Ben looks at why the advances Microsoft is making with hardware and services could provide problems for Sony and PlayStation going forward.
Author is so wrong on so many levels with this article
I'd like to focus on one point here. Everyone seems to conviniently forget that it was Sony who released the first working cloud streaming service out there. Sony did not make it their mission to advertise PS Now like the second coming because they knew it wasn't ready for world wide reliable adoption. If anyone believes they are not working on it and improving it because they dont do 1000 interviews a year mentioning it every single time they are fooling themselves. They've just signed an agreement with MS regarding cloud and AI solutions that should have been enough to prove Sony is on it and that they will react and announce something themselves when they feel they have something substantial to say. This policy (talk when ready) was seen in action by skipping E3 2019. As for the article in general, why would Sony worry about where MS is headed with xbox? Sony has content to cater their fans for days, they have VR, they have PS Now that will be beefed up and ready to take on xcloud and Stadia, they have a great online network (PSN), and most importantly they have millions of devoted fans ready to support them. As long as they give us what we want, Sony has nothing to worry about.
Marketing... Microsoft’s billion dollar focus. “Do not sell what the people want, make the people buy what you are selling.” Bill Gates.
Sales = convincing people they need something.
Agreed :) this👆
"conviniently forget that it was Sony who released the first working cloud streaming service out there" That's not exactly true. OnLive launched in 2010. Gaikai launched in 2012, and was later purchased by Sony. Sony re-launched Gaikai as PSNow, which was the first cloud streaming service on consoles. "As long as they give us what we want, Sony has nothing to worry about." Agreed. As long as Sony continues like they have with PS4 they'll be in a great position for next gen.
Sony was not first, onlive was.
First off, Sony was NOT the first one to have working cloud streaming. Secondly, they basically just bought out OnLive and Gaikai which were the two biggest companies for streaming games. Essentially wiping out all competition for themselves. Thirdly, they likely didn't market it much because their entire approach with the PS4 vs. Xbox was that it all local play and focused on physical game sharing. Fourthly, they likely didn't market it to be big because they new the Gaikai servers were trash (still are) and no one would buy into it that much because they already knew Gaikai was not that great. What Xcloud and Stadia are doing is bringing streaming to a new and better level, in theory. Will it work better since there is newer and better servers? Most likely. Do they have a benefit over PSNow offering newer games that are first and 3rd party? Absolutely. Will the general audience accept it and make it boom? That is something we just don't know yet.
@DaDrunkenJester Sony was the first to actually bring a game streaming service to consoles and PC that worked. You guys should stop splitting hairs. You know what he meant.
Sega Channel did a version of streaming decades before Sony. Should be fun watching people turn to streaming games while ISPs turn to data overages and tier'd pricing to get more money out of you. Between Prime, Netflix, YouTube and now game streaming I can't wait for the day I end up spending more money streaming that latest 4k game than I would have buying a hard copy of it.
@slap And the Ninpretendo did it 3,000 years before Sega. Give me a break.
Soon MS will offer you the option to upgrade to the premium package, and if you want sports, there is an additional bundle for you.
Small correction but cloud gaming existed on Genesis and SNES. They had games streamed to them. Not downloaded. Streamed. So it's been around a long time.
Sony didnt do that... Gaikai and On-live did. Sony simply bought up what they could and put their name on it. And on top of that, they chose to narrow the field of view by eliminating the service from other devices that still have value in the market. Reducing the footprint and availability is not how you attract people to your product. You win them over by expanding the scope and scale of its reach.
@Rude-ro: Which has really done MS how much good with things like Kinect and the XB1 launch policies? The XBX versus PS4 sales? Oldboy has it partly right: Sales = shows you've convinced people needed something.
Darth, "Sony didnt do that... Gaikai and On-live did. Sony simply bought up what they could and put their name on it. And on top of that, they chose to narrow the field of view by eliminating the service from other devices that still have value in the market. " You, porkchop, gamer and DaDrunk know full well what I meant but here let me clarify it for you: Sony did not invent cloud streaming for games, the bought Gaikai and created the first, still working and alive, console version. As for buying their way in and slapping their name of it...man thats rich coming from a MS diehard supporter! "Reducing the footprint and availability is not how you attract people to your product. You win them over by expanding the scope and scale of its reach" How did Sony reduce their footprint, by skipping E3? You must have missed their Days of Play streams and the whole discussion dominating E3 on how much Sony was missed from the show and how E3 was lesser by that. One could argue that the exact opposite happened by skipping E3, they actually increased their "footprint".
I think people that want to reference Sony as being first, just so they don't have to go through the semantic gymnastics which ignore context, yet don't actually do anything to support MS is doing something new and noteworthy, is they say, "Sony is the first company to have a successful for the long term game streaming service". The less room you leave for fan boys to spin things and be dismissive of what is actually trying to be said, the less replies you get which don't bother to address any other argument you may be making. Or at least one would hope...since they'll ignore anything they can't directly refute anyways.:) Let's take Darth's reply for example. "Sony didnt do that... Gaikai and On-live did" So, he refutes that Sony wasn't the first, but offers up nothing on why MS is getting so much credit for now getting into the game as if they are somehow revolutionizing the future of gaming....which is what most of these articles like this boil down to.
