Ultimately that quote feels like one of the more CEO-ish that Phill has put out. Obviously he's not going to frame Nintendo or Sony as competitors when they're both kicking the shit out of the Xbox One and will probably outperform the Series X too.
You seem to be fixated on a group of trees in a very large forest.
"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."
It's not bluster when there are actions to back the statements.
TOKYO and REDMOND, Wash. — May 16, 2019 — Sony Corporation (Sony) and Microsoft Corp. (Microsoft) announced on Thursday that the two companies will partner on new innovations to enhance customer experiences in their direct-to-consumer entertainment platforms and AI solutions.
Under the memorandum of understanding signed by the parties, the two companies will explore joint development of future cloud solutions in Microsoft Azure to support their respective game and content-streaming services. In addition, the two companies will explore the use of current Microsoft Azure datacenter-based solutions for Sony’s game and content-streaming services. By working together, the companies aim to deliver more enhanced entertainment experiences for their worldwide customers. These efforts will also include building better development platforms for the content creator community.
It's similar to the shit Microsoft got for their timed exclusivity for Rise of the Tomb Raider.
Even worse (IMO, but I'm bias) is the exclusivity of Destiny content for PS4. They had extra items and missions for an entire year. What they didn't see until it was too late was that the PS4 people were getting screwed out of having those items in the rewards rotation.
Game exclusives is nothing new, and I don't think it should end. That's part of what is so compelling about one system over the others: console exclusive games. If a game comes out for all systems, then it's not exclusive, so don't be a dick and screw over at least half of the fanbase with your little money deal, because that literally is the only reason that happens: moe-nay.
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
"We don't consider these two companies to be competitors because we're leading the way in this specific field. Please ignore the other fields, which are the primary source of revenue for this division, where we're getting our asses handed to us by them."
If that was Andrew House or Bobby Kotick, we'd be laughing at the amount of spin there.
It's similar to the shit Microsoft got for their timed exclusivity for Rise of the Tomb Raider.
Even worse (IMO, but I'm bias) is the exclusivity of Destiny content for PS4. They had extra items and missions for an entire year. What they didn't see until it was too late was that the PS4 people were getting screwed out of having those items in the rewards rotation.
Game exclusives is nothing new, and I don't think it should end. That's part of what is so compelling about one system over the others: console exclusive games. If a game comes out for all systems, then it's not exclusive, so don't be a dick and screw over at least half of the fanbase with your little money deal, because that literally is the only reason that happens: moe-nay.
The Epic Games Store "buyouts" and what Microsoft with Tomb Raider did with are two different things entirely. Microsoft had supported the original reboot, and was invested in the sequel, both in marketing and support. It's been said in many a spot. That said, the only two games with exclusivity buyout that comes to mind is Ooblets, and that was to help fund their work. And Control, which a was a safety net type funding; even though Control didn't knock it out of the park saleswise the upfront EGS gave them makes that irrelevant to them, only Epic lost out.
Listing a game and pulling it also isn't the same as selling preorders for the game and then pulling it either, and afaik you couldn't preorder Ooblets or Control. Crowdfunding is murky waters when it comes to this too.
That said, Destiny's exclusivity was value diminishing and the worst. You couldn't buy Rise of the Tomb Raider at all for a year, and when you did you got a sku that had all the DLC and a little more. Destiny you paid for content you were locked out of and when the lock was released it competed with new content, plus that whole delay and junk... just meh.
But all in all, I would venture to say that the exclusivity that comes from a game being incapable of being finished due to lack of funding is far worse.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
It's similar to the shit Microsoft got for their timed exclusivity for Rise of the Tomb Raider.
Even worse (IMO, but I'm bias) is the exclusivity of Destiny content for PS4. They had extra items and missions for an entire year. What they didn't see until it was too late was that the PS4 people were getting screwed out of having those items in the rewards rotation.
Game exclusives is nothing new, and I don't think it should end. That's part of what is so compelling about one system over the others: console exclusive games. If a game comes out for all systems, then it's not exclusive, so don't be a dick and screw over at least half of the fanbase with your little money deal, because that literally is the only reason that happens: moe-nay.
Game exclusives should be things that wouldn't exist if not for the fact that it's exclusive. Taking an existing game in development (LIke Rise of the Tomb Raider, or Metro Exodus etc. etc.) and turning it into an exclusive or timed exclusive is where it turns sour, IMO.
"We don't consider these two companies to be competitors because we're leading the way in this specific field. Please ignore the other fields, which are the primary source of revenue for this division, where we're getting our asses handed to us by them."
If that was Andrew House or Bobby Kotick, we'd be laughing at the amount of spin there.
Did you read either articles and just miss the context or something?
Cloud gaming is at the center... not consoles:
From Amazon
From Google's Phil Harrison
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Game streaming is still an in-development technology that has major hurdles to overcome before it even becomes a significant chunk of gaming, let alone actually start taking a dent out of the massive market that is physical consoles.
