It will absolutely be the future of gaming doesn't mean non streaming options cease to exist tho. Once gamepass and xcloud get combined in one bundle and microsoft advertises it with some big release like Halo, this stuff will start to take off.
-
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.
Microsoft And Xbox Are Holding The Golden Key To The Future Of Gaming [Forbes]
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
Critique of the original article by subject:
New Consoles - Sony likely has an actual money invested advantage over Microsoft due to far greater success in the current generation, when most people really started making the move to digital. Those libraries are worth a lot to the average consumer. Then consider that its a pretty easy marketing move for Sony to equate PSNow with GamePass, or even as GamePass + Streaming if MS doesn't have XCloud ready day one for some reason. The pitch of "all our new games will be on Game Pass day one" is nice in theory, but when the actual lineups are out people will see more noteworthy names on Sony's list simply because they publish more noteworthy games.
Cloud Streaming - buddy brings this up as a big deal and yet fails to mention that Sony has been streaming games for basically the entire generation, already had it working (albeit poorly) on PS3 and Vita, and is already on both PC and PS4 in larger numbers than any other streaming service.
Meanwhile if we're going to get into old games Sony also has a far larger library of old games to build a "Netflix of Games" with, dating back to their PSOne days and even further as they acquired some relatively successful smaller developers in that era, inheriting their libraries.
The argument here is "MS is best positioned because of their position in the games industry coupled with server infrastructure" yet this ignores that Sony can, and in fact likely will, just pay for that server infrastructure. If game streaming is suddenly going to be the thing Sony, not MS, is the one in the drivers seat as they're already doing it, make more compelling content for it, own more historical content to feed into it, and can just pay a partner to push the data. If not MS I'm sure Amazon can make something work, or Google will bail on Stadia in exchange for a partnership approach.
Backwards Compatibility - Pointless. Sony has the data and has spoken to it in the past. A very, very small segment of people return to previous generation games once the new one is in full swing. MS has leaned in hard on BC, sure, but I'd have a hard time buying any argument claiming they have some aberant engagement rate and that it isn't primarily just a gap filler while their first party library is exceptionally weak. Even with that said, the likely edge for MS here would have been this past generation, not the next, as the PS3 > PS4 transition was Sony's hurdle. the PS5 will almost certainly be able to run PS4 games on hardware without emulation while also likely being powerful enough to close out emulation on PS2 and PS3. MS put a lot of work in for the XBox and X360 libraries on the One this gen, sure, but Sony has been on that since the PS2 and based on hacks/leaks pretty clearly has a high success rate wrapper for PS2 games on both PS3 and PS4 and likely some PS3 tools stemming from their streaming service that are likely evolving into actual PS3 emulation as we speak.
Cross Play/Cross Save - A feature Sony introduced on the PS3/PSP, continued onto the PS4/Vita, and has largely stopped servicing because not enough people used it. Oh, and one where MS' own efforts are pretty meh until just recently, and where the uptake outside of first party games is so low as to border on inconsequential. How does this drive a difference for the average consumer? Not to mention that if it turns into a meaningful selling point somehow without massively changing execution (like Stadia's "pickup and play from stream location" feature) there is nothing here Sony, Nintendo, etc. couldn't include in a firmware edit and patches. Larian put cross save/cross play in a fucking Switch port of a PC RPG, this does not require the technical might of MS. It requires 3rd parties joining in. Seeings how MS can't even get 1:1 releases on Xbox Game Pass v. PC Game Pass I don't think cross play is coming to every 3rd party game next gen just because MS likes talking about it.
In conclusion: Game Pass is a great service, but that is true largely because MS is putting a substantial cash subsidy behind it and expecting retention of subs to make them whole in the long term. Sony could pull off the same shift with PSNow pretty easily.
MS' advantage is having an, as of now, unique position as being a part of the industry while also being an order of magnitude larger than Sony and Nintendo. They have other markets to compete in though to remain the juggernaut they are, so its not like all their discretionary capital is getting poured into video games. They also have similarly sized companies, namely Google but also long rumored Amazon and Apple, lurking.