You said it all thanks. I'm looking forward to the day when people will realize that Sony was right all along and with the games it will make the competition irrelevant.
Adding to Ultranova's point, Almost all of Microsoft's products or "technologies" have been purchased, From Dos to directX as well as Office were developed by other companies and later purchased by MS and rebranded. MS is LITERALLY a company that stood on the shoulders of giants to get where they are today! To belittle Sony for doing anything remotely similar is pretty ironic, to say the least.
Late to the party but from reading the comments it seems like Sony did what Microsoft has done for years; buy the competition, they then restricted the service so much that the consumer is forced to buy what you are selling. Someone mentioned reducing the footprint or something, I assumed they meant when they removed PSNow from all other devices except PS4 and PC. They also don't put very attractive games on the service meaning your more likely to buy a PS4.
I think you may find that OnLive (2010) were one of the 1st cloud streaming services, which Sony purchased in 2015. Then they modified it along with Gaikai (which they bought) to what is Playstation Now. they didnt pioneer the technology, they bought it.
@Ultranova. Sony never believed in its cloud computing that’s probably why Microsoft boasts about it more than sony. On the other hand Microsoft has always had the better online than Sony as well just a few years back Sony decided to charge people for their online services to compete with Microsoft and now Nintendo does the same thing, knowing there is money to be made off of said service which by now has helped stabilize Sony’s online ecosystem, same goes for Nintendo which will improve over time. Those so called Loyal Sony fans that are brainwashed and can’t remember a thing from the past, yeah Sony So has your back 😂🤣 their hands in your wallets.
Well its from xboxenthusiast so say no more lol.
@Dragonscale Oh but we just take Playstation nation or other bullshit opinions as facts? Give me a break. I love Sony but the shit people stick up for, for them is down right hysterical 😂🤣
Literally nothing the author wrote is wrong.
The autor ☝️ ☝️ ☝️
Figuratively speaking of course
In your warped view
Lol don’t get but hurt cause of what he talks about, everything he said in this opinion is true when he talks about the differences between the two Xbox and PS. I’m sorry to burst your safe bubble. Now don’t be a snowflake and melt under pressure 😊
Snowflakes don't melt under pressure, they melt because of temperature.
Ah yes, the truth that Microsoft's 'me too' approach will backfire eventually.
Since when is an opinion "true" as in factual? An opinion is just an opinion when the "facts" are is that throughout their histories the PS band has sold better than the Xbox brand. That the one time Xbox did outsell PS, the gap in sales between then shrank instead of widened and MS stopped recording/announcing sales before PS outsold Xbox. Again.
@Atanasrikard, High amounts of pressure creates heat, You just made yourself look foolish.
Journalist is out of touch with reality. Journalist needs to come back down to reality.
They have taken major strides to please fans. If only Phil Spencer had been in charge when they were developing the Xbox One instead of Don Mattrick
They are all corporate shills. Phil is making these moves because of past failures, not because it was his intention all along.
Phil still works for Sony.
Well...as much criticism as I lob at Spencer, if something isn't working, then it is right to analyze why, and endeavour to fix it. Even most criticizing say that's what he should be doing. Now it's just more the attitude of pretentiousness which surrounds him to continuously talk like they're doing great, when they havent proven that they have changed by delivering in the way people said he needs to. Hes refocusing what the xbox brand is about, which is also fine, but its causing this divide between those who aren't looking for those things, and want ms to just remedy what they've failed at most this gen, which is a steady supply of good high quality games.
Mattrick was a dictator? No one was allowed a vote to decide what was best for xbox? It was all up to Mattrick? See how silly that sounds.
Haha, sure, there was a lot of voting going on back then at MS... Mattrick was Ballmer's little pet ferret who thought Kinect, media, and COD marketing contracts were more important than building your own studio infrastructure, actually owning IP, and focusing on the core fans that you built that division on the decade prior. The corporate structure there was infamously toxic and ego-driven, and its impact on the Xbox side is well documented. The current employees and execs have been pretty transparent about how things were back then. Even casual observers and xbox fanboys recognized how shitty things were in that magical era. It always sounds silly to me to see people defend any part of that time period. E3 2013 was the rotten fruit of that labor.
It was Steve Ballmer and Don Mattrick dynamic duo and everyone had to follow suit weather you liked it or not including Phil. You really think Rare wanted to make dumb little Kinect games forever? Now Rae is busy with a new Ip under Phil. Trust me if Mattrick was still around he would find some way to ruin Rare and Xbox's other studios for something nobody wants.
