MS didn't invest in Azure just to prepare for streaming video games. Unless Sony intended to massively expand their business, building an Azure level platform just for PS would be silly.
-
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
Microsoft's net income is larger than just about every company in the world, so I don't know what's your point. If Microsoft were to get into the car business they will destroy Toyota, right? Stop with this nonsense.
Sony is playing for the future and present and it's painfully obvious. Microsoft is hoping the future would work in their favor but they are not doing hot right now.
So if they are the biggest company right now, why are you implying they aren't playing for the present lmao.
And if Sony wanted to get into the cloud business, would they destroy Microsoft? No, and they are now partnered with Microsoft, which is the exact point of this thread.
Last edited:
What's up with Phil and his billions?
When he first started talking it was "2 Billion gamers." Then that number became "2.5 Billion" and now he's talking about "7 Billion"
When he first started talking it was "2 Billion gamers." Then that number became "2.5 Billion" and now he's talking about "7 Billion"
2 billion people play games
7 billion is the goal for how many gamers will be playing the future
I like to think their enough engineers out there that look at these challenges and find creative, and unimagined solutions.
It will be interesting to see cloud gaming evolve over the course of the next generation of consoles.
He started out saying 2 Billion, not 7. He moved to that number over time.
It's just something I noticed.
It sounded like you were suggesting they don't expect to be competitive in hardware.
I guess I'm not sure what you meant when you suggested that Spencer's comments were meant to set expectations about their hardware business.
Tencent owns the Chinese market for mobile gaming, and Apple has one of the biggest app stores, but neither is that powerful in cloud infrastucture. Tencent is not nearly as large as Alibaba in cloud infrastructure, and is likely in 3rd or 4th position in the Chinese market. No Chinese cloud provider is global, and the market in China is massively fractured with only Alibaba as a clear leader. Apple doesn't even have a cloud infrastructure product at the moment. I guess you could count their own products cloud services, but they don't sell that to anyone else, and are tiny in comparison to the big three....
If that is the outlook you are taking, then you have been not watching Azure's rise. It's not that Azure exists because of gaming. Outside of xcloud it has little to do with gaming. It was more that gaming in just one aspect of this and, compared to Azure's other services, a minor one. It was only a matter of time before Microsoft began to attach xBox to the biggest money maker that Microsoft has had in years. More than Windows, More than Office and it dwarfs Xbox.
This was going to happen independent of Xbox One's failures, in fact the only thing that I think it did was accelerate the plan to start using Azure infrastructure. Like it or not, this is not going away. Because of the fact that Azure can run on.... anything, how important is it that Mircosoft sell you a big black box? I don't think that it is as important as you make it out to be. If they can find the platform you are on and serve games to that, xCloud makes it money. Azure learned the same lesson when it came to linux's instances, provide them the access and you collect the money.
Which is something that the company has been hinting at for a few months now with next-gen talks, You give them the screen and if they can serve you on it... Mircosoft will.
Now it's a question of if this is all going to be good, which.... I don't know. Google has been having a rough time with it, but with Google Cloud Service I think that the expectations are too high. Compared to AWS and Azure... GCS is still somewhat new. There was a big reason to why they soft launched the Stadia, and it has nothing to do with the quality (per se)... more about teething issues with the service and getting as close to the "last mile" problem as they can because at this point they have confirmed that it does work.
This could be said about any high level exec. Dumb fanboys are going make negative memes of the "other team."
Netflixlike gaming still a gen or two away, if it going help anyone it going be Nintendo they will get the most out of not having to make powerful bleeding edge stuff
Sony doesn't need to get into the cloud business, but they are in the cloud gaming business. Sony does have more than tens of billions on hand as Phil mentioned how much MS invested in the cloud over the years, but that's beside the point.
It's not just about the cloud, it's about cloud gaming. It's about the biggest secular change in high-end gaming like Satya talked about and there will be more players in that space than I could count in two hands.
I think you've misread
Phil Spencer 2019-
"I do think as we look at the next decade of gaming, as we think about reaching the over 2 billion people on the planet who play games, many of those people won't be buying consoles and gaming PCs"
Phil Spencer in this article-
"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."
