Satya Nadella: Microsoft Are Well-Positioned For What Is Going To Be A Much Larger Gaming Market

[Iwao]

There's nothing innovative with a traditional console. what Microsoft is doing is very forward-thinking and ambitious. Outside Nintendo when was the last time there was something innovative?

Where does that leave Sony? Sony did request to have MS lend a hand on their Cloud Streaming service while also signalling to improve PS Now, heck even Nintendo is rumoured to be working with Microsoft for Streaming.

Click to shrink...

There have been plenty of hardware innovations this gen alone between all 3 companies, and there will continue to be with the next generation. You're putting as much stock into Microsoft's words as Microsoft is into the "2B gamers" that they think are truly accessible, and it's not smart. Before "Play Anywhere", there was "Cross-Buy". Before there was "xCloud" there was "PlayStation Now" and "Remote Play".

 

[12Danny123]

Ummmmm there are plenty of hardware innovations this gen alone from all 3 companies. You're putting as much stock into Microsoft's words as Microsoft is into the "2B gamers", and it's not smart. Before "Play Anywhere", there was "Cross-Buy". Before there was xCloud there was PlayStation Now and Remote Play.

Click to shrink...

That's not Console itself, those are simply services. The Console model itself hasn't changed since the 80s. Forcing people to buy consoles to play games, whereas every other form of entertainment has pretty much abandoned that model.

Playing, purchased, F2P, Subscription gaming on any device no matter the specs of the device and without buying new hardware I think is considered innovative and ambitious.

The gaming industry and especially traditional consoles are ripe for disruption.

 

[Hucast]

It's gonna happen, isn't it

 

[Iwao]

That's not Console itself, those are simply services. The Console model itself hasn't changed since the 80s. Forcing people to buy consoles to play games, whereas every other form of entertainment has pretty much abandoned that model.

Playing, purchased, F2P, Subscription gaming on any device no matter the specs of the device and without buying new hardware I think is considered innovative and ambitious.

Click to shrink...

Name them. Name those "services" you think are not hardware-level innovations.

 

[TheRaidenPT]

Yes they are attacking multiple fronts.. curious for results next gen

 

[12Danny123]

Name them. Name those "services" you think are not hardware-level innovations.

Click to shrink...

Is PS Now, Remote Play not a service/feature? It's certainly not considered hardware.

 

[Iwao]

Is PS Now, Remote Play not a service/feature? It's certainly not considered hardware.

Click to shrink...

I named both of those things as things that already existed long before xCloud and Microsoft's desire to remove hardware from the equation. PS Now is a service. Remote Play is integrated at a hardware level. You don't pay to use it, it's a feature of the hardware.

 

[12Danny123]

I named both of those things as things that already existed long before xCloud and Microsoft's desire to remove hardware from the equation. PS Now is a service. Remote Play is integrated at a hardware level. You don't pay to use it, it's a feature of the hardware.

Click to shrink...

So what does it have to do with innovation? Remote Play is not different from Virtual Desktops and what does it have to do Streaming being a failure. People have been saying that Streaming will fail, but give no reason for it and pretty much ignores rapid tech development.

 

[Gamer17]

Yet another worrying sign that MS is after casual crowd again.i left the platform around 2011 due to them going after casual market with Kinect and focusing non stop on it .

They seem to fail to understand that casual gamers usually don't like complicated games and want simple free games.

This is a dagerous game they r playing but wishing them best of luck and hope they have a backup plan once they can't persuade those 2 billion gamers .

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Yet another worrying sign that MS is after casual crowd again.i left the platform around 2011 due to them going after casual market with Kinect and focusing non stop on it .

They seem to fail to understand that casual gamers usually don't like complicated games and want simple free games.

This is a dagerous game they r playing but wishing them best of luck and hope they have a backup plan once they can't persuade those 2 billion gamers .

Click to shrink...

Literally nothing says they are going to release such games. They wouldn't have acquired all these studios to make causal games. If anything they are saying that xCloud will allow causal gamers to experience our console/PC games.

 

[Gamer17]

Literally nothing says they are going to release such games. They wouldn't have acquired all these studios to make causal games. If anything they are saying that xCloud will allow causal gamers to experience our console/PC games.

