With Nintendo seemingly striking gold with nearly every handheld device they've released, while Sony saw both rising success and dismal sales with their digital devices -- where would Microsoft land if entering the mobile industry?
No. They need games for their home console
Exactly. Microsoft can hardly support a single system with games let alone a handheld. Plus, they will inevitably be forced into VR soon. So imagine having to support 3 systems? No.
No because there’s no exclusives. That’s what was wrong with the psp and vita. Not enough exclusives.
Naa, it'll just be a distraction, like the Zune and kinect etc. Just give us high quality AAA games instead on the standard console.
When is the last time we got a high quality AAA game from Microsoft???
October last year?
when Forza horizon 4 dropped.
@King_Noctis And you have to go back a year before that to uave another in the form of FM7 and Gears4. The point is, MS don't have many of them and they sure as hell would not be able to support mobile while still supporting their main console. Sad to say this but Sony's desire to dominate the console space has led to the demise of the Vita which is an awesome handheld. MS should only look at THAT and learn that they should just stay away from handheld
Xcloud will allow you to have a portable on the go with an internet connection (stream to almost any device) There’s no point in dedicated handhelds unless you’re nintendo. They have had that on lockdown since the OG gameboy
Have you ever tried to play a AAA title on nothing more than a tablet before? I tried it once with GTA VC. And my god, it was horrible to control! If MS wants to go all out with this Xcloud of theirs, then they seriously need to think about how players are going to be able play. And before you say you can pair a controller to your tablet and phone for gaming on the go, who on earth is going to want to carry around bulky multiple items when Nintendo Switch do it all in one convenient package. Should MS do a dedicated handheld, hmmm maybe. But I doubt it would be a success.
https://www.forbes.com/site... they do have an attachment for cell phones to hook up with a controller, but no, the only way you would be able to play without touch controls right now would be a controller. But the switch while slim, is long, and not much bulkier in that sense then a controller
@phoenix, I agree. There are a lot of barriers in getting a new streaming service off the ground and getting that perfect device as a reference implementation is needed imo. Playing serious games with a touchscreen or aftermarket controller bolt on is not going to go mainstream. MS and Sony should offer streaming handhelds for cheap if they want the services to take off. How hard could it be? Whether or not they're successful is anyone's guess. I'd say Sony has a better shot than MS since they're a little further down the road.
@krib No offence man, but that set up looks like it was put together by the A-Team in a barn shed! lmao
I've played AAA titles through remote play on Vita, and it was fine. My tablet has a better screen than the Vita. My next phone probably will. Controls wise, an attachment would be necessary. The concept itself is fine. I just don't see it being used as much as I don't see a sudden surge of people using these services for Xbox, when they didn't use it for Sony. Remote play was free, and worked fine if the internet was good enough. PSNow was dropped from places because there wasn't enough adoption to make it worth supporting, so unless MS has better luck, I think that it doesn't remove the need for a portable. But that said, MS probably wouldn't benefit from a portable, nor would like likely be negatively affected by it.
@rainslacker "PSNow was dropped from places because there wasn't enough adoption to make it worth supporting," Yeah, that is exactly why PSNow was dropped from the PS3 (a console that still had 30+ million more devices in 2016 than the PS4 had sold) it was because there wasn't enough adoption. /s While I agree PSNow support for other devices was dropped for various reasons. One being the updated PSNow required more CPU support and storage then some devices had built into them (disc players, older TV). Another being people weren't using it on certain devices. However, let's be real, they dropped support from both PSVita and PS3 because they didn't want people streaming PS3 and PS4 games to those devices. Sony wanted them to move to the newer console. That is the reason they dropped support for those two consoles and for no other reason. Plus Sony never supplied these mobile devices with PSNow other than I believe one Sony phone. Plus PSNow is notoriously inefficient and it provides a subpar gaming experience from the source. And more importantly, mobile gaming (where users felt comfortable playing) was in its infancy in 2014-2016 when PSNow even was a possibility on any device that wasn't a PC or traditional console. Now there is no option for PSNow outside of a Windows box or a PS4. As for mobile streaming we are now heading toward 5G being rolled out worldwide in the next few years. Hence why you see companies like Microsoft and Google focusing on this area. Microsoft seems to have a system that works well even apparently within 10Mbps. Better than 20MBps that Sony says should be the min at 720p/30fps for their system. Yet and 10Mbps it will run 1080 and scale up.
Agreed, with Xcloud there's seriously no point in providing a device that's on the go. With the Switch, 3DS and mobile games on cell phones as they are now, it would be suicide for MS to also release some type of handheld for Xbox, even if it utilized Xcloud there would be no point. Besides with Xcloud i think MS is slowly moving away from dedicated hardware, no point in investing in this now for a portable.
