-
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.
Phil Spencer: Amazon and Google are ‘the main competitors going forward’ in relation to Sony and Nintendo’s ability to create a cloud infrastructure
- Thread starter Fiery Phoenix
- Start date
And the same thing said be said about XBox's global brand. It's nor where near where it needs to be to have any kind of significant penetration in the market, Amazon Google occupy.
Last edited:
Stop trying to stop the console war, Phil, it will be bloodier than ever !
thats not how this works, they are billion dollar companies not forum posters.
There is a mutually beneficial reason for Sony to pair up with any cloud provider because it also helps the cloud provider offset their costs of building the needed infrastructure as well. Yes Sony will pay more than it costs a single provider, but they could also end up paying much less than it would be to build their own or standard rates is they are in a partnership. Example being MS rolls out high end servers, Sony pays half the cost of the build for 40% server time on a 10 year contract. Both parties win, the thing is Sony could just do the same with Amazon or Google and the other companies now foot 100% of the cost themselves. Sony doesn't need to have their own infrastructure in the short or even midterm in this model.
I think what you are trying say is that the Xbox division of Microsoft is not as big as Amazon or Google? I don't even know where to begin. The incongruence of your statement in relation to the topic is monumental.
Xbox is a division of Microsoft, I'm honestly confused with your argument. Is your argument that Microsoft which is a trillion brand that has one of the leading cloud infrastructures doesn't have any significant cloud penetration such as amazon google? I'm honestly confused
When he talks about their competitors on this market, for sure they have a wrong vision. Chill out a bit.
Perfect example of when being a console warrior makes you ignore the actual OP and your insecurities manifest into a random response of what you think you read.
Edit: beaten lol
You say that yet you can see plenty of examples of Amazon, Google, and Microsoft doing that very thing for years. Maybe they won't explicitly kick them off, but could easily see them make it less profitable for Sony or Nintendo over time.
Exactly. Look at Stadia and how Googles brand helped them out so much. This is why I've stopped bothering to even respond, it's just non stop with him.
GOOGLE and amazon have the market for devices outside of apple. As in android based phones tablets. They also have this built up app wealth on top the infrastructure, stadia is kind of a failure, and it's not going stop people from playing tons of games via Play store or Amazon store.
Xbox's gaming brand is not big World wide. It literally is limited to US/UK. In asian markets android/mobile is king. Xbox as a gaming brand needs to be popular in it's library with Global distribution.
Currently it is not. They can set this up and make it work with any andoid/iOs/Amazon device but if people don't give a shit outside of US/UK about their games that they make and are trying to sell to you via streaming or Gamepass then it doesn't mean anything.
Apple arcade is cool, but unless they bought Popcap which EA owns or some other big giant game app that is known around the world Apple arcade won't grow to the billion user base that Microsoft's long term goal is reaching for.
You have to have the apps people want to use, currently that's not Xbox.
It will be, eventually. At least I thought I read that somewhere.
Amazon and Google are still big unknowns. It's no wonder they're seen as their main competitors. Given the current state of Google Stadia though...
He's not talking about the Xbox brand exclusively though, he's talking about infrastructure. Azure is a huge win for Microsoft, it's why Sony is partnering with them going forward as well. The Xbox brand is an extension of leveraging those technologies they've already invested in.
Nintendo is already leveraging Amazon Web Services for their cloud storage solution, from what I recall. So none of what Phil Spencer is saying sounds crazy or is out of the realm of possibilities when it comes to Amazon and Google being bigger threats to Microsoft's end game, inclusive of gaming and Xbox.
Which is when you migrate your services. Once enough companies are in cloud gaming, migrating between providers or using multiple providers will be common place. PSNow already uses AWS and Rackspace. They don't like the deal they are getting with Amazon so they are taking to MS and they will talk to Google and so on and so forth.
More importantly they don't need to even use cloud servers to compete in offering "cloud gaming"
My whole outlook is not looking at the Enterprise side which azure is. XBOX's whole division is now beholden to the rest of the enterprise side. The average person gives no fucks about azure we care about games.
And outside of US/UK Xbox has no pressense. Even if they make boatloads off of Playstation from hosting their servers for cloud. The enterprise part of Microsoft benefits more from that, and it's up in the air if that trickles down to help the actual state of xbox as a brand to the consumer aka games/consoles.
Honestly have no clue why the xbox brand keeps getting brought up, he's clearly talking about using x cloud /azure as a white label service as well. Someone like EA SONY NINTENDO ETC can have there own " insert name cloud" service by subscribing to the tools and cloud as a customer. That's where the most money will be made.
Then why the hell are you in this thread arguing nonsense , Phil spencer is clearly talking about xbox/azure as an enterprise
Again and to be clear about this. Console streaming is more important than cloud streaming and has the most reach in the short to mid term.
WideSpread pure cloud gaming is a 10 year plus market.
WideSpread pure cloud gaming is a 10 year plus market.
Your ignorance of this actual conversation is stunning in its aggressive push to make this about brand visibility when it's absolutely unrelated to Xbox as a brand or a service. There's no need to warrior here.