Click to shrink...

Let's see .hopefully u r right and they don't end up catering more to causal crowd like they did in Kinect era .

 

[Raider34]

50 billion phones/tablets/PC's in the world by 2030 aiming at 2 billion doesn't seem odd at all. A lot of people are scared of change and that's fine they still have the traditional way for those who don't like the subscription or streaming models. As far as Microsoft going third party it just don't make sense games everywhere means like Set top boxes...browsers....phones tablets....Smart tv apps...and still the Xbox console for those Like myself who want that.
I feel Microsoft throws Nintendo all the bones because when this consolidation of content starts Microsoft wants to have built the good will and trust of Nintendo to be a good partner to merge with. Microsoft as a company has changed and evolving even more listen to Sataya yourselves if you get The chance.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Let's see .hopefully u r right and they don't end up catering more to causal crowd like they did in Kinect era .

Click to shrink...

What is there to see? Like what they are saying is with these service even casual gamer can experience the Xbox ecosystem and not we are going to release candy crush 4.

 

[gofreak]

Microsoft can definitely be an infrastructural winner with future services. DTC winner? That's a bigger mountain to climb.

His comments, by the way, are more or less an echo of Sony CEO's comments about the game business, and consoles' (relatively) niche position in that overall market.

The biggest question for both Sony and Microsoft is if the market they expect exists outside the console-buying market, for 'console-ish' games, does actually exist in the first place, or if it's already being satisfied by other means. Stadia will be one interesting bench of that.

 

[Streets of Rage]

What is there to see? Like what they are saying is with these service even casual gamer can experience the Xbox ecosystem and not we are going to release candy crush 4.

Click to shrink...

That is what will actually happen. There are more casual gamers than "trve gamers", so that's where the money is. Which will result in far more Candy Crush sequels and far less "trvue games".

 

[Ωλ7XL9]

Microsoft is doing their homework, now if they deliver on their exclusives for next gen xbox, then it's game on. Xcloud and game pass adds so much value to the Xbox platform.

 

[SuikerBrood]

That is what will actually happen. There are more casual gamers than "trve gamers", so that's where the money is. Which will result in far more Candy Crush sequels and far less "trvue games".

Click to shrink...

What is a true game?
Pokémon Go and Minecraft Earth?
Or only Bloodborne?

 

[Gamer17]

What is there to see? Like what they are saying is with these service even casual gamer can experience the Xbox ecosystem and not we are going to release candy crush 4.

Click to shrink...

These gamers like some of my friends are not gonna start playing assassin Creed oddessy (as an example of AAA game )instead of candy crush just because now they can .ACO doesn't appeal to them as it's intimidating for them.so in order to make them interested in ur platform u have start offering them what they like .mindless simple games (imo ofcourse)

 

[gofreak]

These gamers like some of my friends are not gonna start playing assassin Creed oddessy (as an example of AAA game )instead of candy crush just because now they can .ACO doesn't appeal to them as it's intimidating for them.so in order to make them interested in ur platform u have start offering them what they like .mindless simple games (imo ofcourse)

Click to shrink...

The problem is - the market for 'that kind of game' - games that demand a low interactivity-budget from the player - is already saturated, and that content is already at the finger tips of billions.

The push of Xbox (or Playstation, or Steam, or whatever) out to 'billions' - or more hundreds of millions - will only be successful if the type of content they uniquely offer vs other alternatives actually has a substantial appeal outside of the people they can already reach with local plastic boxes.

If the new streaming services are just a vector for Xbox or Sony to compete in the mobile/'casual' games space, I think it'll be about as successful as previous attempts (i.e. not very). But I don't think that's the pivot. I think the idea is that there is this big market out there waiting for high-interactive-budget games - for console games, for want of a better shorthand - that mobile phones just can't satisfy. We'll see if that hypothesis proves correct.

 

[ForgedByGeeks]

That is what will actually happen. There are more casual gamers than "trve gamers", so that's where the money is. Which will result in far more Candy Crush sequels and far less "trvue games".

Click to shrink...