At the end of the day they need to turn some of this wealth of resources into a high value tier of products - i.e. enough noteworthy games to compete with Sony and Nintendo. Not a small task by any means even with unlimited resources.
The Xbox One was both substantially weaker and cost more than the PS4.
MS had great hardware when it was against PS2 and GC and could throw a high end Nvidia card in a box and write off the loss as buying into the market, when they could effectively do the same with X1X to buy hardware supremacy again, and are likely doing the same with XsX.
MS has only had great hardware when they write off a loss to make it happen. Even then it doesn't always work (like with the 360 where eating the extra ram bump/etc. to meet the suggestions of devs paid off, but the manufacturing process was basically faulty for an entire year or better).
This is like if someone tried claiming that MLB: The Show, Uncharted: Lost Legacy, and Nex Machina were all Sony needed to headline their first party studios.
New Consoles - Sony likely has an actual money invested advantage over Microsoft due to far greater success in the current generation, when most people really started making the move to digital. Those libraries are worth a lot to the average consumer. Then consider that its a pretty easy marketing move for Sony to equate PSNow with GamePass, or even as GamePass + Streaming if MS doesn't have XCloud ready day one for some reason. The pitch of "all our new games will be on Game Pass day one" is nice in theory, but when the actual lineups are out people will see more noteworthy names on Sony's list simply because they publish more noteworthy games.
Cloud Streaming - buddy brings this up as a big deal and yet fails to mention that Sony has been streaming games for basically the entire generation, already had it working (albeit poorly) on PS3 and Vita, and is already on both PC and PS4 in larger numbers than any other streaming service.
Meanwhile if we're going to get into old games Sony also has a far larger library of old games to build a "Netflix of Games" with, dating back to their PSOne days and even further as they acquired some relatively successful smaller developers in that era, inheriting their libraries.
The argument here is "MS is best positioned because of their position in the games industry coupled with server infrastructure" yet this ignores that Sony can, and in fact likely will, just pay for that server infrastructure. If game streaming is suddenly going to be the thing Sony, not MS, is the one in the drivers seat as they're already doing it, make more compelling content for it, own more historical content to feed into it, and can just pay a partner to push the data. If not MS I'm sure Amazon can make something work, or Google will bail on Stadia in exchange for a partnership approach.
Backwards Compatibility - Pointless. Sony has the data and has spoken to it in the past. A very, very small segment of people return to previous generation games once the new one is in full swing. MS has leaned in hard on BC, sure, but I'd have a hard time buying any argument claiming they have some aberant engagement rate and that it isn't primarily just a gap filler while their first party library is exceptionally weak. Even with that said, the likely edge for MS here would have been this past generation, not the next, as the PS3 > PS4 transition was Sony's hurdle. the PS5 will almost certainly be able to run PS4 games on hardware without emulation while also likely being powerful enough to close out emulation on PS2 and PS3. MS put a lot of work in for the XBox and X360 libraries on the One this gen, sure, but Sony has been on that since the PS2 and based on hacks/leaks pretty clearly has a high success rate wrapper for PS2 games on both PS3 and PS4 and likely some PS3 tools stemming from their streaming service that are likely evolving into actual PS3 emulation as we speak.
Cross Play/Cross Save - A feature Sony introduced on the PS3/PSP, continued onto the PS4/Vita, and has largely stopped servicing because not enough people used it. Oh, and one where MS' own efforts are pretty meh until just recently, and where the uptake outside of first party games is so low as to border on inconsequential. How does this drive a difference for the average consumer? Not to mention that if it turns into a meaningful selling point somehow without massively changing execution (like Stadia's "pickup and play from stream location" feature) there is nothing here Sony, Nintendo, etc. couldn't include in a firmware edit and patches. Larian put cross save/cross play in a fucking Switch port of a PC RPG, this does not require the technical might of MS. It requires 3rd parties joining in. Seeings how MS can't even get 1:1 releases on Xbox Game Pass v. PC Game Pass I don't think cross play is coming to every 3rd party game next gen just because MS likes talking about it.