2 billion people right now.
7 billion in future.
Netflix like gaming literally already exist?
You can play over 800 games across different decades without owning a single one of those consoles or any console for that matter.
Probably why they don't see them as a rival but instead as a paying customer.
Yikes.
First of all just because MS has Azure doesn't mean it's immediately ready to run Xbox games. I had this debate with people a year ago. Azure does not equal high performance AMD cloud GPU. MS would have to buy and build that infrastructure in order to have Xbox games run. There are other far less efficient ways they could have done it but they choose to literally manufacture Xbox Blades, they are literally completely doing the same exact thing Sony did 5 years ago. They having Azure just means they have their own network, but they DONT have the infrastructure needed just laying around. In terms of capacity Sony actually had more gaming infrastructure in terms of game servers capable of playing their console games. MS just didn't have it. That should tell anyone that obviously you are going to need to build out the gaming infrastructure regardless of who is doing it.
They had to build out the servers same as Sony did and did it 5 years later.
It is entirely questionable to the games you see with Series X are the same type as Xbox One, and to be fair... the service might be cross-platform, the brand might not be. I doubt these will be "Xbox Games" per se because if you are force to support PC, Mobile and console, they are not limited to an device id like an Xbox Console. We'll have to see what happeneds, of course, but this does devorce Microsoft of the notion that "Xbox" as a brand as any value outside of being a vehicle.
Whom is to say that they haven't? I mean the Cloud business is a server-based business at the core of it. Whom is to say that they don't just offer a server-stack or router at co-locations in the same manner that Neflix has for a few years now?
They are building Xbox rack servers for this. They've stated it already. Even shown video and such.
There's no feasible amount of Xbox console succes that would have delayed the adoption of a cloud-based vision for the future of the Gaming Division, because cloud is the future of Microsoft, and all operating divisions have the mandate of supporting that initiative.
Obviously, theyd still like to sell as many consoles and get and many xbox live subscribers as possible. But the earnings potential there pales in comparison to what they could get if their cloud products and services are also what devs on every platform are using to build, tests, market and distribute their games, run their matchmaking and analytics, host their servers and manage game communities, etc. And that's just the tip of the iceberg
Microsoft isnt getting out of traditional gaming. But there's a whole other part of the gaming pipeline that they have access to thanks to MS' cloud service... and they were going to tap into it regardless.
Last edited:
It's certainly possible; and it's possible consumers won't care if it's never perfected. At this point the tech is incredibly impressive, I'm not denying it.. in fact I thought it was impressive nearly a decade ago with OnLive. But technology isn't the only hurdle here; I think there's a ton of business issues at play. It seems like a grande experiment to me, one way more complicated than what people tend to compare it to (video streaming.)
But there's also a reason we are seeing these companies, in 2020, recommend you use a wired connection. Everything about wireless technology is worse than wired other than the convenience of wires. And it's what people expect these days to be able to use, and what a lot of companies are trying to push for home internet service.
The brand was flailing largely because of Mattrick and it certainly didn't help having Ballmer as the CEO. Phil Spencer convinced the new CEO that there is still value in Xbox and that is why they got the green light to invest in new studios.
The whole cloud/Azure business started well before this. That was going full steam ahead regardless of how well the Xbox could compete with Playstation. Microsoft is able to amalgamate is gaming division into other sectors and this is why they see a bigger market out there. Not one person has any rebuttal about how ever since the PS2 era the console market overall hasn't really grown.
Netflix has new stuff too. PSNow has gotten better, but it's a long ways from 'Netflix'
yikes Netflix DIDNT always have new stuff. You're comparing an industry in its infancy and not looking back at historical context. Do you even remember the early days of Netflix and it's business model or are you just assuming Netflix was always the way it is today? How can you even begin to make a comparison without the context of Netflix's history?
If someone else makes a car now, do they make a Model T or do they try to compete with today's cars?
If you're trying to copy a successful service from another form of media, you don't start by copying back when it sucked.
That analogy makes zero sense, its not even the same industry!
Theres nothing to compete with or model off of because it's an entirely new industry.