You make a really poor assumption that this is a zero sum game.

Using your logic, vehicles like Lamborghini would never exist because why develop for that market when there are millions more happy to drive a Honda Civic.

The reality is most of the Civic drivers would love driving a Lamborghini if given the ability to do so without having to pay or hassle with the requirements of buying one.

While it may appear as though the casuals mostly just want Candy Crush and the like, games like Minecraft, Fortnite, and even stuff like Stardew Valley are proving otherwise.

Gamers that were formally viewed as casuals are playing these games in the tens of millions on mobile devices. Many are even buying controllers to use while playing on their phones.

It's looking like a bunch of so called casual gamers are more just gamers that happened to only have time to play on a phone or only had access to a phone. Services like XCLOUD that stand to bring full featured gaming experiences to more portable platforms may end up enabling these gamers to show who they really are and get them more engaged with the community you are irrationally afraid is going to get destroyed by this move.

 

[Gamer17]

The problem is - the market for 'that kind of game' - games that demand a low interactivity-budget from the player - is already saturated, and that content is already at the finger tips of billions.

The push of Xbox (or Playstation, or Steam, or whatever) out to 'billions' - or more hundreds of millions - will only be successful if the type of content they uniquely offer vs other alternatives actually has a substantial appeal outside of the people they can already reach with local plastic boxes.

If the new streaming services are just a vector for Xbox or Sony to compete in the mobile/'casual' games space, I think it'll be about as successful as previous attempts (i.e. not very). But I don't think that's the pivot. I think the idea is that there is this big market out there waiting for high-interactive-budget games - for console games, for want of a better shorthand - that mobile phones just can't satisfy. We'll see if that hypothesis proves correct.

Click to shrink...

That the part where I have issues . I don't believe candy crush players are gonna jump to play assassin Creed oddessy or dark souls 3 . 2 very different audience .stadia will be good test .will it attract the same hardcore gamers or the 2 billion casuals

 

[Gamer17]

You make a really poor assumption that this is a zero sum game.

Using your logic, vehicles like Lamborghini would never exist because why develop for that market when there are millions more happy to drive a Honda Civic.

The reality is most of the Civic drivers would love driving a Lamborghini if given the ability to do so without having to pay or hassle with the requirements of buying one.

While it may appear as though the casuals mostly just want Candy Crush and the like, games like Minecraft, Fortnite, and even stuff like Stardew Valley are proving otherwise.

Gamers that were formally viewed as casuals are playing these games in the tens of millions on mobile devices. Many are even buying controllers to use while playing on their phones.

It's looking like a bunch of so called casual gamers are more just gamers that happened to only have time to play on a phone or only had access to a phone. Services like XCLOUD that stand to bring full featured gaming experiences to more portable platforms may end up enabling these gamers to show who they really are and get them more engaged with the community you are irrationally afraid is going to get destroyed by this move.

Click to shrink...

U tell him he makes poor assumption yet ur whole post was assumption after assumption.fortnite is Not being played by casual gamers that like candy crush. It is popular because teenager gamers fell in love with it .

Only one that is more casual friendly is Minecraft .even then u could just make mobile version of ur Minecraft releases.no need to pivot the platform strategy to cater to them imo.I didn't know stardew valley was so popular like fortnite and Minecraft to be put in the same sentence and pedigree

 

[Callum_Alexander]

Do gaming companies truly expect streaming to open the market to more gamers? Infrastructure just isn't there in many counties, and even ignoring this fact, is the casual mobile gamer who spends hours on Candy Crush really hankering for the next Gears or The Last of Us? They're entirely different markets. Mobile gamers like mobile games because they are simple, easy and allow them to zone out briefly. They don't want the effort of a AAA game.

I'd love to see the market research that has actually gone into this as I don't see this expanding the market, only making the games we want to play easier to access. Even then I question the use of this, are you truly going to play Call of Duty on your phone when you can play it on a big television?

Are gamers really hankering for a Netflix of games? What does this bring to the market?

 

[12Danny123]

Yet another worrying sign that MS is after casual crowd again.i left the platform around 2011 due to them going after casual market with Kinect and focusing non stop on it .

