Support NeoGAF

[Banjo64]

Pre-acquisition, the game wasn’t going to be on Cloud services for streaming, that’s for sure.

Would Starfield have launched on a subscription service? Absolutely not. Would it have appeared later down the line on PS Plus or Game Pass like loads of other Zenimax games did pre-acquisition, almost certainly.

 

[Riky]

So basically they’ve made it available to Steam as a separate platform instead of PS - everything else you’ve listed is just being inside the Xbox walled garden.

The Windows store is on every Windows PC as far as I know.

 

[Hobbygaming]

Ok let’s take Starfield as an example, next gen only, it will launch on Xbox and pc day one (never would have happen if it would be Sony first party), then you have got all players that have Xbox one (they can access the game via cloud), plus all players that cane access this game via browser streaming on their 10 year old laptops, and mobile gamers that will be able to play via cloud app or mobile browser. This potential player pool is much higher than 30m playstation players. We discussing hypotheticals here, as we don’t know is current GP subscriber number, we don’t know if and how much it will go up with starfield launch - will the game become a gamepass system seller with low barrier to entry for otherwise excluded users who cannot afford next gen consoles etc.

You making a big assumption about playstation 5 sales reaching 60 million by the end of 2023, so I can make assumption that starfield, redfall, stalker2, ark2, forza will get gamepass subscribers to 100 millions next year - both can play this game.

Didn't Phil Spencer say that Gamepass numbers are already slowing down?

 

[reksveks]

Could be interesting 2 weeks

 

[Heisenberg007]

Not if you factor in XCloud, though.

I am factoring it in.

xCloud is available in Gamepass Ultimate only and, therefore, is tied to the maximum number of GPU subscribers. I'm assuming ALL 25 million subscribers are Gamepass Ultimate users and have access to xCloud. That's still less than PlayStation's MAU which no longer have access to Zenimax games.

 

[Three]

The Blockbuster video argument. MS will argue that they're trying to innovate, help grow gaming and establish a new distribution model, and that it will be much cheaper for the consumer without need for a console or a game purchase. They can cite Netflix transitioning from DVD to cloud, which grew by a multiple of 7 or more.

Ms are suggesting that it is useless though for gaming due to latency. It's a bid to suggest that it isn't a blockbuster situation and that their position in cloud is meaningless.

 

[Heisenberg007]

The game doesn't just release on Gamepass though and you know this.
Let's take Starfield as an example, it's a next gen only game so who would have access to this game on launch day.

If Sony owned it then 30 million PS5 owners.

Now Microsoft owns it,

20 million plus Series Console owners
55 million Xbox One owners
30 million plus Steam users
Millions of other PC owners
Billions of Mobile phone and tablet owners.

That's not my argument. My argument is that Microsoft claims that these acquisitions allow them to make these games available to more people than ever before. That's not true.

Scenario #1 -- If Zenimax remained independent

Zenimax games would have been available to:

• 135 million PlayStation users
• 65 million Xbox users
• 120 million Steam users
• Total = 320 million users

Scenario #2 -- After Microsoft acquired Zenimax

Zenimax games would now be available to:

• 65 million Xbox users
• 120 million Steam users
• 25 million Gamepass/xCloud users
• Total = 210 million uses (and that's despite counting XGP/xCloud users totally separate from Steam and Xbox users, although there is a huge overlap).

It's 320 million vs. 210 million. Microsoft's acquisitions are reducing the total number of gamers who will have access to these games, not increasing them.

 

[feynoob]

Right now, all we need is that provisional findings.
This is the one that was supposed to come out in 2 weeks. It's been delayed late January up to February.

 

[feynoob]

That's not my argument. My argument is that Microsoft claims that these allow them to make these games available to more people than ever before. That's not true.

It's true, as they have the tools which is xcloud.
But that tool right now isn't standalone. So they are 50/50 right and wrong at the same time.

 

[Three]

Pre-acquisition, the game wasn’t going to be on Cloud services for streaming, that’s for sure.

It was but they actively removed it prior to being bought. Only reason you would do that and remove these "potential customers" who may buy your game is if you know some market players are paying the big bucks for that exclusive privilege.

 

[Ozriel]

That's not my argument. My argument is that Microsoft claims that these allow them to make these games available to more people than ever before. That's not true.

Scenario #1 -- If Zenimax remained independent

Zenimax games would have been available to:

• 135 million PlayStation users
• 65 million Xbox users
• 120 million Steam users
• Total = 320 million users

Scenario #2 -- After Microsoft acquired Zenimax

Zenimax games would now be available to:

• 65 million Xbox users
• 120 million Steam users
• 25 million Gamepass/xCloud users
• Total = 210 million uses (and that's despite counting XGP/xCloud users totally separate from Steam and Xbox users, although there is a huge overlap).

