Nintendo Rumor: Microsoft Bringing Game Pass And Published Titles To Switch

[AbsolutSurgen]

8 minutes ago, number305 said:

I think there are a lot of people that have been taking advantage of playing game pass games on both PC and Xbox.  I do.  But to be honest I have no numbers or stats on that.

That probably doesn't drive much incremental revenue.  Most would have paid for the service just to play on Xbox -- the PC game selection on Game Pass is VERY limited.  I can't imagine anyone would pay the $$$ to play just on PC.

 

[crispy4000]

51 minutes ago, number305 said:

All I can go by is what is actually happening.  Sony is in the business of building walls around it's territory and M$ has been working like hell to tear theirs down.  Look at what this thread is about for instance... 

I think many of the walls will go eventually down for Sony, just not for those competing with hardware.  Cross-play is the farthest I'd imagine that will go.

If streaming/subscription library services become big, Sony will want to set the terms the major publishers must follow to exist on their platforms.  I'd imagine its the same with Nintendo.  They'll keep making their own exclusives to draw audiences into their walls, then collect royalties from whatever these publishers try.  Plus bolster their own prerequisite subscriptions. (... because of course they'll do that)

Microsoft's strategy instead seems to build a subscription platform above all else.  It's goal is for it to become big enough for them to have most of the leverage.  But they'll have to fight off other publishers/outside players (Google) in the process, get them to fold. [good luck]  They also risk diminishing their own hardware by taking away much of the incentive to purchase their hardware for their games.  It's the path they've chosen.

[TwinIon]

5 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I think many of the walls will go eventually down for Sony, just not for those competing with hardware.  Cross-play is the farthest I'd imagine that will go.

If streaming/subscription library services become big, Sony will want to set the terms the major publishers must follow to exist on their platforms.  I'd imagine its the same with Nintendo.  They'll keep making their own exclusives to draw audiences into their walls, then collect royalties from whatever these publishers try.  Plus bolster their own prerequisite subscriptions. (... because of course they'll do that)

Microsoft's strategy instead seems to build a subscription platform above all else.  It's goal is for it to become big enough for them to have most of the leverage.  But they'll have to fight off other publishers/outside players (Google) in the process, get them to fold. [good luck]  They also risk diminishing their own hardware by taking away much of the incentive to purchase their hardware for their games.  It's the path they've chosen.

I think MS would be fine if the Xbox hardware was to game consoles what the Surface lineup is to PCs, a low volume, high end showcase. Of course, they'd only be happy with that if their services reached a critical penetration, but I think it's the direction they'd like to head.

 

Games as a service plays into everything that current MS is all about. It's recurring revenue, cross platform, and funnels money into their cloud services division.

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I think MS would be fine if the Xbox hardware was to game consoles what the Surface lineup is to PCs, a low volume, high end showcase. Of course, they'd only be happy with that if their services reached a critical penetration, but I think it's the direction they'd like to head.

 

Games as a service plays into everything that current MS is all about. It's recurring revenue, cross platform, and funnels money into their cloud services division.

 

Games as a service is also something only Microsoft will likely be able to succeed with. The Xbox brand already has enough recognition and they're also the only company with that distinction that also has the tech footprint to make it doable. It's probably a good play for them, but we'll see how it works out.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Sony has had a game streaming service for years.

 

However, after experiencing the Google Stream.  It's clearly NOT ready to replace a traditional console.

 

The bandwidth requirements/introduced lag/lower fidelity may make sense for some users, but it won't be ubiquitous in the next few years.

[TwinIon]

9 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

Games as a service is also something only Microsoft will likely be able to succeed with. The Xbox brand already has enough recognition and they're also the only company with that distinction that also has the tech footprint to make it doable. It's probably a good play for them, but we'll see how it works out.

Sony already does it, Google will get into it, and it's likely only a matter of time before Amazon does as well (they're a storefront with a massive cloud architecture), but I agree that MS has the best chance to succeed.

8 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

However, after experiencing the Google Stream.  It's clearly NOT ready to replace a traditional console.

 

The bandwidth requirements/introduced lag/lower fidelity may make sense for some users, but it won't be ubiquitous in the next few years.

I also agree with this. We'll see it in various iterations over the next few years, but these early services are not to the point that Netflix or Spotify were when they launched. We're at least a couple years away from that moment.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I think MS would be fine if the Xbox hardware was to game consoles what the Surface lineup is to PCs, a low volume, high end showcase. Of course, they'd only be happy with that if their services reached a critical penetration, but I think it's the direction they'd like to head.