They seem to fail to understand that casual gamers usually don't like complicated games and want simple free games.

This is a dagerous game they r playing but wishing them best of luck and hope they have a backup plan once they can't persuade those 2 billion gamers .

Click to shrink...

Nadella literally says, "going forward we think that any end point can in fact be a great end point for high-end games" But there is no doubt there is a market for a Game Platform that caters to all types of games, be it F2P, Subscription, Traditional purchases etc.

That seems to be the vision that Microsoft is going, having in a way a Cloud Game store for people to play games no matter the platform.

 

[christocolus]

I wish Satya and Phil all the best. Satya has been the best thing to happen to MS in recent years and I trust his leadership. So hyped for Scarlet and all MS has cooking up for next gen.

 

[12Danny123]

Do gaming companies truly expect streaming to open the market to more gamers? Infrastructure just isn't there in many counties, and even ignoring this fact, is the casual mobile gamer who spends hours on Candy Crush really hankering for the next Gears or The Last of Us? They're entirely different markets. Mobile gamers like mobile games because they are simple, easy and allow them to zone out briefly. They don't want the effort of a AAA game.

I'd love to see the market research that has actually gone into this as I don't see this expanding the market, only making the games we want to play easier to access. Even then I question the use of this, are you truly going to play Call of Duty on your phone when you can play it on a big television?

Are gamers really hankering for a Netflix of games? What does this bring to the market?

Click to shrink...

Yes, people do want to play good games with a cheap monthly fee, plus playing on a television limits the audience since people are now increasingly mobile-based.

Microsoft will be competing against Apple Arcade, another Netflix for games subscription.

The lack of progress and vision in the video games industry is a huge reason why the market for PC gaming and Console gaming has been stagnant for so long and getting statistically smaller. This is simply Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft etc adapting to market trends.

If Mobile Gaming had 70% of the Gaming market, and you were in a little growth market like Consoles and PC Gaming, as a business, of course, you will expand beyond it.

50 billion phones/tablets/PC's in the world by 2030 aiming at 2 billion doesn't seem odd at all. A lot of people are scared of change and that's fine they still have the traditional way for those who don't like the subscription or streaming models. As far as Microsoft going third party it just don't make sense games everywhere means like Set top boxes...browsers....phones tablets....Smart tv apps...and still the Xbox console for those Like myself who want that.
I feel Microsoft throws Nintendo all the bones because when this consolidation of content starts Microsoft wants to have built the good will and trust of Nintendo to be a good partner to merge with. Microsoft as a company has changed and evolving even more listen to Sataya yourselves if you get The chance.

Click to shrink...

I think it's quite smart for Microsoft to build a relationship with Nintendo, it seems that they beginning to form a relationship. I agree I think when the time comes for Consolidation, Microsoft will want to buy Nintendo because they already would have synergies in place.

If Game Pass/XCloud came to Switch, then it will show a sign of increased collaboration.

 

[christocolus]

TBH, people have said that Netflix will fail, Xbox Live won't work, it won't work until it works. But regarding 70% not wanting Streaming, the remaining of Europeans is a pretty big market alone. Also MS unlike Stadia likely won't force people to buy games to stream, most likely implementation is via Game Pass and stream those Game Pass games via XCloud.

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[InadequateCrab7]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but I can't wait for streaming to just demo games. Regular AAA titles are getting massive! (130GB+). I want to know I'll enjoy the game after 2 days of downloading it >.<

 

[alexiswrite]

Do gaming companies truly expect streaming to open the market to more gamers? Infrastructure just isn't there in many counties, and even ignoring this fact, is the casual mobile gamer who spends hours on Candy Crush really hankering for the next Gears or The Last of Us? They're entirely different markets. Mobile gamers like mobile games because they are simple, easy and allow them to zone out briefly. They don't want the effort of a AAA game.

I'd love to see the market research that has actually gone into this as I don't see this expanding the market, only making the games we want to play easier to access. Even then I question the use of this, are you truly going to play Call of Duty on your phone when you can play it on a big television?

Are gamers really hankering for a Netflix of games? What does this bring to the market?

