Sure but what information are you providing here? I provided information on the maximum amount of Series X chips they've diverted for their second largest market in 2 years which is a measly amount. As a percentage it's not even 1% of console sales there. This idea that they were mass producing Series X chips but sending them to cloud instead doesn't hold water. The idea that makes sense based on stated numbers is that they just didn't produce many to begin with because they didn't like taking the loss on it when the Series S or xCloud users would be paying the same for their subs with MS taking a lower loss and even battling second hand sales./cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22649729/1162864366.jpg)
Microsoft’s Xbox Series X is about to make xCloud gaming much faster
xCloud is also launching on the web soon.www.theverge.com
We've known about the xcloud infrastructure moving to Series X's for almost 2 years now. I'm saying these emails are't exactly telling us anything we didn't know (for this particular item)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Verge - Microsoft sacrificed Xbox Series X sales for ‘long term ambition’ in the cloud
- Thread starter SlimySnake
- Start date
Eotheod
Member
But then pushing to cloud through Series X blades doesn't compromise the experience for console players? It's your choice as the customer to go the S, not Microsoft's. If it is harder to get a Series X and you decide to instead go S due to stock, that's again on you. No one is holding a gun to your head telling you to buy anything.
I swear corporatism and consumerism's FOMO has just fucked with everyone's rationality powers.
I swear corporatism and consumerism's FOMO has just fucked with everyone's rationality powers.
arkhamguy123
Member
Spot on. And I agree with every word in your post that you linked.
It’s so weird though. They are clearly soulless vamperic corporate suits who don’t give a fuck about gaming and they had a much more exciting showcase than Sony this year and actually showed (some) exciting next gen looking games.
Though I suspect this is more to do with PlayStation being so BAD lately rather than xbox being GOOD lately.
Last edited:
Negotiator101
Member
Let someone else have a go?
Stooky
Member
Uhhh I would wait for xbox to deliver on these games before you start giving them their roses.
Edgelord79
Gold Member
No shit. You don’t say?
Last edited:
arkhamguy123
Member
Fair enough honestly lol. Starfield and fable to a much lesser extent seem promising as hell.
But you’re right that avowed, state of midnight, clockwork revolution, hellblade 2 could all be fat flops
BootsLoader
Banned
What a weird gaming company.
Fatal Chuck Yeager
Member
it's crazy over the last 5 years Phil Spencer has ended up pushing for the same, or executing (worse) goals as Don, the last head of Xbox everyone mocked.
The only difference is Don has a plan with leading in game output as well, where as Phil is pushing services. I guess services is the winner since Microsoft apparently has never had higher revenue.
The only difference is Don has a plan with leading in game output as well, where as Phil is pushing services. I guess services is the winner since Microsoft apparently has never had higher revenue.
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
Another hatchet job nothing article against xbox, what, they diverted at most 100k in units from 20 million in sales? What's that, .05%?
Even if u bump thst number to 500k, it's still not significant in any way.
Yet they "sacrificed" series X for cloud?
The headline makes it sound like 1 unit to consumers for every 2 in the cloud.
I would expect better from The verge and Tom, let's go with the youtube headline vs any sort of realistic headline.
Even if u bump thst number to 500k, it's still not significant in any way.
Yet they "sacrificed" series X for cloud?
The headline makes it sound like 1 unit to consumers for every 2 in the cloud.
I would expect better from The verge and Tom, let's go with the youtube headline vs any sort of realistic headline.
Last edited:
ZehDon
Member
This is old news. We've known about this since the generation started, and they even announced their server upgrade completion as it then freed up hardware production to increase console supply.
And that's dated October 2021. A long while ago relatively speaking.
T0minator
Member
They sacrificed their own sales yet they pointing out how they're getting beat by Sony 80/20 in those graphs. That's disgusting, they blamed Sony for their lose in "the console war" just to get AKB, even though their long term goal is cloud and services, not consoles.
The judge has to know that's what was happening
The judge has to know that's what was happening
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Sadly it doesn't seem as if the judge truly understood this point. But we'll see some time next week.
