Microsoft just announced all Xbox PC games will come to competing cloud service NVIDIA

At a press conference in Brussels, Microsoft President Brad Smith just announced all Xbox PC games will come to competing cloud service NVIDIA GeForce Now. "NVIDIA now supports this deal."

XiNatsuDragnel103d ago

Very interesting on Nvida too I wonder in the future if Microsoft would become a 3rd party publisher?

Hofstaderman103d ago

It’s about selling the service not consoles. If you aiming for an all digital always online future you don’t need hardware.

Obscure_Observer103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

"It’s about selling the service not consoles. If you aiming for an all digital always online future you don’t need hardware."


"I think that the cloud inevitability as part of gaming is absolutely true," he [Phil Spencer] continued. "But we have more compute devices around us than we've ever had, whether it's your phone, a Surface Hub, or an Xbox. The world where compute devices are gone and it's all coming from the cloud just isn't the world that we live in today."

Physical devices are still very much part of the equation when it comes to cloud gaming, but Xbox itself isn't making a new device specifically for it. "Last year we talked about xCloud and then we said we were working on new game consoles, but that's all I said." Spencer clarified, "We didn't say that [a streaming console was in the works]. I think maybe some people thought that that was the disc-less one that we just shipped. We are not working on a streaming-only console right now. We are looking at the phone in your pocket as the destination for you to stream, and the console that we have allows you to play the games locally."

Obscure_Observer103d ago

"Very interesting on Nvida too I wonder in the future if Microsoft would become a 3rd party publisher?"

Certainly not for Sony.

Just today Microsoft confirmed support from Nintendo and now from NVidia which until yesterday had opposed to ABK´s acquisition.

Now the Acvision/Blizzard deal has more chances to go through and Microsoft will make big money out of those companies.

sinspirit103d ago

Yes. They just so happen to suddenly want to go on multiple different platforms that they never planned to be on before and suddenly a government entity will just blindly believe this new pattern of behavior and excuse their past behavior and management styles.

Obscure_Observer103d ago


They don´t have to "believe" in anything. Microsoft is allowing their first party games on multiple platforms and that´s a fact.

There´s no monopoly in course and Sony is gonna lose this battle.

DarXyde103d ago

Obscure _Observer,

Dude. Is everything okay at home? This comes across as unhinged cheerleading and free PR for a company that has no idea who you are. A small part of me hopes you're right because if it doesn't go through, my concern is that you'll have a stroke.

darkrider102d ago

Will they? Until now they weren't able to do. And to make 80 billion in profit. It won't be in next______ decades

Sonic1881102d ago (Edited 102d ago )

"Dude. Is everything okay at home?" my concern is that you'll have a stroke."

Can you blame him though? Sony has been embarrassing Microsoft for two decades now. So I understand why he's acting like that

badz149102d ago


Sonic1881 is right. you're delusional because Sony is not in this battle. it's MS vs the regulators

Obscure_Observer102d ago (Edited 102d ago )


"A small part of me hopes you're right because if it doesn't go through, my concern is that you'll have a stroke.

I´m humbled by your kindness and concern, so thank you.

Lol. Look for me in COD related articles on N4G. You won´t find me. XD

I have ZERO personal interest in this acquisition. COD games will be day one on Gamepass? Good for COD gamers on Gamepass, because I don´t give a damn. I´m a Battlefield gamer.

I would rather prefer Microsoft to go out and acquire CDPR instead. So if you´re expecting me to get mad/upset in case this deal fails, you´re in for some shock.

That been said, I not gonna lie and say that in case the deal goes through, I gonna be sad either. I don´t care about Sony´s feelings at all. Sony is the company that merciless crushed SEGA by making everything exclusive to Playstation to the point where SEGA couldn´t no longer compete in the console market.

So I don´t pity Sony a bit for what they done and what they´re facing today. They had it coming. What´s goes around comes around.

DarXyde102d ago

Obscure _Observer,

While we don't see eye to eye, I find your takes largely asinine, and everyone probably thinks I'm being facetious by asking if you're alright, I'm actually hoping that you're not losing sleep over this—I just said it in a funny way.