Even Phil Spencer himself was couching the future with stuff like "We're not planning for Scarlett to be our last console." He's been pretty explicit about how streaming is not going to take over gaming. (Becuase that's a pipedream that would require a massive infrastructure overhaul in their primary market, i.e. the States)
Again, if we saw any other CEO point at the the one thing their company is ahead on and proclaim that to be the most important thing while downplaying what is currently the actual most important thing, which is something they're not doing great on, we'd be laughing at them.
I know that Microsoft (and Google, and Amazon) very, very, very much want game streaming to be a thing. But that's no guarantee it'll actually be a thing. Especially since Stadia's apparently flopped. Granted Google made some fuckups on that one, but it's possible there's not a way to inherently make streaming a thing without extremely carefully targeting a non-console/hardcore/you know what I mean audience and then flooding the shit out of them with games that appeal to them. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic and even that's not possible?
Remember when virtual reality was going to take over gaming? Or chatbots? Not every technology sticks, even if it's "better." There's plenty of better file formats than MP3s, but people mostly still use MP3s... or at least the ones who haven't skipped the post-MP3 formats altogether to go to music streaming.
Sony's not Microsoft's competition, sheesh. The mere fact that Sony continues to hammer out PS Now to (try to) keep up with Xbox's on-demand offerings, even though PS4 has outsold One nearly two to one show they're competing.
Also, keep in mind that I very much like Phil Spencer. I think he's been a breath of fresh air for Microsoft and has done some amazing work to take the flaming trashheap that was the Xbox One at launch, and turn it into something respectable. I also think he's positioned the Xbox brand about as well as he possibly can going into the next generation, which is no small feat.
But I'm still going to call it out when he makes statements I find silly. If, for no other reason, than the fact that he doesn't make a lot of them.
I know that Microsoft (and Google, and Amazon) very, very, very much want game streaming to be a thing. But that's no guarantee it'll actually be a thing. Especially since Stadia's apparently flopped. Granted Google made some fuckups on that one, but it's possible there's not a way to inherently make streaming a thing without extremely carefully targeting a non-console/hardcore/you know what I mean audience and then flooding the shit out of them with games that appeal to them. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic and even that's not possible?
Remember when virtual reality was going to take over gaming? Or chatbots? Not every technology sticks, even if it's "better." There's plenty of better file formats than MP3s, but people mostly still use MP3s... or at least the ones who haven't skipped the post-MP3 formats altogether to go to music streaming.
Sony's not Microsoft's competition, sheesh. The mere fact that Sony continues to hammer out PS Now to (try to) keep up with Xbox's on-demand offerings, even though PS4 has outsold
One nearly two to one show they're competing.
Apple and Facebook both also have an interest making and pushing out game/cloud streaming in some fashion too. The Apple Arcade's "mobile-streaming" experience being an example of that. There's also their AppleTV and whatnot. Facebook is doing... something. But game streaming and cloud tech aren't just limited to the latest AAA games.
There are practical reasons why better formats than MP3s haven't taken off as much. The MP3 format became so popular primarily because of its portability and size in a time of significantly slower download speeds than what we have now. VR will never be a thing so long as it is fairly impractical to use. Cloud-based gaming wherein weaker, cheaper devices provide a similar experience to a large audience presents a practical solution in the same way that smaller, dedicated machines that can play games without buying an expensive computer presented its own practical solution.
Gaming is big, getting bigger all the time along with virtualization. Amazon and Google desiring to leverage their existing infrastructures to tap into that market makes sense. While it's not going to replace consoles anymore than consoles replaced PCs, sleeping on that would be bad. Given the popularity of mobile gaming, offering the ability to play a console/PC game on the go—or bolstering the experience of a mobile game to match that level without having to buy a $3000 phone or whatever, is sensible. See:
Also, the quote says main competitors going forward. There are many examples of companies partnering despite having competing products and all. But anyoo, think I've spent enough energy on this so w/e.
eta: Oh... and to be clear, I don’t like or want to stream games at all.
edit: image spoilered for scroll
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Rod Fergusson, studio head over at The Coalition, is leaving to join Blizzard on Diablo IV. Since I like both Gears of War and Diablo franchises, and one of these is realistically on much shakier ground the other, I wish him the best of luck and look forward to his next work.
Fergusson was with Gears of War since the beginning. Given Gears 5's near universal acclaim (even with its grindy-grindy multiplayer skins) and the change in story narrative, he's leaving it in good shape. Reception to what little we know about Diablo IV seem pretty positive so far, but Blizzard is definitely in a much rougher spot by comparison.
PC and Xbox game pass members also get access to a beta for Bleeding Edge, on February 11th-14th.