Matt Ricks vision was different in some ways. Phil's efforts are leading xbox more towards what mattrick wanted to achieve. Phil came in when ms was starting its shift to cloud based services as a whole, and a lot if the changes to xbox seem geared towards that. This isn't stated as a clear vision, and for Phil's part, hes trying to keep the traditionalist on board because they're going to be the ones that can help support the brand during the transition. Mattrick on the other hand wasn't worried about that. His vision was clear enough, he was just ignored the bases needs. For whatever mattrick may have done wrong though, he did have a plan, and we knew what it was. Mattrick seemed to have more of an understanding that it was games that matter though. Even when he cut back on the 360 twilight years, he did so knowing that the x1 would need good games, and he did set in motion a lot of games to come out for several years after the launch. Most of the games delivered under Spencer started with mattrick. Spencer wasted a lot of time not starting games, and putting a game plan together. That led to people going without, which is one big reason people question if he'll deliver in the future, despite the moves hes making now. This is particularly true with high profile AAA games, because Spencer has been open about wanted smaller games, which most see as a means to drive game pass subs. They'll have more AAA games, but they're still far behind, and with 2 of them still making multiplat games, it means a long while before we see the results for xbox exclusives. In the end, it just means that this gen is really a bust in terms of the console war, although ms is making money in gaming otherwise
It was a joint effort tbh. Mattrick was the fall guy.
People always seem to forget that Phil Spencer was GM of Microsoft Game Studios starting in 2008, became the VP in 2009. He was in charge of their games. He is to blame just as much as anyone else for their lack of IP.
You shouldn't praise anybody at Microsoft here. This is place is practically a Sony love forum.
Boo hoo, they don't love what i love. This is a forum full of a bunch of meanie heads.
I love the way people assume I'm a fanboy. I have all the hardware and each one of them. I prefer the Xbox 1 x. I don't know why I just do, but my favourite games have been on ps4 this gen (but Switch is making a late push for that honour).
Ever heard of "you reap what you sow because that's pretty much the case as it pertains to Xbox and the criticism it receives. It's not hard to look at the catalog that was on Xbox and the early to midpoint of the 360 and see that the Xbox brand is much different now as then. When you deliver awesome games and get customers to come on board who help build up your brand and then stop delivering awesome games and just talk and push towards services and the like, you will receive criticism! It's not just fanboys(though they exist on ALL sides) but there's millions of former Xbox fans, myself included who want nothing to do with Xbox as it exists now.
Oh cry me a freaking river.
Says you, meanwhile millions of former Xbox fans are wondering when the "twilight zone" years will end! Also @rainslacker my sentiments exactly.
If they were pleasing fans, then they would have taken strides to deliver real exclusives to their consoles. But here they are, taking L's left and right.
You can have the best technology, best hardware, best controller, etc... but for a console, you need the best games (in particular best exclusives). ... take the example of the Switch.
Yes. The point of the article is that basically if the new studios can deliver great games on a regular basis, Xbox has the full package.
Well we know that ain't happening, ms already has better studios and look what they've produced the last few gens. Slim pickings.
Not with service based games, low quality game pass titles, microtransactions, and a focus on apps
But they haven't. They should be matching what Sony excels at. Instead, they're beating around the bush about services this, and services that. At least with Mattrick, you had freaking games.
I like to think of Disney in this situation. Disney is in the position it is in because of maaaaaaaaaaaany decades of quality film creation and production. Sony has been taking the same approach but with games for decades (obviously on a much smaller scale as Jesus, who can compete with Disney now. I hope they will stay on top as first and foremost they care about quality in their games. Well, of course after money! It is a business after all!
Nintendo has had the most powerful consoles with some of the most iconic franchises of gaming exclusive to their console.Yet the console didn't sell.
They tend to stick with the main IP's though and not really creating new ones that are on that level of quality. They also have the "family friendly " rep and while it doesn't bother me per say I wouldn't mind them funding more mature content. Multiplats matter but you have to have excellent exclusives to lure people in to buy your console and then hopefully they will buy the multiplats on your console. Sony's done that every gen they've been in the game.
Sony is in a similar position to Nintendo. Their fans want to play their games and they'll go wherever those games are.
True. But some feel the same about Gears and Halo.
Not enough and even die hard fans are getting sick of xb and it's direction.
I'm sure those 12 people could find more games they like on other platforms.
@leejohnson222 I'd say the fact that those two games are two of the biggest esports games would call you a liar.
@Lennoxb63 I don't think you know what eports games are. DOTA2, CSGO, League of Legends, fortnite, pubg, overwatch, hearthstone... Halo and Gears just aren't that big these days
Those are definitely esports games as they are streamed on esports channels on Twitch, as well as on TV. You don't know what you're talking about.
@Lennoxb63 I mean any game can be an esports game but Halo and Gears just aren't two of the biggest right now. Maybe when the new halo launches on PC it will be big again. The numbers of those other games just dwarf Halo and Gears
I only care about Games.
Good for you. Wish everybody was the same.
I also wish people would stop making excuses for this ignorant company, but here we are.