In Cold Blood
Banned
This was known for ages. I wrote the exact same thing here months ago.
WhamBamThankYouMaam
Member
Do people actually play cloud/streamed games?
Ok, so I wasnt dreaming in thinking this was already completed.
crackajack
Member
Cloud infrstructure can in theory offer gaming to more people than getting units into households. Just assuming random numbers but a console at home might be played on average by 1.3 people and rests several days per week. And those single units in one home would also share their puchases. A cloud unit might provide gaming to 1.8 people, with no rest days, and they all have to buy their subscription on their own.
I would say Sony could have made quite a big push in cloud gaming when they would have offered PS5 streaming for all the people that could not get a PS5 themselves when the bet on this early.
Might have been true for MS too, but to a much smaller degree.
I guess while MS doesn't trust VR to grow anytime soon, they thought streaming will and bet on it, and numbers shown that they lead despite not leading at all in anything else. Similar as Sony did bet prematurely when buying onlive and gaika and to this day not really being proud of the results and possibly not wanting it to be too disruptive to their traditional system.
Interesting. So MS should have built up a decent server infrastructure with XSX blades but it is not enough.
I never waited once on PS3 or PS4 streams, but might be a different picture once Sony unlocks PS5 streams.
But the assumption that there is no market at all or no growing market is probably wrong otherwise the units would wait for players and not the other way round.
ZehDon
Member
Not really. If the argument is that Microsoft used its hardware to invest in cloud and so it cannot complain about its - and by extensions others - console position, then companies who didn't invest in cloud to allow themselves to invest elsewhere cannot complain about their - and be extension Microsoft's - position in cloud. If this is the road we want to go down, then regulators who drew issue with Microsoft's cloud position need to re-do their arguments because we've now established that the reason for Microsoft's position is that it invested where others didn't, and not because of some kind of monopoly that would prevent its ABK acquisition.
Thirty7ven
Banned
But nobody is complaining about MS’s cloud position. There’s no problem with it.
The problem is being so far ahead and already trying to box out competition by anti competitive acquisitions.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
And then Microsoft will complain that we only have a 31% console market share and that it is so much harder for us to get exclusivity deals because of our low console market share.
YeulEmeralda
Linux User
It's weird to see so many Xbox fans on a boomer forum like neogaf. MS is wiping their ass with traditional gaming.
Haint
Member
It was a really dumb bet cause console silicon is a terrible match for cloud gaming. The only way the latency is playable is by running everything at 120+ fps like Geforce Now, which requires silicon several orders of magnitude beyond a SX. Xcloud is like dollar store streaming, running a lot of shit at 30fps with 300+ ms of input lag and horribly compressed video.
Last edited:
thismeinteil
Member
So, this year is when they aren't pumping so many (looks like it wasn't as many as some would have had us believe) to cloud servers? Why are they still down YOY, then?
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
Can't think of a more traditional boomer game than Starfield. Thanks, Microsoft!
Team Andromeda
Member
The difference was Phil asked for the most powerful GPU in a console. If Don had done that, with the One, it would have been in a much better place IMO
YeulEmeralda
Linux User
I'm pretty sure that game was going to be made with or without Microsoft.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Hi-Fi Rush screams boomer energy, no ?
ZoukGalaxy
Member
Doubt. The outrageous and fiasco was more about the DRM, the TV focus, the always online, the 1 time use disc and the +100€/$ price tag compared to the PS4 with a forced Kinect, and his legendary answer "If you don't have internet, we have a product { Xbox 360 ]".
Less powerful was a problem but I would rank it at the end personally.
Last edited:
MatrixReloaded101
Member
Yup, they have all these big plans and do everything except what is most important, which is putting out quality games.
It’s ok to have big ambitions but I think the focus this gen for them should have been about establishing there loss identity through delivering quality games and regaining the trust they lost with everyone from the Xbox one gen.
All the moves from cloud, day 1 pc ports and the series s all scream “we want to expand” but they are trying to expand on a very bad foundation.