In conclusion: Game Pass is a great service, but that is true largely because MS is putting a substantial cash subsidy behind it and expecting retention of subs to make them whole in the long term. Sony could pull off the same shift with PSNow pretty easily.
MS' advantage is having an, as of now, unique position as being a part of the industry while also being an order of magnitude larger than Sony and Nintendo. They have other markets to compete in though to remain the juggernaut they are, so its not like all their discretionary capital is getting poured into video games. They also have similarly sized companies, namely Google but also long rumored Amazon and Apple, lurking.
At the end of the day they need to turn some of this wealth of resources into a high value tier of products - i.e. enough noteworthy games to compete with Sony and Nintendo. Not a small task by any means even with unlimited resources.
The 360 had the single largest known manufacturing defect rate of any major console by a wide margin.
The Xbox One was both substantially weaker and cost more than the PS4.
MS had great hardware when it was against PS2 and GC and could throw a high end Nvidia card in a box and write off the loss as buying into the market, when they could effectively do the same with X1X to buy hardware supremacy again, and are likely doing the same with XsX.
MS has only had great hardware when they write off a loss to make it happen. Even then it doesn't always work (like with the 360 where eating the extra ram bump/etc. to meet the suggestions of devs paid off, but the manufacturing process was basically faulty for an entire year or better).
No, like games that actually garner major mainstream attention. Not a niche pseudo-arcade racer, a still enjoyable yet stale third person shooter, and an indie metroidvania.
This is like if someone tried claiming that MLB: The Show, Uncharted: Lost Legacy, and Nex Machina were all Sony needed to headline their first party studios.
If you like a certain type of game, I agree. But the diversity of the recently announced stuff is much more interesting to me. I don't have 3/4 hours at a time to sink into big, narrative games so I really appreciate things like Bleeding Edge and Sea of Thieves. I need pick up and play experiences...and no more cut scenes!! I'm really sick of cut scenes.
I didn't know Mario Odyssey, Mario kart, smash Bros and Luigi's Mansion were big narrative cutscene filled games. TIL.
2 of those are OK, but to be honest, I buy so few Nintendo 1st party for my Switch simply because they stay too expensive. I've even stopped buying indies on it now because of Gamepass.
User Banned (5 days): Console wars, history of similar behaviour
So? They're still leagues above what MS currently offers and this is not debatable.
It is unfortunate that Sony's and Nintendo's offerings are not up to par with Microsoft's. If they were, I would own a Sony console and use my Switch more often.
how is that not debatable? personal preference is totally in the realm of debate. relax.
Gamepass is great, let's just get that out of the way.
In 2020 if you still gonna suggest that Sony doesn't have the war chest to compete especially in the video games industry then you are talking out of your league. The most important thing for a subscription service is content, if you have content then it's only a matter of putting them on whatever channel you may have.
In 2020 if you still gonna suggest that Sony doesn't have the war chest to compete especially in the video games industry then you are talking out of your league. The most important thing for a subscription service is content, if you have content then it's only a matter of putting them on whatever channel you may have.
1.This has never been done before at this scale.
2. You're attempting to compare gamepass, which is literally just a subscription service to get games, like Netflix, to 3D and motion controls?
3. You then try and say that VR/AR is the future of gaming, when the previous sentence you say 3D and motion controls didn't work, when the closest comparable gimmick to VR gaming is motion controls and 3D
Lets ignore ms 1st for a second - is gamepass still better?
User warned: Disparaging game journalists with claims of astroturfing
At this point I'm convinced Microsoft PR has astroturfed its way into mainstream gaming/tech publications to push piles after piles of articles in its favor. It can't just be a coincidence. Every other month a similar article claiming that MS is poised to take the lead next gen comes out. I even made a very similar post in reaction to a similar article back in July, and that was after many similar articles came out in a short time: https://www.resetera.com/threads/pl...-hardcore-gamer-strategy.128484/post-22677104
Maybe people just really like the service and value of Gamepass, something MS is continuously making more desirable month after month.