So if I'm to understand, you hate Sony for what happened to Sega? That's a common position among a contingent of Xbox gamers because a lot of you saw Xbox as a successor to Dreamcast. If so, it seems like we have something in common: I was also a diehard Sega fan, but I took the opposite tact, viewing Xbox as an impostor. That's neither here nor there though.

I don't really agree that PS2 is responsible for Sega's exit from hardware though. The writing was always on the wall for them because they were masters of mismanagement. I absolutely adore the Dreamcast, but Sega bowed out after a series of terrible decision. To name a few...
1. They completely went hard with the budget for a niche, high risk title like Shenmue. Love that game, but that was just a risk that didn't pay off.

2. They are terrible at planning hardware launches. They released Saturn and no one knew at the time. In the case of Dreamcast, they came out swinging with software, but it was built with typical PC parts to save money. Good to port games and have prices come down rapidly, but that kind of cost decline made them appear desperate.

3. They couldn't survive on first party offerings despite that being one of the last generations where it was very feasible to do so. I don't buy it that Sony ruined them. They literally had their own sports titles in 2K.

4. They released a console where it was extremely easy to pirate their games and third party developers knew that. As long as the game remained within the capacity of burnable disc, you could copy it. This is because they didn't adopt DVD.

5. As the first "online" console, they really didn't push it enough. They made it so you could get some stuff from Sonic Adventure for Christmas, and PSO, but it was still something of a wasted opportunity.

6. When Dreamcast had no competition in Japan in '98, they still couldn't get much traction in their home country. People kinda just didn't care, though the parts shortages and hardware issues didn't help either. Even when PS2 was available with shortages, they waited for PS2 availability or even bought the PSOne. I think it beat everything else when both DC and PS2 were out. Developers were simply focused on PS2 as the more profitable machine, and it worked.

7. They closed the book on Dreamcast shortly after a change in leadership. The people in charge simply didn't have faith and they needed a new person to pull the trigger.

I just think Sony is unfairly blamed for what happened to Dreamcast. It had a host of other issues, perhaps not least of which was a massive piracy issue. History really shows that Sega was terrible at managing hardware and software. They're much better off focusing on software and they're profitable now.

For the record, I'd like some sourcing on your mentioning of Sony making these deals to kill Sega. I hear people say that but I have never been able to verify it.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 102d ago
Orchard103d ago

Microsoft are already a 3rd party publisher, so are Sony.

Microsoft has games on Steam, Switch, PS.
Sony has games on Steam, Xbox, GamePass.

Crows90103d ago

Except Microsoft is acting like a 3rd party publisher and not Sony.

Orchard103d ago

Sony has 12 games on Steam, 6 games on Epic Games Store, 1 game on Xbox & 2 games on GamePass.

Unless Sony has acquired Valve, Epic and Microsoft, they are functioning as a 3rd party publisher.

ApocalypseShadow103d ago

One game on Xbox by force of Microsoft going behind Sony's back to get the MLB to push Sony to go multiplatform with their game or lose the license.

They didn't want to and you know it.

darkrider102d ago

Dude, you know that's not the reality. I really don't understand why do you try to spin stuff to try and fit your agenda. The only 3rd party day one new publisher is Microsoft.

It's kinda sad.... Again your desperation on tryng to put Sony in the same line of Microsoft. They aren't that's why gamers buy much more games and Sony consoles because they cant play them day one and some never.

I don't even know how much money Microsoft payed to force the MLB to be on Microsoft consoles. The amount of corruption and under the table they did.

Orchard102d ago

@darkrider PlayStation publishes games on Steam.

The only way that can not be third party publishing is if Sony have bought Steam/Valve, which to the best of my knowledge - they have not.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 102d ago
+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 102d ago
Mcardle103d ago

Concessions are coming in thick and fast, can't see this deal not going through now.

Lifexline103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

Yeah I agree from what seemed to be the problem with this deal was the potential of cloud monopolization that was the biggest problem and this seems to rectify it. MS really wants to control call of duty and they are holding back no punches. I really don’t see how this will not go through now.

This is a huge win for consumers even if it’s just for show.

wesnytsfs103d ago

I do not see a reason for it not to go thru. Gamers are getting more choices. The only thing happening is Game Pass gets stronger but no one loses the chance to play on their platform of choice.

Sonic1881103d ago

"Game Pass gets stronger but no one loses the chance to play on their platform of choice."