If they didn’t get Bethesda and lock down Starfield they would be screwed again for the second straight year in a row with a lackluster output of first party games.
Last edited:
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
Pretty sure it was the reason for the acquisition.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Let's see them turn it all around this year then. They need to start outselling xbox consistently this year now.
Crayon
Member
I'm more convinced that the clock is ticking on cloud because of hardware improvements. Playing real games on streaming is having a very slow uptake and mobile hardware is still improving quickly enough that it's going to catch up. It will never be a 300 watt xbox blade but at some point thanks to diminishing returns, you are hardly going to be able to tell on a 6 inch screen. The only reason spend a bunch more energy and bandwidth to play on a compressed and lagging stream is that you don't want to port your game to arm.
RoboFu
One of the green rats
Cloud game video streaming is only a short term solution. Sooner than later internet latency and small powerful devices will be enough to stream just data to your device and played from there. It’s still Cloud services though but the cloud is your hard drive. The You have you small powerful AI image constructing device to play it. Those device will be built into TVs and mobile.
It’s sad but large desktops are on the way out.
It’s sad but large desktops are on the way out.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Last edited:
RoboFu
One of the green rats
Yeah probably by then.Anybody remember this?
So you talking by 2040?
You have to think relatively. It was a little over a 100 years ago when most people were still shitting in holes outside.
We have progressed at an insane rate the past 30 years.
Kokoloko85
Member
Sounds like excuses
ChorizoPicozo
Member
ok, now can someone explain how is this Sony's fault?
Duchess
Member
Sony made the PS5.
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
Microsoft also sacrificed Xbox One Performance to bet on Kinect...
BootsLoader
Banned
I think that they are chasing a bigger userbase, no matter if it is PC (day 1 ports), Xbox (gamepass) or mobile (xcloud). They don't care about quality games etc., they look on the number of users only. I think they are confused at this point, games is not Operating system. Their approach to the problem is not ideal for the gaming industry, it is ideal for the Operating System industry.
Team Andromeda
Member
Always online in an Online world wasn't the reason, even in the 360 era everyone was logging in online with their 360 I got/get DRM but that was an issue that could be and was sorted.
When you had a console that cost more than your rival and yet had a less capable chipset; outclassed in the GPU and totally outclassed in the RAM it was a major issue
Microsoft had gone from being the GPU console king and also having the best memory system in consoles with Xbox and 360 to a joke. That was a killer moment for Xbox fans and more so 3rd party development and to make matters worse, Kinect took even more power away from an already underpowered GPU
If the Xbox One had a killer GPU and a better memory system, I don't think it would have lost out so badly. Not that the One was a failure mind
Rykan
Member
It wouldn't have made much of a difference. The Xbox one failed because of the mandatory inclusion of Kinect. This put the price point way over the PS4, and delayed the system in several markets. By the time they finally removed the Kinect to make the pricing more competitive, it was already too late: Momentum had shift to PS4 and there was no way that Xbox was getting that back.
Team Andromeda
Member
I think it would have made a big difference to the Xbox fans (stopped many jumping ship) and also 3rd party support.
Too much is made over the price IMO.
Rykan
Member
The Xbox One launched at $499, while the PS4 launched at $399, resulting in a significant price difference.
Although the specs of the Xbox One received negative press, it is unlikely to have as much impact as the fact that the Xbox One was 25% more expensive. In most cases, multiplatform games ran at 900p on Xbox One and 1080p on PS4, but this difference in resolution is unlikely to be a dealbreaker. Traditionally, the most technologically advanced system rarely becomes the best-selling one.
Taking it a step further, both the PS4 and Xbox One had upgraded models released later on. Even then, the "base" models continued to sell better than the higher-spec machines.
Team Andromeda
Member
What was the launch price of the PS3 Vs the 360? yet the PS3 had a mega launch in both the USA and UK. The DC was $100 cheaper than the PS2 and had a far far better launch lineup.
Price isn't the fact people make it out to be. If you really want a console, you'll find the money from somewhere.