The games are up now, and it turns out that FFXV is actually the Royal Edition, which comes with the game's first 4 DLC packs built-in, and Game Pass members also get the 5th and final one, Episode Ardyn, for free
In total that's about 150 GB of Final Fantasy, so I hope your console is ready
Crippl3 on
+4
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
Game streaming is still an in-development technology that has major hurdles to overcome before it even becomes a significant chunk of gaming, let alone actually start taking a dent out of the massive market that is physical consoles.
Even Phil Spencer himself was couching the future with stuff like "We're not planning for Scarlett to be our last console." He's been pretty explicit about how streaming is not going to take over gaming. (Becuase that's a pipedream that would require a massive infrastructure overhaul in their primary market, i.e. the States)
Again, if we saw any other CEO point at the the one thing their company is ahead on and proclaim that to be the most important thing while downplaying what is currently the actual most important thing, which is something they're not doing great on, we'd be laughing at them.
I'd rather respond on something other than my phone, but I think you're forming an opinion based on your own vastly reductive interpretation of what Spencer is saying.
As one of the largest cloud providers his intent is that Xbox is no longer moving to compete primarily with Nintendo or Sony because they aren't really relevant to the context of that market. He said nothing about traditional gaming simply being less important or whatever, he is basically recognising that the amount of resources they're going to pour into competing against Google or Amazon in this space could very well dwarf that of their current market and they can't afford to do that and compete traditionally as they are currently against the console manufacturers.
If you want to contend that essentially means the same thing or that it's splitting hairs, I'll be here tonight
God damnit zombie army 4 has that thing where if you come back into the game after turning off your Xbox achievements don’t unlock. So frustrating
Also if you liked the slow mo kills from the other zombie trilogy and sniper games go into settings and increase the frequency you see them from the default, otherwise you hardly see any, especially the explosions slow mo kills
Well hell why not, I've been looking to get into some Final Fantasy 15.
It's a huge amount of game even at $60, and it still looks damn good. Hopefully you enjoy it, I know I have, or I wouldn't have clocked dozen of hours in the end game alone.
God damnit zombie army 4 has that thing where if you come back into the game after turning off your Xbox achievements don’t unlock. So frustrating
Also if you liked the slow mo kills from the other zombie trilogy and sniper games go into settings and increase the frequency you see them from the default, otherwise you hardly see any, especially the explosions slow mo kills
I admit that I've been tempted to try out Zombie Army, despite not knowing much about it. Do you recommend it?
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
Does the mercenaries DLC still work in the actual 15?
I honestly didn't think it does, which bums me out.
What size did you go with? Make sure you got a USB 3.0 enclosure/connector otherwise there's not much point.
2TB - more I thought about it, I don't need a larger one because I'd only need to store games I'm actively playing. Completed games and games I stopped playing went on the external in my original config. Though I'm thinking a four drive config will be too much, so once I fill the one drive, I'll probably unhook it so at most I'll have three active.
I may tweak the config a little more by getting a powered USB 3.0 hub with a power switches on each port... but IDK yet. If the switches don't completely stop the devices, no point. Also considering using a right angle hub to hook directly into the back to eliminate some of the wires... but the only one I've seen is a swivel one and I don't want a point of failure like that. The hub I bought is an Anker USB 3.0, and I've yet to have a bad experience with an Anker product.
The enclosure said it was USB 3.1 Gen 1 (3.0), so... hopefully it is.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
2 TB is on the meatier sides as far as SSDs are concerned, both on the PC end and console end. Out of curiosity, would you mind sharing the model you ended up purchasing? I went with a Crucial MX500, 1 TB, since I had a (relatively positive, by SSD standards anyway) history with their drives and its reported speeds were basically pushing in the area that would be limited by USB 3.0 any further. But admittedly, I'm only using one external drive--I keep games I think I'm likely to bring to a friend's place (and plug into their Xbox One) on it, whereas games I'm not likely to play elsewhere (singleplayer stuff like FFXV, The Witcher 3, etc.) on the internal.
Game streaming is still an in-development technology that has major hurdles to overcome before it even becomes a significant chunk of gaming, let alone actually start taking a dent out of the massive market that is physical consoles.
Even Phil Spencer himself was couching the future with stuff like "We're not planning for Scarlett to be our last console." He's been pretty explicit about how streaming is not going to take over gaming. (Becuase that's a pipedream that would require a massive infrastructure overhaul in their primary market, i.e. the States)
Again, if we saw any other CEO point at the the one thing their company is ahead on and proclaim that to be the most important thing while downplaying what is currently the actual most important thing, which is something they're not doing great on, we'd be laughing at them.
I'd rather respond on something other than my phone, but I think you're forming an opinion based on your own vastly reductive interpretation of what Spencer is saying.
As one of the largest cloud providers his intent is that Xbox is no longer moving to compete primarily with Nintendo or Sony because they aren't really relevant to the context of that market. He said nothing about traditional gaming simply being less important or whatever, he is basically recognising that the amount of resources they're going to pour into competing against Google or Amazon in this space could very well dwarf that of their current market and they can't afford to do that and compete traditionally as they are currently against the console manufacturers.