Click to shrink...

I think the stereotyping of mobile gamers really suffocates these discussions, a wide variety of people who play games there for a wide variety of reasons. A lot of them have probably played games on consoles before. I think we underestimate how much a £300-500 buy in excludes a whole bunch of people who don't see gaming as a priority to the tune of that much money. As well as this, the fixation on huge big-budget action games (next Gears or The Last of Us) ignores the fact that there are loads of really interesting smaller games which have way more crossover potential with different audiences.

Even just isolating the discussion on pre-existing console or PC gamers, I think it's important to think of xbox streaming as more of an additive experience than a replacement for traditional gaming. You ask why play Call of Duty on your phone when you can play it on a big television? I say in response, why not both? Of course, it's not as good as playing on a TV, but it can still be a worthwhile experience for when you don't have a big TV to hand.

All this, I've not even gone into how it changes the contours of the "console wars" in a crazy way, because you don't have to buy an Xbox or a great PC to experience Halo or gears. A lot of people just buy one console and are locked out from a whole world of content, changing this by lowering the barrier to accessing Xbox games gets way more people into their ecosystem. I don't understand how people can't see how substantial this is as a change.

 

[Invisible Cities]

A lot of companies are planning as if there are hundreds of millions (or even billions!) of "secret gamers" out there.

That idea is laughable to me.

You can make gaming as cheap and easy as possible, but that will only pick up marginal gains. (It will also cannibalize the dudes out there who really do buy and Xbox just for Halo).

Gaming is already cheap or free and extremely pervasive. There's an adverse selection problem: the kind of customer not willing to pay for a game or console aren't exactly great or loyal customers.

 

[melodiousmowl]

here's the key:

want to play halo, but all you have is your smartphone and you don't want to spend $250-$550 on a game, because it's not your hobby.

now you pay for a month of xcloud, and play halo.

you like it, it's better than anything made for phones

maybe you get a controller now

you notice there's tons of other games

you upgrade to a gaming pc or buy a console, and pick up where you left off. now you have one of the reasons the switch is attractive (not as slick but it's there)

etc etc

first to market with a compelling product (to be seen) could be gigantic- even if it's just people paying for a month once in a while

 

[Turin Turambar]

It seems MS hasn't read Resetera opinions on Stadia and the market!

 

[melodiousmowl]

A lot of companies are planning as if there are hundreds of millions (or even billions!) of "secret gamers" out there.

That idea is laughable to me.

You can make gaming as cheap and easy as possible, but that will only pick up marginal gains.

Gaming is already cheap or free and extremely pervasive. There's an adverse selection problem: the kind of customer not willing to pay for a game or console aren't exactly great or loyal customers.

Click to shrink...

they don't need to be. even a small % of phone users paying for even one month a year is a huge number.

not to mention if it converts them to a customer buying other products.

i think the potential is massive, if the product works

 

[Governergrimm]

Game streaming is DOA, companies will find out soon enough. My prediction is that Microsoft will fail miserably with their strategy for the upcoming gen, and that the Xbox brand will become quite irrelevant in the years to come. Which is unfortunate, because strong competition is the innovation-driver. At least we will still have at least some competition between Nintendo and Sony.

Click to shrink...

How is there strong competition between Nintendo and Sony? Nintendo got out our of the arms race a long time ago. Yeah they make games but Sony and Nintendo aren't fighting each other for the same games and audience really.

 

[melodiousmowl]

https://www.thestar.com.my/tech/tech-news/2018/02/26/1point5-billion-smartphones-were-sold-in-2017/

I just want to put this in perspective:

List of best-selling game consoles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thats more a year than the total of every console sold ever.

If that was the total market, even 1,500,000,000 * 0.005 is still 7.5million users.

 

[Deleted member 49804]

total addressable market =/ we'll get them all

 

[Invisible Cities]

No disrespect but that's literally what people used to say about China: "it's such a big market, we just need a small percent."

 

[Henrik]

PS3 might not have been for either hardcore or casual crowd but tech enthusiasts rather than gamers. In this case MS is after the casual gamers from the get go. They were after the hardcore gamers with Xbox 360 in the first few years. I'm all in for a console who caters to hardcore gamers with hardware in mind. This is why I preferred PSP over DS last gen because I got more games that appealed to me, both from a 1st party and 3rd party standpoint.

