Yes so they obviously felt the package was betterI mean, they can choose from Amazon, Google or Microsoft. They already used Amazon and decided to go with Microsoft.
Yes so they obviously felt the package was betterI mean, they can choose from Amazon, Google or Microsoft. They already used Amazon and decided to go with Microsoft.
It will take Sony/Nintendo years and a lot of money to build cloud infrastructures to match MS, Google, & Amazon. That ship has sailed..
This thread makes me excited for what is to come. This year will be glorious and fun. :D
Zero....That's my big fear right now. I have zero interest in the Cloud at this point.
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?
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.And the said can be said about XBox's global brand. It's nor where near where it needs to be to have any kind od significant penetration in the market, Amzon Google occupy.
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 confusedAnd 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.
When he talks about their competitors on this market, for sure they have a wrong vision. Chill out a bit.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?
Highly disrespectful but it fits with this marketing narrative pushed through various media publications where they act like PS Now doesn't exist or lacks features it clearly has.
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.
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
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.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.
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. Incongruence of your statement in relation to the topic is monumental.
and by "this market" what do you think he's talking about?When he talks about their competitors on this market, for sure they have a wrong vision. Chill out a bit.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Then why the hell are you in this thread arguing nonsense , Phil spencer is clearly talking about xbox/azure as an enterpriseMy 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.
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.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.
Well saidThe day I can't play on a local console natively will be the day I quit console gaming.
Fuck every single person that pushing for streaming-only future.
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.The day I can't play on a local console natively will be the day I quit console gaming.
Fuck every single person that pushing for streaming-only future.
Did you read the article? I ask in full sincerity because that type of response would indicate you didn't.
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"
That's not what this article is discussing. Read it.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.
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.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.
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.
Did you read the article? I ask in full sincerity because that type of response would indicate you didn't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'm sure this is more an overall thing. Sony and Nintendo are ants in comparison to Microsoft, Google, and Amazon.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
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.
No, microsoft sees google and Amazon as their primary cloud computing competition, which includes streaming, but also includes analytics services, hosting services, game development tools, matchmaking services, and machine learning etc.
You thinking this is all about the xbox brand is kinda cray...
In the fall, Microsoft will square off once again with traditional rival Sony as each introduces new game consoles, the Xbox Series X and the PlayStation 5.
But Microsoft's Spencer says he doesn't consider Sony and Nintendo his main competition anymore, largely because neither of those Japanese companies owns its own top-end global cloud infrastructure akin to Microsoft's Azure platform. One of Microsoft's main selling points for the new Xbox will be integration with its xCloud technology, which is meant to allow you to play the same game across a console, a desktop PC and a mobile device.
"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," Spencer said. "That's not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we've invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years."
Spencer said Microsoft was willing to cooperate with Nintendo and Sony on initiatives like allowing gamers on the various companies' systems to play with and against one another. He added: "I don't want to be in a fight over format wars with those guys while Amazon and Google are focusing on how to get gaming to 7 billion people around the world. Ultimately, that's the goal."
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 includes streaming, but also includes analytics services, hosting services, game development tools, matchmaking services, and machine learning etc.
You thinking this is all about the xbox brand is kinda cray...
Who is Phil throwing shade at?
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.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.
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.
Neither of them have invested in billion dollar datacenters or provide cloud white label services which is what this article is aboutThis 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.
Microsoft still shows they have a wrong vision from games industry.
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.