the world have smartphones
 

Eeyore

User requested ban
Banned
Dec 13, 2019
9,029
If only they understood how much money mobile and online gaming in general actually make. But, hey my single player game!! ( Which is funded by said online games.🤭)

People have preferences, advocating for the mobile strategy impacting the console and PC business even more is not something I'd want. No matter how sardonically you mock people like me.
 

Freakzilla

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
5,710
I remember arguing with people about hardware sales and telling them it's not about that anymore it's the cloud and it's services.
 

Livetohard378

Self-requested ban
Banned
Feb 17, 2019
175
People have preferences, advocating for the mobile strategy impacting the console and PC business even more is not something I'd want. No matter how sardonically you mock people like me.
That's just it you need people spending money their so you get the games, you want. How do you think these companies make money?

Fate Grand Order, is one of Sony's biggest games. A mobile game. Where do you think the money for God of War comes from?
 

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,736
I remember arguing with people about hardware sales and telling them it's not about that anymore it's the cloud and it's services.

For MS, obviously, it's not.

More generally, for others, hardware up til now has remained an effective way to attract and retain spending customers. The role of such hardware has been written off before prematurely. We will see with the next cycle what happens.
 

T0kenAussie

Member
Jan 15, 2020
5,100
So many people not reading the article smh.

it's about cloud delivery, Sony are already using the MS azure service.

this is the azure v aws v google cloud services discussion which will be more relevant when 5G is entrenched and not about this years console launch
 

Eeyore

User requested ban
Banned
Dec 13, 2019
9,029
That's just it you need people spending money their so you get the games, you want. How do you think these companies make money?

Fate Grand Order, is one of Sony's biggest games. A mobile game. Where do you think the money for God of War comes from?

My point isn't where the money comes from, but mocking people who don't want these experiences. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo make money in different ways, if you're going to act like Crimson Dragon needed to exist in order for Microsoft to pay for Ryse, you'd be mistaken. Rationalizing these shitty experiences for consumers because (and I'm paraphrasing) "it gets the games you do want" is simply not true. Yes, services are a bigger and bigger part of Sony and Microsoft's gaming revenue, and Nintendo is moving that way too. But if that means there are less games like Fire Emblem Three Houses and more games like Fire Emblem Heroes, count me out on gaming as a hobby going forward.

So many people not reading the article smh.

it's about cloud delivery, Sony are already using the MS azure service.

this is the azure v aws v google cloud services discussion which will be more relevant when 5G is entrenched and not about this years console launch

For PS Now? Pretty sure they haven't converted anything over and such a process will be a hard undertaking.
 

LCGeek

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,857
7 ms of latency is nothing but a number because I can give you a thousand examples of hitting various services way closer than that and having 30+ ms of latency. Real world experience matters and you basically calling me a liar for bringing up actual issues with streaming is insulting. Overwatch is an online game and so are the fighting games you're talking about. It's clear that while you have no issue insulting others, you don't feel bad about being disingenuous yourself.

I have been clear that I don't want games built solely around streaming that take away from the games we're getting today. If you have a different opinion than that fine, but that opinion on its own is not based on pseudo science nor does it lack merit.

Obviously my data center example is pure hyperbole, you have still not offered a solution to the problem however. Concentrating on routing is all well and good, but that problem is incredibly immense and involves negotiating with various ISPs, government entities, etc.

the number is the speed of light every 1000 miles in latency. Which you should know if you're gonna bring up a point about getting around the light barrier in networking.

I didn't call you a liar you can be wrong and not lying.

I am relating real world experience I'm just saying why people have crap latency that could be fixed and why more often than not it's not getting fixed or addressed properly.Whether it's a game or streaming service the packet ends up udp or tcp and how it get managed before it hits your router, how it's managed in your router and how your gateway to your isp manage it is just as vital and more so then a bad hop you may see at a data center or beyond.

You can be clear all you like doesn't remove you from having an opinion that is off or misguided.

I offered various solutions in cloud streaming topics already but here are some basics.