But MS wants to please everyone instead of making appealing and memorable games.

 

[Kolbe1894]

Can someone tell me which line saying MS will only chase casual gamers from now on.

 

[melodiousmowl]

No disrespect but that's literally what people used to say about China: "it's such a big market, we just need a small percent."

Click to shrink...

WHat if you didnt need to sell a console in china to get a foot hold - just use a streaming service that adheres to ... all the rules. It's an interesting thought.

 

[melodiousmowl]

Can someone tell me which line saying MS will only chase casual gamers from now on.

Click to shrink...

Phone gamers,gamers not even playing on pc/console = filthy casuals to people. *shrug*

 

[12Danny123]

50 billion phones/tablets/PC's in the world by 2030 aiming at 2 billion doesn't seem odd at all. A lot of people are scared of change and that's fine they still have the traditional way for those who don't like the subscription or streaming models. As far as Microsoft going third party it just don't make sense games everywhere means like Set top boxes...browsers....phones tablets....Smart tv apps...and still the Xbox console for those Like myself who want that.
I feel Microsoft throws Nintendo all the bones because when this consolidation of

I think the stereotyping of mobile gamers really suffocates these discussions, a wide variety of people who play games there for a wide variety of reasons. A lot of them have probably played games on consoles before. I think we underestimate how much a £300-500 buy in excludes a whole bunch of people who don't see gaming as a priority to the tune of that much money. As well as this, the fixation on huge big-budget action games (next Gears or The Last of Us) ignores the fact that there are loads of really interesting smaller games which have way more crossover potential with different audiences.

Even just isolating the discussion on pre-existing console or PC gamers, I think it's important to think of xbox streaming as more of an additive experience than a replacement for traditional gaming. You ask why play Call of Duty on your phone when you can play it on a big television? I say in response, why not both? Of course, it's not as good as playing on a TV, but it can still be a worthwhile experience for when you don't have a big TV to hand.

All this, I've not even gone into how it changes the contours of the "console wars" in a crazy way, because you don't have to buy an Xbox or a great PC to experience Halo or gears. A lot of people just buy one console and are locked out from a whole world of content, changing this by lowering the barrier to accessing Xbox games gets way more people into their ecosystem. I don't understand how people can't see how substantial this is as a change.

Click to shrink...

I'm cutoius of how people on Era react to Apple Arcade doing well. Apple seems to addressing the F2P problem with the service, where there are high quality mobile games that don't have ads, MTX just indie games.

Apple Arcade seems to go pretty much the stereotype that so called true gamers say.

Click to shrink...

 

[rafiki]

That's very reassuring, specially coming from the CEO. MS is a trillion $ behemoth and Xbox is like a small child compare to everything they have. So as long as they want to grow it, is incredible because they have the resources to do whatever they want and not worry too much on profitability. Hopefully people will stop saying MS wants to kill Xbox.

 

[alexiswrite]

PS3 might not have been for either hardcore or casual crowd but tech enthusiasts rather than gamers. In this case MS is after the casual gamers from the get go. They were after the hardcore gamers with Xbox 360 in the first few years. I'm all in for a console who caters to hardcore gamers with hardware in mind. This is why I preferred PSP over DS last gen because I got more games that appealed to me, both from a 1st party and 3rd party standpoint.

But MS wants to please everyone instead of making appealing and memorable games.

Click to shrink...

"But MS wants to please everyone instead of making appealing and memorable games." This sentence makes no sense to me. This company just invested huge into making appealing and memorable games.

 

[Deleted member 5764]

Hearing this from Satya is always very reassuring. That said, this gives me flashbacks to the Windows 10 launch and the very lofty goal Microsoft had back then. I have a feeling they'll come way short of their goal, but still expand their market greatly.

 

[DigSCCP]

There's nothing innovative with a traditional console. what Microsoft is doing is very forward-thinking and ambitious. Outside Nintendo when was the last time there was something innovative?