Ok, but that isn't what this thread is about. Spencer has said repeatedly that it's just an alternative in his eyes and should never be the only way.
Did you read the article? I ask in full sincerity because that type of response would indicate you didn't.
So what happens when the 3 biggest public cloud providers each have a potentially successful game streaming service? Do you seriously think PSNow will be able to compete using a vastly inferior public or private cloud solution?
I don't see how migration will be common. These public clouds all use ecosystem lock in to stop that. It's a problem now that will only get worse as the world depends on it more and more.
That's not what this article is discussing. Read it.
This thread is evidence enough that most people are reading the thread title and not reading the article. I shouldn't be surprised, a lot of posts in Microsoft threads here turn into a dog pile.
What? Microsoft is the worlds leading cloud computing vendor, recently surpassing Amazon.
They also have a mindshare and marketshare headstart on both of these companies with regards to building out services for games and game development since they've been in the gaming industry as a first party for so long.
Console warriors never read articles. Hell they rarely read past the thread title. Opening a whole other tab to read a few paragraphs is just asking way too much.
WTF are you going on about? XBox sees google, amazon as their primary competitor in cloud/streaming correct? They are using XBox as their gateway brand for this. This pertains to gaming, xbox brand is their gaming brand?
Like what kind of knee jerk reaction am I getting here from you?
Microsoft is not the branding they are using to get people in on streaming. Microsoft is the infrastructure, but xbox is the portal. This has more to do with cloud gaming than just azure servers, and regular enterprise cloud services.
We are talking in relation to cloud being used for gaming.
it's the same with music and video streaming, there is going to be a cap on when graphic fidelity is "good enough" and we are projected to hit that cap in the next 10 years. Once that happens cost of graphic performance comes down to the point it's affordable for anyone to run. Basically it's the same model as Netflix who also doesn't have their own network infrastructure but multiple partners across vast geographical areas. As stated there are solutions for the short, mid, and long term which do not involve becoming an infrastructure platform themselves because Pandora, Spotify, Hulu,Netflix are not data centers with infrastructure.
Trying out Geforce Now further reinforced that they'll either have a server in every city block or have faster than light data. Otherwise it's a subpar experience and if the industry goes fully cloud based I'll just look for another hobby.
No, microsoft sees google and Amazon as their primary cloud computing competition, which for gaming includes streaming, but also includes analytics services, hosting services, game development tools, matchmaking services, virtual server rentals and machine learning etc.
You thinking this is all about the xbox brand is kinda cray...
I'm sure this is more an overall thing. Sony and Nintendo are ants in comparison to Microsoft, Google, and Amazon.
it is what it's discussing the literal picture and first quote is about tech companies betting big with gaming with a pic of stadia in the back? How is xbox brand which will use this, and be competing with other stream/cloud gaming solutions not what is being talked about?
Just because there's talk about the enterprise side being the back bone for other companies who want to invest into cloud who happen to be gaming companies.
Whole article is about cloud in relations to gaming?
XBox is Microsoft's brand for gaming? The entire article is about cloud based gaming?
Whole thing is about gaming? Cloud gaming and infrastructure to reach more people which has been my whole god damn point I've been talking about. That they are using Xbox as their brand for cloud gaming.
Whole thing is about who's doing what for that type of gaming. How is that not about the article?
Ironically after 15+ years of remote play this is Sony's strategy: instead of buying a ton of server infrastructure upfront, users can use their existing consoles in their living rooms to stream from instead of servers 100s of miles away.
In their investors meeting in May they literally said we have 100 million consoles which users can stream from right now and they opened up the app for Android and IOS to allow it.
The statement was made by the head of xbox. Ofcourse people will assume he isnt speaking of MS as a whole. If he was then being the head of xbox he should have made it clear he was talking about the entire company and not his division.
User warned: Console warring
This is very disrespectful for Microsoft's own competitors in the gaming space right now, which are Sony and Nintendo, and both of them are doing much better than Microsoft right now. it is too soon to start saying something like this, we don't really know if users will abandon hardware to go for streaming solutions, Nintendo and Sony can keep releasing attractive hardware, I don't think the change is as easy or definitive as Phil is making it to be.
No one, if you read the actual article which most haven't.
You didn't read the article, right? Because it has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
All of those companies you mentioned are at a huge risk for that very reason. Plus they have to fight to keep their apps on people's devices like Spotify and Apple.
Oh let me be clear, I know. I just want the person I quoted to answer. 😂😂
Neither of them have invested in billion dollar datacenters or provide cloud white label services which is what this article is about
Yes, console quality gaming should be exclusive to the 100 million people who will pay for your console or those that invest in an expensive gaming PC. The rest of the global population can screw off, we have ours.
the only winning move is not to play
they've had multiple generations and been beaten with the 'box under the TV' every time. Potentially very smart for them to move to a cloud based ecosystem play - if it works they could do incredibly well. But it'll also be bloody if google decides to double down and amazon fancy a bit of the pie