If that was the case phones would have already killed the Switch. But thankfully that is not the case.
but phones slowed the sales of the 3ds and essentially killed the Vita. combine that with the report out of the UK yesterday that said 80% of game sales are digital(3.89 billion total sales, 3 billion of it digital) , and 75% of AAA sales are physical (almost 800 million) meaning that the casual cell phone markets with free to play games etc are the biggest drivers of money brought in, and a dedicated portable system doesn’t seem like they are doing that great
@krib You sound like you want dedicated consoles to lose to phones and tablets. But I also disagree, the Switch’s success shows that people prefer dedicated gaming devices. For example I have 6 games downloaded to my tablet. I only play one of them, and I’ve regrettably have paid them for micro transactions on 5 occasions, each time costing 2.99. I believe most people fall into this category. They download games on their tablets and they might even spend the longest time on these games because of the convenience, but guess what? When I’m studying, I’m dreaming about playing on my console, not my iPad. If I have free time, I will spend it playing on a dedicated video game device. Whereas I only play on the iPad during times when I’m taking a break in between study sessions. It’s not something I consider as “gaming”. It’s wasting/passing time.
@StormSnooper "You sound like you want dedicated consoles to lose to phones and tablets." That's not what Krib sounded like at all. Nintendo has been the only company to stay successful in the mobile market with a dedicated handheld system. IMO it's because they planted their roots early and knew the market well. While Vita campaigned on the hardcore, Nintendo knew mobile was about the casual, which is what they focused on when marketing their handheld devices. The Switch's success only proves that Nintendo has the ability to stay successful with a dedicated device that you can also take on the go. Essentially a hybrid console is what Nintendo marketed it from the beginning. And even then Nintendo had to recognize the growing numbers and popularity of mobile devices which is why they tried their hand with that and released games for mobile devices. Anyone else who has tried to make a dedicated handheld has not had Nintendo's long held success in that market and that is because of mobile gaming domination. "If I have free time, I will spend it playing on a dedicated video game device." And that's great, but you're really not disproving any of Krib's points by stating what you personally do.
It isn't impossible to crack Nintendo's handheld stranglehold, Sony had huge success with the PSP. Over 80 million sold.
80 million but what did the competition do? 154 million is what they did. and based on conversations that people tried to tell me a couple weeks ago in regards to the xbox one not being a flop at 40 million “.MrPickles201813d ago Every time I see this kind of article I'm sure it was written by someone trying to convince themselves that they made the right choice. We all know that the Xbox One is a commercial failure ... they keep lying to themselves. REPLYAGREE 29DISAGREE 7” “XtreemGamer13d ago It is if the competition is at 90 million... AGREE 12DISAGREE 3” “Potnoodle99912d ago Selling less than half your competitions sales near the end of gen and the company in second also ready to outsell you means yes it is a commercial failure AGREE 7DISAGREE 2” people seem to think even selling a lot, of you sell half of your competition its a commercial failure. I for one would agree with you and say the PSP was a big success, and the vita flopped pretty hard, but others on this site don’t seem to share yours and my thoughts. At least that’s what i gathered from the xbox article
no. and besides nobody is mobile gaming. it‘s dead. smartphone games is a much lower tier and can‘t be counted as serious gaming. and i have never seen a switch kid ond the streets.
Mobile gaming is dead? Really? Agreed that the games people are playing aren't the same as what we play on console...yet... But mobile killed the handheld star, and it's only getting bigger.
No, if they were to focus on portable gaming, it'd rather they put more effort into PC gaming on their Surface devices. Maybe make a more gaming oriented Surface PC tablet.
No they already struggling with home console games.
no the handheld race is already won, there's no point
It's coming with their xCloud service. No need for a dedicated handheld.
I'm the oddball that says Yes. I like handheld gaming, bought a Vita, got a GPD Win 2, and would consider getting back into the MS ecosystem if they augmented it with a handheld. They could do what GPD did but make it so much slicker and user friendly. Judging from other comments I guess I'm in a very small minority though.
Just release a surface phone and a good controller adapter for it and it done.
A definite no.
Zune was their closest attempt and that flopped so I’d say no
Sony tried it and didn't have didn't have a ton of success with it I doubt Microsoft would either.
the psp is the 3rd most popular handheld after the ds and gameboy
and what’s the follow up, the vita, ranked? especially after smart phones came out?
I would love a handheld if it was like the vita ans played all Xbox one games and you could earn achievements on it, but I wouldnt want a 3ds type of device that had it’s own titles.
All these articles on what microsoft should do, will do and can do to get back in the game better when there is only one thing they need to do, put out games.
Can't even provide some games on Xbox, what's the point of a handheld?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.