I meant they are trying to get across that they have bigger fish to fry than trying to sell more xboxes than playstations. Which is true. They turned out fine selling 50 mil boxes this time and it'll be fine next time. They're getting out in front of it so it doesnt look like a failure when they dont sell 80 mil. Theyre still going to be competing and getting a good chunk of the console market, just easing off on the full scale console war.
One billion Xbox systems? It was devices. This is where xcloud comes in but your whole interest seems to lie solely on consoles and explains why this topic turned out the way it did.
"I want to see the creators that I have relationships with reach all two billion people who play games, and not have to turn their studio into something that makes match-3 games rather than story-driven single player games. Because that's the only way to reach a bigger platform. That is our goal: to bring high-quality games to every device possible on the planet," said Spencer
I think they'd still love to and will aim to sell 80 million or more, and Phil's answer to this question would still be the right answer, even if such hardware goals didn't seem like a tall order. I don't think this comment was met to set hardware expectations at all.
I get what Phil is saying but why is the head of Xbox answering questions about Microsoft's competition with google etc.
because it is quite obvious Xbox's competition will always be Sony and Nintendo.
because it is quite obvious Xbox's competition will always be Sony and Nintendo.
Because he's the Vice President of Gaming at Microsoft, not just xbox head. Part of his responsibility is to leverage the gaming division to benefit Microsoft's cloud-based future. This naturally puts him in competition against Google's and Amazon's cloud initiatives in gaming
People still don't understand that cloud gaming is a wholesale danger to platform holders because it's completely platform agnostic. You don't need Windows for it. If you have cloud gaming then cloud word processing and spreadsheets and cloud desktop which many companies are already using is no big deal. MS has to take the platform threat very real and not be left out.
Well... Google already shat the bed with Stadia and it will be a long while before the stink of that launch washes off.
Amazon haven't made any meaningful moves towards cloud gaming at all. Besides providing the backend infrastructure for PSN for many years.
So I guess, MS has already won.
Not that it means anything though, since cloud gaming is always gonna be a niche.
Amazon haven't made any meaningful moves towards cloud gaming at all. Besides providing the backend infrastructure for PSN for many years.
So I guess, MS has already won.
Not that it means anything though, since cloud gaming is always gonna be a niche.
You've got the wrong quote and person. I'm talking about the following where Yusuf specifically said units and was heavily focused on the entertainment and other aspects of the One boosting its appeal and broadening its consumer install base, but whatever your semantic takeaway, obviously Microsoft didn't come close to selling one billion units, no matter what metric you use. Hell, xCloud hasn't even launched yet.
Also, the reason I brought that up wasn't to conflate consoles with cloud gaming, but to highlight that lofty figures in relation to potential install bases, rarely correlate with actual sales or adoption.
Eg, the Xbox Ones entertainment offerings didn't actually broaden its appeal or lend to considerably more unit sales (the opposite happened).
Xbox titles coming to PC didn't dramatically alter the success of Xbox or its software sales and revenue, contrary to what some on these forums predicted in part due to the PC gaming install base being so much greater than consoles (though it obviously had some impact).
Likewise, just because there is a potential 7 billion gamers out there who could use cloud gaming, doesn't mean anything remotely close to that number actually will. As I mentioned, I'm expecting cloud gaming adoption to be rather slow, and still well behind local hardware gaming, even into the end of next gen, though of course I might be wrong and maybe cloud gaming suddenly explodes overnight.
Either way, that was the point I and others referring to that install base reference point were making, that potential install base doesn't necessarily or even remotely correlate with sales and adoption.
Xbox One: Microsoft aims for 1 billion lifetime sales, 100 million Xbox 360 units
Microsoft predicts 1 billion next-generation console sales
"And the way we'll break into those segments is by hitting new price points, getting new classes of entertainment to come with the Xbox, and breaking into new customer segments. So you'll see the Xbox 360 continue to exist, even as we launch the next generation Xbox One."
"Every generation, as you've probably heard, has grown approximately 30%. So this generation is about 300 million units. Most industry experts think the next generation will get upwards of about 400 million units. That's if it's a game console, over the next decade."