If you want to contend that essentially means the same thing or that it's splitting hairs, I'll be here tonight
Saying Sony and Nintendo aren't their main competitors anymore is absolutely passing a value judgment (or at least presenting a value judgment) on the importance of traditional gaming vs cloud gaming; which as I've stated, I think is very premature based on the current state and immediate future the field. This is why I feel his statement is silly in the context of downplaying the proven, but comparitively weaker areas of their business in exchange for areas where they are strong, but are as-of-yet unproven.
If this was 3-4 years from now and cloud gaming had taken off like wildfire, I wouldn't be calling it silly. But that is not the case, so I'm calling it out for what it is; a silly statement of CEO spin that would fit right at home in an EA press release.
Also, that is ALL I'm saying. It's a silly thing to have a giggle at. I'm not doom and glooming Phil, the Xbox brand or even cloud gaming. (It has major hurdles to overcome, but I'm hoping Microsoft is well aware of those hurdles and have plans on how to deal with them.. unlike Google). I thought it was noteworthy because we don't get a lot of CEO spin like this out of Spencer. In fact, he's frequently the first one to point out "Of course I'd say this..." when he talks about things that are sound like CEO spin. (i.e. when talking about cross-console multiplayer, for example.)
I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of pushback I'm getting from this, honestly. Especially when most of it comes down to questioning my reading comprehension. :biggrin:
2 TB is on the meatier sides as far as SSDs are concerned, both on the PC end and console end. Out of curiosity, would you mind sharing the model you ended up purchasing? I went with a Crucial MX500, 1 TB, since I had a (relatively positive, by SSD standards anyway) history with their drives and its reported speeds were basically pushing in the area that would be limited by USB 3.0 any further. But admittedly, I'm only using one external drive--I keep games I think I'm likely to bring to a friend's place (and plug into their Xbox One) on it, whereas games I'm not likely to play elsewhere (singleplayer stuff like FFXV, The Witcher 3, etc.) on the internal.
Went with a Samsung 860 QVO SSD 2TB]. Pretty much bought it because I've been using Samsung SSDs for years and haven't had any issues with them. Got a 2TB drive because I factored in the slowly growing footprint that most online games tend to develop as they gain more content.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
I'm only using one external drive--I keep games I think I'm likely to bring to a friend's place (and plug into their Xbox One) on it, whereas games I'm not likely to play elsewhere (singleplayer stuff like FFXV, The Witcher 3, etc.) on the internal.
How does that work, exactly? I assume via DRM that you'd have to download your profile to their system for those games to be playable.
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
I'm only using one external drive--I keep games I think I'm likely to bring to a friend's place (and plug into their Xbox One) on it, whereas games I'm not likely to play elsewhere (singleplayer stuff like FFXV, The Witcher 3, etc.) on the internal.
How does that work, exactly? I assume via DRM that you'd have to download your profile to their system for those games to be playable.
It's pretty much game-sharing to go, so yes. At some point he would either login to his profile on that box for that to work. Or the other person owns the games too and they're just sharing the drive in lieu of installation.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Calling it bullshit spin would be optimistic. When they can't even be bothered with series X exclusives I think they're already waving the white flag as far as traditional console gaming goes. Hell that decision probably has something to do with x-cloud currently being just lowly One S blades. If cloud gaming is inherently a fail that says a lot about Microsoft's gaming fortunes in the near future.
God damnit zombie army 4 has that thing where if you come back into the game after turning off your Xbox achievements don’t unlock. So frustrating
Also if you liked the slow mo kills from the other zombie trilogy and sniper games go into settings and increase the frequency you see them from the default, otherwise you hardly see any, especially the explosions slow mo kills
I admit that I've been tempted to try out Zombie Army, despite not knowing much about it. Do you recommend it?
I think the original Zombie Trilogy is much cheaper to try out first to see if you like it. They’re basically low budget silliness, I really enjoy them as mindless shooting fun, but I can’t say you should rush out and get the new one full price sight unseen. There really isn’t much to the games, check out a video review or play through since what you see is kind of what you get with them.
Also as for Zombie Army 4 its second half is way better than its first which is annoying, as I almost gave up on it. It’s not till the second half that you get big hordes and challenges and it feels like you can actually really use your sniper rifle
I'm only using one external drive--I keep games I think I'm likely to bring to a friend's place (and plug into their Xbox One) on it, whereas games I'm not likely to play elsewhere (singleplayer stuff like FFXV, The Witcher 3, etc.) on the internal.
How does that work, exactly? I assume via DRM that you'd have to download your profile to their system for those games to be playable.
As noted, I had my profile on his console, and that lets me use anything I have a license for (or brought the disc for, which I do for SC6, for example).
It really just saves us having to download the games again. The glorious digital future, heh.
I'm only using one external drive--I keep games I think I'm likely to bring to a friend's place (and plug into their Xbox One) on it, whereas games I'm not likely to play elsewhere (singleplayer stuff like FFXV, The Witcher 3, etc.) on the internal.