1. Considering it's clould I'd want the linux kernel to be up to date or at least 4.1 or higher.
2. All queueing mechanism use cake with diffserv
3. Traffic prioritity is used and built for diffserv4 or higher markings
4. Private peering for routing. Private peering literally skips most routing problems you're bringing up you'd know if you studied what vpn brings to the table.
5. Offer devices that do low latency well and aren't lip service. Most gamers will need proper aqm be it stock or custom firmware to deal with latency eventually.
6. Interrupt Coaslecing on all hosting devices would be minimum needed to keep latency in check
7. TXQueuelen on certain interfaces would need to be more than 1000 same for other settings related to how many packets are handled per interface or cycle.
8. Napi Polling would be used.

You're feelings are irrelevants to certain facts being laid out. Current infrastructure is more of joke due to software and tuning than hardware.
 

Deleted member 45460

User requested account closure
Banned
Jun 27, 2018
1,492
if you wanna call me fanboy, call me nintendo fanboy.
anyway, I use gamepass since day 1 in brazil and love the service, but let's not pretend that hardware sales don't matter.
once again that has absolutely nothing to do with this article. This article is entirely about Amazon and Google's cloud infrastructures being the main competition for Microsoft's Azure service.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,358
Yeah but what is the remaining 2.7 billion's barrier to entry? You can pick up a console for $200, which is much lower than most phones. Is it pick up and play? Mobile gaming already does that. Is it the price of games? Then Mat's tweet hits the nail on the head with F2P and MTX galore. Is it portability? You still need a controller and good wifi or strong cell speeds, plus the Switch serves this market well.


Sony said the same thing about waiting for the XB1 reveal and then did a surprise PS4 reveal first, it's a common tactic
That would mean console hardware penetration has reached its max long ago when the PS2 sold 150 million. Are we seeing overall growth in this market? Even Nintendo has shifted away from console gaming.

They think cloud gaming can reach more people, we shall see.

You are completely missing the point im making. I suggest you read to article.

Fisty

Even if MS sold 150 or 200 or 300 consoles they still aren't scratching the surface of the opportunities in this industry.

First of all, the are WAY more phones currently in the hands of consumers than consoles. So to argue the cost of buying a console vs buying a phone doesnt make sense. People already have phones and wouldn't view that hardware as an added gaming expense.

As far as xcloud, I can play at home from MS servers on my mediocre net connection with no issues. No this wont work for everyone, but it will remove barriers for others.

But that's all besides the point. They arent just talking about selling games and services to end users. They are talking about selling the services and technologies that developers use to create their games and to access their consumers, extending their reach beyond xbox gamers ... even potentially selling these services to their competition like Nintendo and Sony. So no, Matt's tweet doesnt hit the nail on the head. He isnt even talking about the same thing.


Walken it's hard to tell what the hardware market will do in the future, but I wouldn't be surprised if improving internet access and speeds starts reducing demand for console hardware.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 56069

User requested account deletion
Banned
Apr 18, 2019
271
I mean he's talking about cloud infrastructure, not direct hardware competition. With regards to that, he's absolutely correct.
 

excowboy

Member
Oct 29, 2017
692
So many people not reading the article smh.

it's about cloud delivery, Sony are already using the MS azure service.

this is the azure v aws v google cloud services discussion which will be more relevant when 5G is entrenched and not about this years console launch

Yeah, this. I've recently been studying for an AWS qual and the infrastructure they have is absolutely bananas when you actually think about it. I understand Azure and Google Cloud are similar in design and intent. To my knowledge (and I guess Phil's) Sony don't have anything like that infrastructure that they own and control.
 

tzare

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,145
Catalunya
If the past indicates anything it's the following:
  • MS' achilles has been overtly leaning into technology that the masses deemed premature or unnecessary. The whole Kinect and always on debacle is proof of this even though when we fast forward 7 years, always on is god damn amazing.
  • Sony's achilles has been their ego and arrogance. Fast forward years later...they are sorta right and they are the market leader...lol.
  • Both of them just need to take care of those two issues respectively and they'll be in great shape.
i think sometimes we overreact a bit over certain situations honestly:
Calling someone's 'achiles' some misteps, that some times have brought difficult situations no doubt, is a bit of exageration. In fact we could consider MS has its own ego/arrogance moment with online DRM as their were coming from a very successful 360 despite important issues (RROD) that seemed to have very little impact on sales. Or we could consider sony also missing the point going after technology the masses didn't feel right at that moment (motion controls/eyetoy/BLURay/VR...)
Maybe except for Apple that seems to be inmune to almost everything, regardless of what the put on the market and price, companies, run by humans,which sometimes arent the same sometimes choose the wrong approach or, i'd say even further, not the wrong approach but not at the right time. Nintendo is also bipolar here, hitting all the right notes one gen and the opposite the next one, and repeat.
The market is very unpredictable, games like Fortnite, PUBG have had a big impact last generation for example, and games that tried something similar in previous gen, MAG for example, failed. Sometimes is luck, or reading the market and react fast.
 