Where does that leave Sony? Sony did request to have MS lend a hand on their Cloud Streaming service while also signalling to improve PS Now, heck even Nintendo is rumoured to be working with Microsoft for Streaming.

Click to shrink...

You mean what MS is going to do...and OnLive and Gaikai did in the past and Sony is doing right now ?
And how is a new way of distributction innovative ? Are games going to change because of it or the innovation is to bring the same games in a "new" way ?
As far as I can tell something like PSVR is much more innovative and foward thinking than bringing a new way of distribute the same old content the always existed.

Anyway where does that leave Sony ? Who knows ?
Where does that leave MS ? Or Nintendo ?
Sony doesn´t have to own their own tech to find success on this market. PSN runs on AWS servers and guess what ? PSN is the biggest gaming service of the world. And guess what ? MS with XBL running on their own infrastructure is not even the second one. I´m not saying here that the fact that they own their tech is not something positive, because it is, but that doesnt guarantee success.
We still don´t have a clear idea on if and when will this "much larger gaming market" is going to be achiavable for this companies.
How will MS competitors be when this happens ? Have you ever thought that they can be in a much better position than MS one when streaming starts to gain traction ?
It´s odd to see some of the points around here because prior to Sony and MS deal on Azure people used to say that this was the "big guys fight" and Sony couldn´t compete unless their partner with someone else like AWS or Amazon. Now they partnership with MS and people try do downplay this. And not only that : we still don´t know neither Sony or MS strategies for their upcoming streaming services. People used to say here that Stadia would be a real game changer and now the discussion is "who is this for?".

 

[khamakazee]

I named both of those things as things that already existed long before xCloud and Microsoft's desire to remove hardware from the equation. PS Now is a service. Remote Play is integrated at a hardware level. You don't pay to use it, it's a feature of the hardware.

Click to shrink...

What hardware is that? You do not need Xbox to use xCloud and you don't need Playstation hardware to use PS Now. Stadia also requires no extra hardware in some cases.

You mean what MS is going to do...and OnLive and Gaikai did in the past and Sony is doing right now ?
And how is a new way of distributction innovative ? Are games going to change because of it or the innovation is to bring the same games in a "new" way ?
As far as I can tell something like PSVR is much more innovative and foward thinking than bringing a new way of distribute the same old content the always existed.

Anyway where does that leave Sony ? Who knows ?
Where does that leave MS ? Or Nintendo ?
Sony doesn´t have to own their own tech to find success on this market. PSN runs on AWS servers and guess what ? PSN is the biggest gaming service of the world. And guess what ? MS with XBL running on their own infrastructure is not even the second one. I´m not saying here that the fact that they own their tech is not something positive, because it is, but that doesnt guarantee success.
We still don´t have a clear idea on if and when will this "much larger gaming market" is going to be achiavable for this companies.
How will MS competitors be when this happens ? Have you ever thought that they can be in a much better position than MS one when streaming starts to gain traction ?
It´s odd to see some of the points around here because prior to Sony and MS deal on Azure people used to say that this was the "big guys fight" and Sony couldn´t compete unless their partner with someone else like AWS or Amazon. Now they partnership with MS and people try do downplay this. And not only that : we still don´t know neither Sony or MS strategies for their upcoming streaming services. People used to say here that Stadia would be a real game changer and now the discussion is "who is this for?".

Click to shrink...

Sony has been retracting the PS Now service by removing it from the PS3, so until that changes I don't see much growth in this area because it still appears as though Sony's main objective is to sell Playstation consoles. Microsoft on the other hand does not care where you play their games, that's the difference. Satya has been much more open with their resources and the company is now the most valuable in the world.Obviously they are doing something right.Sony on the other hand is small compared to how the company was 20 years ago. They've had to reduce their footprint and even though the Playstation brand is very strong where does that leave them in the future?

 

[melodiousmowl]

You mean what MS is going to do...and OnLive and Gaikai did in the past and Sony is doing right now ?
And how is a new way of distributction innovative ? Are games going to change because of it or the innovation is to bring the same games in a "new" way ?
As far as I can tell something like PSVR is much more innovative and foward thinking than bringing a new way of distribute the same old content the always existed.