How does that work, exactly? I assume via DRM that you'd have to download your profile to their system for those games to be playable.
As noted, I had my profile on his console, and that lets me use anything I have a license for (or brought the disc for, which I do for SC6, for example).
It really just saves us having to download the games again. The glorious digital future, heh.
Ya the whole profile moving thing is a lot smoother than the 360 era. Sharing is just the icing on the cake.
Game streaming is still an in-development technology that has major hurdles to overcome before it even becomes a significant chunk of gaming, let alone actually start taking a dent out of the massive market that is physical consoles.
Even Phil Spencer himself was couching the future with stuff like "We're not planning for Scarlett to be our last console." He's been pretty explicit about how streaming is not going to take over gaming. (Becuase that's a pipedream that would require a massive infrastructure overhaul in their primary market, i.e. the States)
Again, if we saw any other CEO point at the the one thing their company is ahead on and proclaim that to be the most important thing while downplaying what is currently the actual most important thing, which is something they're not doing great on, we'd be laughing at them.
I'd rather respond on something other than my phone, but I think you're forming an opinion based on your own vastly reductive interpretation of what Spencer is saying.
As one of the largest cloud providers his intent is that Xbox is no longer moving to compete primarily with Nintendo or Sony because they aren't really relevant to the context of that market. He said nothing about traditional gaming simply being less important or whatever, he is basically recognising that the amount of resources they're going to pour into competing against Google or Amazon in this space could very well dwarf that of their current market and they can't afford to do that and compete traditionally as they are currently against the console manufacturers.
If you want to contend that essentially means the same thing or that it's splitting hairs, I'll be here tonight
Saying Sony and Nintendo aren't their main competitors anymore is absolutely passing a value judgment (or at least presenting a value judgment) on the importance of traditional gaming vs cloud gaming; which as I've stated, I think is very premature based on the current state and immediate future the field. This is why I feel his statement is silly in the context of downplaying the proven, but comparitively weaker areas of their business in exchange for areas where they are strong, but are as-of-yet unproven.
If this was 3-4 years from now and cloud gaming had taken off like wildfire, I wouldn't be calling it silly. But that is not the case, so I'm calling it out for what it is; a silly statement of CEO spin that would fit right at home in an EA press release.
Also, that is ALL I'm saying. It's a silly thing to have a giggle at. I'm not doom and glooming Phil, the Xbox brand or even cloud gaming. (It has major hurdles to overcome, but I'm hoping Microsoft is well aware of those hurdles and have plans on how to deal with them.. unlike Google). I thought it was noteworthy because we don't get a lot of CEO spin like this out of Spencer. In fact, he's frequently the first one to point out "Of course I'd say this..." when he talks about things that are sound like CEO spin. (i.e. when talking about cross-console multiplayer, for example.)
I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of pushback I'm getting from this, honestly. Especially when most of it comes down to questioning my reading comprehension. :biggrin:
it's not that, it's just that nobody agrees with you lol
+2
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
Calling it bullshit spin would be optimistic. When they can't even be bothered with series X exclusives I think they're already waving the white flag as far as traditional console gaming goes. Hell that decision probably has something to do with x-cloud currently being just lowly One S blades. If cloud gaming is inherently a fail that says a lot about Microsoft's gaming fortunes in the near future.
Who cares where you play the game, as long as you play the game? Play how you want, on what you want.
I don't understand how exclusives are simultaneously "the worst thing ever for gaming, and should be abolished" and "a clear sign of a healthy ecosystem, and should be hoped for".
Game streaming is still an in-development technology that has major hurdles to overcome before it even becomes a significant chunk of gaming, let alone actually start taking a dent out of the massive market that is physical consoles.
Even Phil Spencer himself was couching the future with stuff like "We're not planning for Scarlett to be our last console." He's been pretty explicit about how streaming is not going to take over gaming. (Becuase that's a pipedream that would require a massive infrastructure overhaul in their primary market, i.e. the States)
Again, if we saw any other CEO point at the the one thing their company is ahead on and proclaim that to be the most important thing while downplaying what is currently the actual most important thing, which is something they're not doing great on, we'd be laughing at them.
I'd rather respond on something other than my phone, but I think you're forming an opinion based on your own vastly reductive interpretation of what Spencer is saying.
As one of the largest cloud providers his intent is that Xbox is no longer moving to compete primarily with Nintendo or Sony because they aren't really relevant to the context of that market. He said nothing about traditional gaming simply being less important or whatever, he is basically recognising that the amount of resources they're going to pour into competing against Google or Amazon in this space could very well dwarf that of their current market and they can't afford to do that and compete traditionally as they are currently against the console manufacturers.