TooLive

Member
Jan 28, 2019
194
It will take Sony/Nintendo years and a lot of money to build cloud infrastructures to match MS, Google, & Amazon. That ship has sailed..
 

ImaLawy3r

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Jun 6, 2019
619
i think sometimes we overreact a bit over certain situations honestly:
Calling someone's 'achiles' some misteps, that some times have brought difficult situations no doubt, is a bit of exageration. In fact we could consider MS has its own ego/arrogance moment with online DRM as their were coming from a very successful 360 despite important issues (RROD) that seemed to have very little impact on sales. Or we could consider sony also missing the point going after technology the masses didn't feel right at that moment (motion controls/eyetoy/BLURay/VR...)
Maybe except for Apple that seems to be inmune to almost everything, regardless of what the put on the market and price, companies, run by humans,which sometimes arent the same sometimes choose the wrong approach or, i'd say even further, not the wrong approach but not at the right time. Nintendo is also bipolar here, hitting all the right notes one gen and the opposite the next one, and repeat.
The market is very unpredictable, games like Fortnite, PUBG have had a big impact last generation for example, and games that tried something similar in previous gen, MAG for example, failed. Sometimes is luck, or reading the market and react fast.
True. Very True.
 

Deleted member 8784

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,502
Console warring over cloud infrastructure, nice.

It's the dumbest shit I've seen on this forum in a long time. I don't even own a fucking Xbox, but this outrage from console-warring weirdos who feel like they have to leap to the defence of Sony (who aren't even a Cloud provider) because Phil Spencer doesn't consider them a competitor in that sector is the lamest.

If this is going to be regular over the next 9 months, I don't think I can handle it. Read the article chaps. Or even just read the thread title properly.
 

LordBlodgett

Member
Jan 10, 2020
806
Pretty sure this isn't true at all. Just because a SINGLE console hasn't outsold the best selling DVD player of all time in the past 20 years does not mean that the console market as a whole hasn't grown.
Revenue is up among all of the main three (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) but consoles sold is lower than previous generations. In this gen (2013-now) Sony has 109 million PS4 and PS4 Pro sold, Nintendo has 51 million Switch consoles, and Microsoft won't tell us, but the estimate is 46 million. That is 206 million consoles. Last gen (2005-2013) Sony sold 87 million PS3 consoles, Microsoft sold 84 million Xbox 360 consoles, and Nintendo sold 101 million Wii consoles and 13 million Wii U consoles. So last gen total was 285 million consoles. Two generations ago (1998-2005) Sony sold 155 million PS2 consoles, Nintendo sold almost 22 million Gamecube consoles, Xbox sold 24 million Xbox Consoles, and Sega sold 9 million Dreamcast consoles. This generation saw 210 million consoles sold. So to put it in an easier to read list:

This gen (2013-today): 206 million consoles globally
Prior gen (2005-2013): 285 million consoles globally
Two gens ago (1998-2005): 210 million consoles globally

I stand behind my belief that console gaming has not grown in raw household reach for the last twenty years. Gaming has become far more accepted as an art form and as a mainstream hobby over the last twenty years, and gamers are spending more dollars per console in the home than ever before. Console gaming is not dead. But console gaming is not expanding its reach. In countries all over the globe you will find a situation where the fastest internet speeds to be found are provided on your mobile phone. Less than 10% of the people in the world have a PC or laptop, but the estimate is that over 35% of the people in the world have a smartphone. That last number is also exploding.
 