Quality of games will still be questionable though. It's a wait and see approach for me.

Crows90103d ago

You mean huge loss? Games being taken away from the majority is a loss not a gain.

S2Killinit102d ago

Huge win for consumers would be if there was no merger and acquisitions. But this would be limiting the damage.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 102d ago
sinspirit103d ago


Just suddenly changing your tune will definitely make them suddenly allow them to do whatever they want with this massive acquisition with no fear of possibly reversing such things in the future. It's not like any company could reverse decisions once a deal has had final approval on a government basis.

Christopher103d ago

Great news. Third-party streaming services should be the way, IMHO. Publishers should focus on making games for platforms and the market for streaming can be taken up by those who support those games.

Crows90103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

Now Sony needs to make a deal with Nvidia to have their catalog as part of ps extra. Lol

I'm sure it wouldn't work as smoothly as that of course.

Christopher102d ago

They absolutely should. And it should work perfectly fine since Nvidia is already tied into steam.

Orchard102d ago (Edited 102d ago )

That’s not how these contracts work though.

When you agree to license your content to a service, the contract also includes endpoints/devices.

Same goes for physical and digital media, that’s why we don’t just have every PS1/2/3 game on PS+ for example. It’s also why only approved XB360 disks will work on an XB1/XSX.

Similarly, not all Steam games appear on GF Now - the developer must opt-in.

Crows90102d ago


Oh Lord. Guess you missed where I said it wouldn't work that smoothly.

Outside_ofthe_Box103d ago

You can already play Activision games today on your Xbox. The deal could pass through tomorrow and nothing changes for you.

Lifexline103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

No for game pass users it’s a huge win so what changes is our wallet. Having more money in it. People are so blind they only think about their skewed views and what platform they prefer. They don’t see the value in it for Xbox gamers all of actiblizz games on game pass is what Xbox gamers are excited for. How is it not great for consumers.

Asplundh103d ago

As a GamePass subscriber, I disagree.

Lifexline103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

@asplundh yeah that’s always smart to not explain yourself but say you disagree.

Only people without common sense don’t see the value in this. As much as people here complaint about needing more games I’m going to go out on a limb and say most people here buy at least three games a year as much as they bitch about games. A subscription to game pass say it gets a price increase at $20 a month eventually the annual cost would be $240 a year and three games at $70 would run at $210 a year. With game pass you will be able to play way more then three games a year you can literally play and try any game that’s on it but if you physically buy them it will run you up $1000 plus a year just to try to keep up with the amount of games on game pass and that’s a conservative number I’m giving.

Now before anyone says but the developers pocket. Who cares they don’t care about you people need to stop worrying about billion dollar companies if a developer is worried about money they need to get at their boss for better compensation. That is not the consumers responsibility.

Asplundh103d ago

My comment wasn't a reply to you. I made the comment seconds after you made one and didn't see it.

crazyCoconuts103d ago

And it hasn't occurred to you GamePass subscribers that after spending $67B that MS would probably raise the price of GamePass?

Crows90103d ago (Edited 103d ago )


Except your so wrong that it makes you the most blind of all.

The subscription has to increase in price or the game production values has to reduce. One or the other...I'm guessing the price will be what goes up...especially when and if CoD joins gamepass in long run your wallet will actually have less money in it.

Lifexline103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

@crow great job at learning how to read. If you knew how to read my example included a price increase already factored into it. Game pass is $15 i said hypothetically a price necear to $20 it would still be a much better value shot a price increase to $30 would still make it a better value then buying each game separately. At the end of the day it’s still a better value. No matter how you try to skew facts.

onisama102d ago

you wont beleive how many are waiting for the deal to play on COD on gamepass ...maybe you should consider asian/African an african that actually in Africa ...i say you know so little of how big is the world or how gamers around the world do their choices
i lived in UAE too so i know how much the budget is different and how much that affect the way they make their choices...
if you want to understand without leaving your chair i recommand you as an economist to read about Microeconomie

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 102d ago
Kakashi Hatake103d ago

The question is what do MS loyalists get from it, bragging rights? "My company makes more money"? Funny that console wars has come to that.

Hofstaderman103d ago

They certainly not getting first party games. Even third party exclusive AAA titles are eluding them.

103d ago