If you want to contend that essentially means the same thing or that it's splitting hairs, I'll be here tonight
Saying Sony and Nintendo aren't their main competitors anymore is absolutely passing a value judgment (or at least presenting a value judgment) on the importance of traditional gaming vs cloud gaming; which as I've stated, I think is very premature based on the current state and immediate future the field. This is why I feel his statement is silly in the context of downplaying the proven, but comparitively weaker areas of their business in exchange for areas where they are strong, but are as-of-yet unproven.
If this was 3-4 years from now and cloud gaming had taken off like wildfire, I wouldn't be calling it silly. But that is not the case, so I'm calling it out for what it is; a silly statement of CEO spin that would fit right at home in an EA press release.
Also, that is ALL I'm saying. It's a silly thing to have a giggle at. I'm not doom and glooming Phil, the Xbox brand or even cloud gaming. (It has major hurdles to overcome, but I'm hoping Microsoft is well aware of those hurdles and have plans on how to deal with them.. unlike Google). I thought it was noteworthy because we don't get a lot of CEO spin like this out of Spencer. In fact, he's frequently the first one to point out "Of course I'd say this..." when he talks about things that are sound like CEO spin. (i.e. when talking about cross-console multiplayer, for example.)
I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of pushback I'm getting from this, honestly. Especially when most of it comes down to questioning my reading comprehension. :biggrin:
it's not that, it's just that nobody agrees with you lol
I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter either way, but I do the Scottsman is making sense.
Even the Verge article bird feeds you the context so you don't have to read the original interview. "But what about consoles?" in reference to articles wherein consoles are at best a tangential subject is daft and myopic. It's not even likely that Phil brought up Nintendo or Sony in this conversation, given his quote begins: "When you talk about Nintendo and Sony..." and he concludes that "...I don't want to be in a fight over format wars with those guys," because when it comes to cloud services and infrastructure simply are not on par with Amazon or Google, who have also invested "tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years," much like Microsoft has.
Anyway...
I don't think the quad-drive, all active, configuration is going to work. Got the formatting just fine, yet the SSD shows as 100% free. However, if I view contents or filter games there's obviously games and things on it that I put there. So I'll probably have to step down to three drives and retry stuff tomorrow night. Just makes me wish I bought the 3.0 hub with the power switch as if it doesn't work I'll have to unplug things. Even though one drive is now for deep storage anyway.
edit: Apparently the first transfer attempt only updated the database or licenses on the drive, but never moved files. So, launching from the drive basically launched whatever copy of a game it could find, starting from the internal... dropped down to three drives, formatted the SDD again and then tried the transfer tool a second time and stuck around to make sure the activity light and queue popped, which it did. So... hopefully this time they will really be installed on the drive.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
So, apparently the Xbox is simply deciding to launch and load from a different drive any time I attempt to launch it using the SSD if there is a copy installed elsewhere.
Like, if I launch from the SSD now, I see the activity lights, then I'll see the other drive that it chooses to launch from (or none if the game is already internal). Will have to do a little more research.
edit: seems like it launches from whatever media the game was installed from first if it's there, even if you filter devices to launch. bleh.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
TBF, pretty much anything that would be imported from China, built using Chinese manufactured parts, or Chinese labor/skills is probably going to get delayed due to fears around the virus... factories and workplaces would be an easy place to spread the virus. Business thingers have been worried about it for a few weeks now.
Also, apparently ghost transfers is a known issue with the xbox transfer tool and multiple external drives.
edit: also the Whistleblower guy died from the virus last night.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
TBF, pretty much anything that would be imported from China, built using Chinese manufactured parts, or Chinese labor/skills is probably going to get delayed due to fears around the virus... factories and workplaces would be an easy place to spread the virus. Business thingers have been worried about it for a few weeks now.
Also, apparently ghost transfers is a known issue with the xbox transfer tool and multiple external drives.
If they're worried, they're just gonna let the merch sit for 2 weeks so the virus dies off before it gets anywhere. It won't be a significant delay.
Posts
You seem to be fixated on a group of trees in a very large forest.
It's not bluster when there are actions to back the statements.
Source
Rumours of Nintendo teaming up for Azure stuff also abound too.
Game exclusives is nothing new, and I don't think it should end. That's part of what is so compelling about one system over the others: console exclusive games. If a game comes out for all systems, then it's not exclusive, so don't be a dick and screw over at least half of the fanbase with your little money deal, because that literally is the only reason that happens: moe-nay.
If that was Andrew House or Bobby Kotick, we'd be laughing at the amount of spin there.
The Epic Games Store "buyouts" and what Microsoft with Tomb Raider did with are two different things entirely. Microsoft had supported the original reboot, and was invested in the sequel, both in marketing and support. It's been said in many a spot. That said, the only two games with exclusivity buyout that comes to mind is Ooblets, and that was to help fund their work. And Control, which a was a safety net type funding; even though Control didn't knock it out of the park saleswise the upfront EGS gave them makes that irrelevant to them, only Epic lost out.
Listing a game and pulling it also isn't the same as selling preorders for the game and then pulling it either, and afaik you couldn't preorder Ooblets or Control. Crowdfunding is murky waters when it comes to this too.