"We think you can go broader than a game console, that's our aim, and you can go from 400 million to potentially upwards of a billion units. That's how we're thinking of the Xbox opportunity as we go forward."
Last edited:
then it begs the question why even bother after a while if they make more money on the back end. That's the enviable conclusion you have to draw, when Azure is the backend for PS,Ninty, Verizon, and whoever else why bother dumping millions into your own marketing and platform?
Your mistake is thinking that "cloud gaming" begins and ends with rendering games on a server then streaming to the end user.
Collaborative game development is happening in the cloud. AI processing is happening in the cloud. Cloud Platforms are used to facilitate game server rentals to consumers. Devs are using cloud powered analytics and machine learning is being used to study player behavior, guide game design, improve and facilitate matchmaking. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
"Cloud gaming" is already well past the niche phase, but a lot of it is behind the scenes. Just because you cant readily see Amazon's meaningful involvement doesnt mean you they don't exist.
Yeah, people's inability to see beyond the plastic box they prefer is inhibiting their ability to see where things are headed.
Last edited:
So guy that works for one of the top 3 cloud service providers in the world says their biggest competition in the cloud space is the other 2 top cloud service providers? (not counting alibaba)
How is this a 15 page thread lol. This is the most "no shit" statement ever.
How is this a 15 page thread lol. This is the most "no shit" statement ever.
So where exactly does it say all of those will be Xbox? He also ssuggested the console market was going to grow overall 30% every generation. Nothing suggested Xbox would sell that many. That market is not growing that rapidly. It seemed to have peaked during the PS2 era. Even Nintendo has shifted more to the portability area.
We are going noweher here as you are only fixated on console sales anyways and just want the status quo going forward of hard numbers to compare. I will just repeat what I said earlier;
Part of the conflict (with topics like these) is most who come here are console gamers who enjoy past practices of comparing hard numbers and want everything to be pretty much the same moving forward. Resistant to streaming, resistant to subscription models, while focusing mainly on exclusive titles and wanting them to remain exclusive. They only really see losers and winners in the overall console race.
"We think you can go broader than a game console, that's our aim, and you can go from 400 million to potentially upwards of a billion units. That's how we're thinking of the Xbox opportunity as we go forward."
Also, way to entirely miss the point of every one of my posts. You keep saying that I'm fixated on console sales, but you're time and time again ignoring the context of the posts.
Read through all the posts I've made and you'll see that the console comparisons aren't without merit, I'm drawing parallels in consumer driving points between console and cloud gaming, eg that it isn't ones in house server infrastructure that will be the deciding factor in a platforms cloud gaming success (see Netflix, Disney, Sony etc who use existing infrastructure and scale accordingly), but that similar to consoles, it'll boil down to other factors and distinctions like the actual content or games, pricing, value proposition, performance, graphics and so on. All areas that Sony and Nintendo (if they pursue cloud gaming) will actually be competing with Microsoft/Xbox if we're talking specifically about actual cloud gaming competition and adoption.
Last edited:
You don't even know the context of the links you provide. Yusuf suggested at the beginning of this generation the console market can keep growing at a pace of 30% increase each generation to 400 million over the next decade. Which would include all consoles from Xbox, Playstation and whatever Nintendo was going to come out with. That was also prior to the Switch which turned out to be mainly a portable device because even Nintendo saw a big decline in console sales in Japan.
You took it as them selling 1 billion Xbox One systems, which anyone knew is impossible to reach even if they had a flawless startegy and flawless marketing.
Obviously that market didn't grow and likely won't get there based solely on the console market. Even Sony tapped out at 150 million with the PS2. Yusuf also works for Microsoft devices and that as I mentioned is where xcloud comes in.
We think you can go broader than a game console,
He said broader than a game console. xCloud will be supported on Android and other devices in the future. That's how you can (potentially) get Xbox on one billion devices.
I give up.
Last edited:
I mean well Microsoft does have a war chest thru are a company with a trillion dollar market cap competing with Google and amazon like phil said. maybe you mean xbox?
Xbox customers will spend money in their ecosystem. Pretty easy to answer.