 

Games as a service plays into everything that current MS is all about. It's recurring revenue, cross platform, and funnels money into their cloud services division.

 

18 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Games as a service is also something only Microsoft will likely be able to succeed with. The Xbox brand already has enough recognition and they're also the only company with that distinction that also has the tech footprint to make it doable. It's probably a good play for them, but we'll see how it works out.

 

Eventually yes, I think both of you could be right.  This is where they'll hope to go.

But I think you can look at the state of the PC launchers today and realize just how hard fought the battle could be.  Branding isn't everything.  I think it's good for them to get out early.  But even that could come with an initial challenge from Google/Ubisoft.

[AbsolutSurgen]

6 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Sony already does it, Google will get into it, and it's likely only a matter of time before Amazon does as well (they're a storefront with a massive cloud architecture), but I agree that MS has the best chance to succeed.

I also agree with this. We'll see it in various iterations over the next few years, but these early services are not to the point that Netflix or Spotify were when they launched. We're at least a couple years away from that moment.

Google stream requires at 20+ megabit internet connection -- which is faster than the average connection in the U.S. (and will use up most people's entire 1TB data cap in less than 100 hours of gaming).  High speed internet penetration isn't particularly good, particularly among cost conscious gamers.

 

And how much are people willing to pay extra for the streaming service (the service itself, not the content) -- you have to think they'll be a premium that would make it somewhat worthwhile for gamers to having the rendering done client side with the penalty of a 1-time hardware purchase.

 

 

[Ghost_MH]

5 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Sony already does it, Google will get into it, and it's likely only a matter of time before Amazon does as well (they're a storefront with a massive cloud architecture), but I agree that MS has the best chance to succeed.

I also agree with this. We'll see it in various iterations over the next few years, but these early services are not to the point that Netflix or Spotify were when they launched. We're at least a couple years away from that moment.

 

It's the latency issue with higher user counts that only someone with the server footprint of a Microsoft, Amazon, and Google can address. That gives them the highest likelihood of succeeding. They're the only ones with servers in enough places to be able to almost guarantee the least lag of anyone else in the market. Then, between those three, I'd give Microsoft the edge based on Xbox name recognition, alone. Google will likely try to make their streaming service something that's built into Android to leverage their user base there, but I'm not really sure how dedicated they actually are to the entire endeavor. Amazon is a weird outlier for me. They have their hands in a lot of different places and, like Google, tend to drop things quickly if it's not going well for them.

[crispy4000]

The fact that Google launched their stream test on PC is a sign that they want to disrupt the market at large.  Not just mobile.

I think they'll partner with a few major publishers to get some newer games on the thing.  Or perhaps, rent them the servers to do it their own way.  (I could see Amazon doing that)

[Ghost_MH]

I just can't see Google as a big player in this space. Their track record for new services it's abysmal and, somehow, their messaging is even worse. For music streaming, they have Google Play Music and YouTube Music, but they're also sort of the same thing? You pay for one, you get both... And YouTube Red, which is something else entirely different. There's also a free tier of Google Play Music, but not YouTube Music. There is no free tier of YouTube Red, but all the exclusive content behind YouTube Red's paywall is now free. Maybe? Sorry, did I say YouTube Red? I meant to say YouTube Premium. Also, it's not YouTube Music, it's YouTube Music Premium. There is no unpremium YouTube Music, though. I guess that's the free tier of Google Play Music?

 

There's a reason Google has a hard time making things work out even when they have good products. I don't even know what my Chromecast is called anymore.

[AndyD]

5 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

  Over a phone?

 

I really don't think over the phone is the intended use case here until 5g is a thing anyway, especially in the US

[chakoo]

My first post in this thread was being tongue and cheek but I do see streaming as being important for the future of gaming.

 

I do however want to note something. I think some are forgetting that PS Now service also runs on  PC. It use to also be available on Smart TVs & Bluray players as well. The intent was always to make it possible to play PlayStation software on other devices. 

[crispy4000]

 

Quote

Gamepass/Xcloud on Switch is not happening in the near term, I can't ever say never because Microsoft wants it on every device. But as of right now I'm hearing from multiple people that it is not coming to the Switch [...] so don't expect it on Switch anytime soon, at least that's what I'm hearing.

Sounding more like a no now.

I think Nintendo would need to re-evaluate its own business models if they were to so easily let Microsoft have a backdoor.  I could still see Ori and Cuphead coming though, just not through Gamespass.  Perhaps next gen.