That said, Destiny's exclusivity was value diminishing and the worst. You couldn't buy Rise of the Tomb Raider at all for a year, and when you did you got a sku that had all the DLC and a little more. Destiny you paid for content you were locked out of and when the lock was released it competed with new content, plus that whole delay and junk... just meh.
But all in all, I would venture to say that the exclusivity that comes from a game being incapable of being finished due to lack of funding is far worse.
Game exclusives should be things that wouldn't exist if not for the fact that it's exclusive. Taking an existing game in development (LIke Rise of the Tomb Raider, or Metro Exodus etc. etc.) and turning it into an exclusive or timed exclusive is where it turns sour, IMO.
Did you read either articles and just miss the context or something?
Cloud gaming is at the center... not consoles:
From Amazon
From Google's Phil Harrison
Even Phil Spencer himself was couching the future with stuff like "We're not planning for Scarlett to be our last console." He's been pretty explicit about how streaming is not going to take over gaming. (Becuase that's a pipedream that would require a massive infrastructure overhaul in their primary market, i.e. the States)
Again, if we saw any other CEO point at the the one thing their company is ahead on and proclaim that to be the most important thing while downplaying what is currently the actual most important thing, which is something they're not doing great on, we'd be laughing at them.
Remember when virtual reality was going to take over gaming? Or chatbots? Not every technology sticks, even if it's "better." There's plenty of better file formats than MP3s, but people mostly still use MP3s... or at least the ones who haven't skipped the post-MP3 formats altogether to go to music streaming.
Sony's not Microsoft's competition, sheesh. The mere fact that Sony continues to hammer out PS Now to (try to) keep up with Xbox's on-demand offerings, even though PS4 has outsold One nearly two to one show they're competing.
But I'm still going to call it out when he makes statements I find silly. If, for no other reason, than the fact that he doesn't make a lot of them.
Apple and Facebook both also have an interest making and pushing out game/cloud streaming in some fashion too. The Apple Arcade's "mobile-streaming" experience being an example of that. There's also their AppleTV and whatnot. Facebook is doing... something. But game streaming and cloud tech aren't just limited to the latest AAA games.
There are practical reasons why better formats than MP3s haven't taken off as much. The MP3 format became so popular primarily because of its portability and size in a time of significantly slower download speeds than what we have now. VR will never be a thing so long as it is fairly impractical to use. Cloud-based gaming wherein weaker, cheaper devices provide a similar experience to a large audience presents a practical solution in the same way that smaller, dedicated machines that can play games without buying an expensive computer presented its own practical solution.
Gaming is big, getting bigger all the time along with virtualization. Amazon and Google desiring to leverage their existing infrastructures to tap into that market makes sense. While it's not going to replace consoles anymore than consoles replaced PCs, sleeping on that would be bad. Given the popularity of mobile gaming, offering the ability to play a console/PC game on the go—or bolstering the experience of a mobile game to match that level without having to buy a $3000 phone or whatever, is sensible. See:
Also, the quote says main competitors going forward. There are many examples of companies partnering despite having competing products and all. But anyoo, think I've spent enough energy on this so w/e.
eta: Oh... and to be clear, I don’t like or want to stream games at all.
edit: image spoilered for scroll
Fergusson was with Gears of War since the beginning. Given Gears 5's near universal acclaim (even with its grindy-grindy multiplayer skins) and the change in story narrative, he's leaving it in good shape. Reception to what little we know about Diablo IV seem pretty positive so far, but Blizzard is definitely in a much rougher spot by comparison.
The games are up now, and it turns out that FFXV is actually the Royal Edition, which comes with the game's first 4 DLC packs built-in, and Game Pass members also get the 5th and final one, Episode Ardyn, for free
In total that's about 150 GB of Final Fantasy, so I hope your console is ready
I'd rather respond on something other than my phone, but I think you're forming an opinion based on your own vastly reductive interpretation of what Spencer is saying.
As one of the largest cloud providers his intent is that Xbox is no longer moving to compete primarily with Nintendo or Sony because they aren't really relevant to the context of that market. He said nothing about traditional gaming simply being less important or whatever, he is basically recognising that the amount of resources they're going to pour into competing against Google or Amazon in this space could very well dwarf that of their current market and they can't afford to do that and compete traditionally as they are currently against the console manufacturers.
If you want to contend that essentially means the same thing or that it's splitting hairs, I'll be here tonight
Also if you liked the slow mo kills from the other zombie trilogy and sniper games go into settings and increase the frequency you see them from the default, otherwise you hardly see any, especially the explosions slow mo kills
It's a huge amount of game even at $60, and it still looks damn good. Hopefully you enjoy it, I know I have, or I wouldn't have clocked dozen of hours in the end game alone.
Does the mercenaries DLC still work in the actual 15?
I honestly didn't think it does, which bums me out.