MykhellMikado

Alt account
Banned
Jan 13, 2020
823
Yeah, this. I've recently been studying for an AWS qual and the infrastructure they have is absolutely bananas when you actually think about it. I understand Azure and Google Cloud are similar in design and intent. To my knowledge (and I guess Phil's) Sony don't have anything like that infrastructure that they own and control.

no they don't need it.
Cloud tech is absolutely amazing, but that's a total over sale in the importance of that to run a successful game service. It's hard to tell from the article if Phil is talking strictly talking about no other competitors able to support the back end infrastructure or if he is talking about dominating BOTH the backend and front end services which is a dramatically different conversation.
 

Menx64

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,774
I disagree. Sony don't have the funds to build out a competitor to Azure, let alone in a fast enough timeframe to fight a hypothetically successful service. That's why they partnered with Azure.

IBM's cloud is a joke that's been failing for half a decade in the face of AWS, Azure, and GCP.


I never said Sony will built thier own infrastructure, but rather both Nintendo and Sony will go with whichever partner that can offer the scalability they need for the lowest price possible.
IBM cloud is a joke now, but that's why they got rid of their CEO, and have people from redhat to take over. In ten years from now (when cloud and subscription services will appeal to the mainstream customer) they may have something ready, otherwise Azure, AWS, Google or maybe, Huawei, AT&T or Samsung will offer something similar.
 

Deleted member 49438

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 7, 2018
1,473
I assume he knows more than me about what Amazon & Google are doing to make themselves into competitors, but we're not there yet. Unless Phil is hinting that Amazon is getting into the gaming market in a more serious way this year, then this just rings hollow. Yes, looking ahead Cloud services will provide games to a lot of people, but considering Microsoft hasn't moved xCloud out of beta yet, this just comes across as posturing b/c they had a really bad console generation & was outperformed by their current competitors.

But this isn't that different from Reggie said back in 2018, basically saying the Microsoft & Sony are their direct competitiors, but since they're competing for entertainment time they're not the only ones they have to be worried about.

 

TheRealTalker

Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,480
Per The Verge:
"When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward," says Spencer."
EPicncYUEAIUJrE

hF4nzJu.gif



But I get what he means in terms of server investment... but currently streaming is no were near being the standard alternative rather then a complimentary option and by the time it does change to being more accessible we won't know what Sony or Nintendo could've done in those years to close the gap.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
I never said Sony will built thier own infrastructure, but rather both Nintendo and Sony will ring whichever partner that can offer the scalability they need for the lowest price possible.
IBM cloud is a joke now, but that's why they got rid of their CEO, and have people from redhat to take over. In ten years from now (when cloud and subscription services will appeal to the mainstream customer) they may have something ready, otherwise Azure, AWS, Google or maybe, Huawei, AT&T or Samsung will offer something similar.

Thing is most providers will charge Sony more than it costs the provider to operate a streaming service. Even if they're more successful what's to stop Azure or someone else from dropping them?
 

Kayant

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
759
That's a pretty logical statement and there is a reason Sony are deceding to partner with one of these giants for more global reach.

Unless cloud infrastructure is going to be a main part of their business it makes virtually no sense to build your own infrastructure at this point that's without causing the time/money etc needed to build bear the same scale as these big ones.
 
May 25, 2019
6,026
London
]
It's the dumbest shit I've seen on this forum in a long time. I don't even own a fucking Xbox, but this outrage from console-warring weirdos who feel like they have to leap to the defence of Sony (who aren't even a Cloud provider) because Phil Spencer doesn't consider them a competitor in that sector is the lamest.

If this is going to be regular over the next 9 months, I don't think I can handle it. Read the article chaps. Or even just read the thread title properly.

I hear ya. We have people in this thread whose chief problem with this statement is that it is too dismissive of Sony's PS4 sales, as if that it is any way related to what Spencer is talking about
 

Deleted member 45460

User requested account closure
Banned
Jun 27, 2018
1,492
Microsoft still shows they have a wrong vision from games industry.
This isn't an article about their vision of the games industry. It's about the future of cloud infrastructure which Sony is not a part of. It's Azure, vs AWS and Google and not xbox vs ps5 console war horse shit. Did you read the article?