If that growth stays the same, then yeah I can see plenty of people being excited about it's future.
This is 100% the future. Just because we can't do it today does not mean we never will. The laws of physics do not prevent it.
Maybe you can just say you don't like Microsoft without accusing media members of Astro turfing
Really? LOL.
It's not so hard to see why people would think that a Netflix like service (which turned the whole cable and music industry on its head) for gaming could have people think it would happen again for another medium?
that's the great thing about opinions you can just go and find one you agree with.
Because its not streaming or because the games offered are considered better?
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/59086619/maxresdefault.0.jpg)
This, only reason I have gamepass is because of all these $1 deals. But I haven't even touched the MS store in a long ass time. I even bought Halo MCC on steam even tho it's already in gamepass. Because the Xbox app/MS launcher on PC is garbage.
is witcher 3, gta5, minecraft, dmc5 and a bunch of other 3rd party games on there? that is only a few titles we can name that bring tremendous value to GP ....
Both?
Gamepass has a large amount of stellar games that aren't first party. You don't need to be a fan of MS first party to have gamepass be worth it to you. Not anymore.
Because of the newly released titles and indie games that launch into the system. I mean...I don't even know why you would even try to take out the first party and then compare them...it's comparing hypotheticals that won't exist when we can just compare the real thing. lol. Just trying to change the reality to suit your own point...lol.
2020 is when Game Pass is going to really start to shine thanks to the number of first-party titles launching on it. If MS continues to get indies to launch on the service on top of the first-party games and recent 3rd party games the service will be just unimaginably good.
Only one service allows you cause chaos as a goose
Pretty much. Gamepass is a nice option for people but unless it has every single game on it then it's not going to be the trojan horse the article made it out to be.
It was a little funny seeing Goose Game on the state of play, yet launching on gamepass.
Netflix doesn't have every single movie or tv show though and it seems to be pretty successful.
It doesn't need to have every single game on it (nor do I think MS wants it to...they make money off of sales as well)...it just have to have a good enough library to keep people subscribed. I have Netflix...but I still go to the movies. So what you are proposing is not necessary for it to have an impact.
demographics. Not everyone plays the same. Western culture being conditioned to subscribe to subscriptions is on an increase. just something notable on where buying practices seem to head on a specific demographic. If they ever get COD ... now that will be something to really be interested in! I'm interested to see how the mind-share shifts with the recent addition of the behemoth GTA5 .. the title that has topped charts for years right? i kind of forget but i remember it being number 1 almost every month .. or atleast top 3
Does PSNow have DMC5 and Goose Game?
And how can you just say, let's ignore this entire batch of games. Lol terrible argument.
Of course it's better to be local at home. That's not what xCloud us intended for.
The box office is doing great also. Subscription service is a nice option for sure, but the companies that hold the content hold all the cards. I think the article really misses the point that everything should stem from content, not gamepass, in order for these companies to be successful.
No, it doesn't have to be. Is it going to have GTA VI or the next COD or FIFA day and date? I think EA Access already told us the answer. It's a nice additive service that won't set the world on fire, at least not for now.
But the real question is does Microsoft really have the advantage on that front? They were the first one to popularise charging for online MP and yet PS Plus out-revenued them by a large margin this gen. So the first one to do it doesn't necessarily have an advantage.
You do bring out an interesting point about demographics. I agree there's going to be a change in how people access content in the future and that's why you see even Walmart rumored to get into cloud gaming, and you see more game publishers having their own subscription service.
Last edited:
It doesn't need those big games though...it will have its own big games...
That's cool. But that's not what I will call golden key to the future of gaming.
That's why I used the CRT as an example. Some people are ok with dealing with those downsides/downgrades for the overall convenience if it works well enough for them.
Yeah but that's only you in the end. No service in this world is for everyone when it comes to acceptance.