Anyway where does that leave Sony ? Who knows ?
Where does that leave MS ? Or Nintendo ?
Sony doesn´t have to own their own tech to find success on this market. PSN runs on AWS servers and guess what ? PSN is the biggest gaming service of the world. And guess what ? MS with XBL running on their own infrastructure is not even the second one. I´m not saying here that the fact that they own their tech is not something positive, because it is, but that doesnt guarantee success.
We still don´t have a clear idea on if and when will this "much larger gaming market" is going to be achiavable for this companies.
How will MS competitors be when this happens ? Have you ever thought that they can be in a much better position than MS one when streaming starts to gain traction ?
It´s odd to see some of the points around here because prior to Sony and MS deal on Azure people used to say that this was the "big guys fight" and Sony couldn´t compete unless their partner with someone else like AWS or Amazon. Now they partnership with MS and people try do downplay this. And not only that : we still don´t know neither Sony or MS strategies for their upcoming streaming services. People used to say here that Stadia would be a real game changer and now the discussion is "who is this for?".

Click to shrink...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/18/...rvices-pc-mac-ps4-android-cloud-google-stadia

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/playstation-now/devices/ ... I think this is the answer (though I suspect they will follow suit with phones, since scaling out has been hampering their service offerings for years and now they have the infrastructure)

Games wont "change", it's MS's attempt to apple game streaming. Of all the offerings through history, theirs really seems the strongest.

And if this want a market, you know google wouldnt be doing their thing. It has huge potential.

It also means they need the content to fuel interest, and why I think a lot of that money going to new studios will yield a much better crop of titles than... the previous ms games administration managed.

And honestly, I never mentioned anyone else, just they they are positioning themselves to be first to market with something that runs on phones with a huge library - and if it's compelling (that is, price and performance and ease of use all are high) it could be a success.

MS succeeding here doesnt mean no one else can either. This isn't a zero sum game. It just means if they do well, geting into the market later just means your service has to be that much more compelling.

 

[Dan8589]

I look forward to a streaming future. One day I switch on my smart tv, select either the xbox or ps app then pick up a pad and play. So much easier.

 

[DigSCCP]

Sony has been retracting the PS Now service by removing it from the PS3, so until that changes I don't see much growth in this area because it still appears as though Sony's main objective is to sell Playstation consoles. Microsoft on the other hand does not care where you play their games, that's the difference. Satya has been much more open with their resources and the company is now the most valuable in the world.Obviously they are doing something right.Sony on the other hand is small compared to how the company was 20 years ago. They've had to reduce their footprint and even though the Playstation brand is very strong where does that leave them in the future?

Click to shrink...

PS3 was removed from PS3 more than two years ago.
Since then PS Now expanded to many countries.
I don´t know how dropping support for a 2006 device while expanding your territory is "retracting".
Of course Sony´s main objective is to sell Playstaiton consoles...this is the market that they´ve been finding success since ever, why would they change this ?
They have the brand power, the mindshare, the market penetration and content to make people invest in their ecosystem.
MS on other hand has been strugling in this market so of course they had to find other ways to get revenue, being it droping exclusives, after that making a new PC storefront to bring those, after that implementing cross buy, after that putting their games on other plataforms, after that on other storefronts...one action after the other when the previous one haven´t find success. The whole "Microsoft doesnt care where you play" is bullshit. They tried to sell a console and have not successed, then they tried to implement their own PC store and again they didn´t successed, again. They are trying to capture an audience and failing over and over again. Will their recent moves change this - bring games to Steam and xCloud in the future - who knows ? But saying they don´t care is just non sense, it´s not that they don´t care they can´t care because they don´t have neither brand or content to bring users to their own plataform. You can be sure that on MS wet dreams everybody was going to play Halo Infinite on a Xbox One, paying US60 and a Xbox Live Gold subscrpition to have access to it´s MP...but the market simply doesnt see this a good proposition, so they had to adapt.
Can this be a good move for them in the long run ? Sure, why not ? But again I ask : when are they going to reach this much larger gaming market and how will their competitors be when this happens ?