What size did you go with? Make sure you got a USB 3.0 enclosure/connector otherwise there's not much point.
2TB - more I thought about it, I don't need a larger one because I'd only need to store games I'm actively playing. Completed games and games I stopped playing went on the external in my original config. Though I'm thinking a four drive config will be too much, so once I fill the one drive, I'll probably unhook it so at most I'll have three active.
I may tweak the config a little more by getting a powered USB 3.0 hub with a power switches on each port... but IDK yet. If the switches don't completely stop the devices, no point. Also considering using a right angle hub to hook directly into the back to eliminate some of the wires... but the only one I've seen is a swivel one and I don't want a point of failure like that. The hub I bought is an Anker USB 3.0, and I've yet to have a bad experience with an Anker product.
The enclosure said it was USB 3.1 Gen 1 (3.0), so... hopefully it is.
Saying Sony and Nintendo aren't their main competitors anymore is absolutely passing a value judgment (or at least presenting a value judgment) on the importance of traditional gaming vs cloud gaming; which as I've stated, I think is very premature based on the current state and immediate future the field. This is why I feel his statement is silly in the context of downplaying the proven, but comparitively weaker areas of their business in exchange for areas where they are strong, but are as-of-yet unproven.
If this was 3-4 years from now and cloud gaming had taken off like wildfire, I wouldn't be calling it silly. But that is not the case, so I'm calling it out for what it is; a silly statement of CEO spin that would fit right at home in an EA press release.
Also, that is ALL I'm saying. It's a silly thing to have a giggle at. I'm not doom and glooming Phil, the Xbox brand or even cloud gaming. (It has major hurdles to overcome, but I'm hoping Microsoft is well aware of those hurdles and have plans on how to deal with them.. unlike Google). I thought it was noteworthy because we don't get a lot of CEO spin like this out of Spencer. In fact, he's frequently the first one to point out "Of course I'd say this..." when he talks about things that are sound like CEO spin. (i.e. when talking about cross-console multiplayer, for example.)
I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of pushback I'm getting from this, honestly. Especially when most of it comes down to questioning my reading comprehension. :biggrin:
Went with a Samsung 860 QVO SSD 2TB]. Pretty much bought it because I've been using Samsung SSDs for years and haven't had any issues with them. Got a 2TB drive because I factored in the slowly growing footprint that most online games tend to develop as they gain more content.
It's pretty much game-sharing to go, so yes. At some point he would either login to his profile on that box for that to work. Or the other person owns the games too and they're just sharing the drive in lieu of installation.
I think the original Zombie Trilogy is much cheaper to try out first to see if you like it. They’re basically low budget silliness, I really enjoy them as mindless shooting fun, but I can’t say you should rush out and get the new one full price sight unseen. There really isn’t much to the games, check out a video review or play through since what you see is kind of what you get with them.
Also as for Zombie Army 4 its second half is way better than its first which is annoying, as I almost gave up on it. It’s not till the second half that you get big hordes and challenges and it feels like you can actually really use your sniper rifle
As noted, I had my profile on his console, and that lets me use anything I have a license for (or brought the disc for, which I do for SC6, for example).
It really just saves us having to download the games again. The glorious digital future, heh.
Ya the whole profile moving thing is a lot smoother than the 360 era. Sharing is just the icing on the cake.
Just 15. The rest are coming later this year.
Who cares where you play the game, as long as you play the game? Play how you want, on what you want.
I don't understand how exclusives are simultaneously "the worst thing ever for gaming, and should be abolished" and "a clear sign of a healthy ecosystem, and should be hoped for".
Anyway...
I don't think the quad-drive, all active, configuration is going to work. Got the formatting just fine, yet the SSD shows as 100% free. However, if I view contents or filter games there's obviously games and things on it that I put there. So I'll probably have to step down to three drives and retry stuff tomorrow night. Just makes me wish I bought the 3.0 hub with the power switch as if it doesn't work I'll have to unplug things. Even though one drive is now for deep storage anyway.
edit: Apparently the first transfer attempt only updated the database or licenses on the drive, but never moved files. So, launching from the drive basically launched whatever copy of a game it could find, starting from the internal... dropped down to three drives, formatted the SDD again and then tried the transfer tool a second time and stuck around to make sure the activity light and queue popped, which it did. So... hopefully this time they will really be installed on the drive.
Like, if I launch from the SSD now, I see the activity lights, then I'll see the other drive that it chooses to launch from (or none if the game is already internal). Will have to do a little more research.
edit: seems like it launches from whatever media the game was installed from first if it's there, even if you filter devices to launch. bleh.
Also Corona might delay nextbox. God damn shitty beer virus.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also, apparently ghost transfers is a known issue with the xbox transfer tool and multiple external drives.
edit: also the Whistleblower guy died from the virus last night.
If they're worried, they're just gonna let the merch sit for 2 weeks so the virus dies off before it gets anywhere. It won't be a significant delay.