It's 320 million vs. 210 million. Microsoft's acquisitions are reducing the total number of gamers who will have access to these games, not increasing them.

Your argument is only valid when you disingenuously lump XCloud in with existing Gamepass subscribers. But that’s incorrect.

The addressable market for XCloud is anyone with a web browser in markets where XCloud is available. NOT people already subscribed to GP. The platform is the browser or smart TV.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Your argument is only valid when you disingenuously lump XCloud in with existing Gamepass subscribers. But that’s incorrect.

The addressable market for XCloud is anyone with a web browser in markets where XCloud is available. NOT people already subscribed to GP. The platform is the browser or smart TV.

So if I don't have a GPU subscription right now, can I play XGS games on my mobile device via xCloud?

Please share the steps how I can do that and what, if anything, I'd need other than my mobile phone.

 

[Three]

Your argument is only valid when you disingenuously lump XCloud in with existing Gamepass subscribers. But that’s incorrect.

The addressable market for XCloud is anyone with a web browser in markets where XCloud is available. NOT people already subscribed to GP. The platform is the browser or smart TV.

If anything he is being generous because he is double counting all xbox and PC users with gamepass. The fact that people CAN subscribe to play through their browser or TV doesn't mean anything in context if they haven't or don't. Those people CAN also buy a console, doesn't mean they should count. This is clearly talking about current established audiences.

 

[Ozriel]

It was but they actively removed it prior to being bought. Only reason you would do that and remove these "potential customers" who may buy your game is if you know some market players are paying the big bucks for that exclusive privilege.

These games were pulled in Feb 2020. Long before MS bought them. They were hardly the first to pull their games off Geforce Now. Capcom, Rockstar and Square Enix pulled their off earlier, and Activision pulled theirs a few days before Bethesda did. You think all of those publishers were being bought out too?

Nvidia was on record around that time admitting that they were struggling to convince publishers who seemed to want to hold out for payment to remain on the service.

Let’s not push misleading info here

 

[Riky]

That's not my argument. My argument is that Microsoft claims that these acquisitions allow them to make these games available to more people than ever before. That's not true.

Scenario #1 -- If Zenimax remained independent

Zenimax games would have been available to:

• 135 million PlayStation users
• 65 million Xbox users
• 120 million Steam users
• Total = 320 million users

Scenario #2 -- After Microsoft acquired Zenimax

Zenimax games would now be available to:

• 65 million Xbox users
• 120 million Steam users
• 25 million Gamepass/xCloud users
• Total = 210 million uses (and that's despite counting XGP/xCloud users totally separate from Steam and Xbox users, although there is a huge overlap).

It's 320 million vs. 210 million. Microsoft's acquisitions are reducing the total number of gamers who will have access to these games, not increasing them.

Incorrect, when you get a game you have to pay to access that game even if you own a console.
Therefore you can add every single person with an Xbox, PC, Phone and tablet to the equation. Out of 135 million playstation owners nearly all of them will have access to one of those. They can then pay for access to the game either by buying it or subscribing to Gamepass.
Like I said if Sony owned Starfield there would be a hard limit of just PS5 owners which is 30 million as it's next gen only.

 

[reksveks]

It was but they actively removed it prior to being bought. Only reason you would do that and remove these "potential customers" who may buy your game is if you know some market players are paying the big bucks for that exclusive privilege.

Not the only reason, plenty of publishers removed their games from GeForce Now.

 

[Riky]

Your argument is only valid when you disingenuously lump XCloud in with existing Gamepass subscribers. But that’s incorrect.

The addressable market for XCloud is anyone with a web browser in markets where XCloud is available. NOT people already subscribed to GP. The platform is the browser or smart TV.

Exactly.

If Starfield was on PlayStation you would have to pay to access the game, you still have to do that but via a subscription if you haven't got the hardware to play it natively.
Unless we're now saying we shouldn't have to pay to access the game.

 

[Three]

These games were pulled in Feb 2020. Long before MS bought them. They were hardly the first to pull their games off Geforce Now. Capcom, Rockstar and Square Enix pulled their off earlier, and Activision pulled theirs a few days before Bethesda did. You think all of those publishers were being bought out too?

Nvidia was on record around that time admitting that they were struggling to convince publishers who seemed to want to hold out for payment to remain on the service.

Let’s not push misleading info here

You've misunderstood. I wasn't saying they were being bought out. They saw it as revenue that platform holders would pay for to get on their services. Not necessarily an acquisition. They removed those so called "millions of TV and mobile users" from being able to buy their games and stream through the service because they know those sales would actually be low but the platform holders coming in and paying them big bucks for it on their service is better.

 

[Ozriel]

So if I don't have a GPU subscription right now, can I play XGS games on my mobile device via xCloud?

I didn’t buy Callisto protocol. So I can’t play it. Doesn’t mean I don’t have access to it on my PS5 if ever I decide to fork out cash for the game.

If you want to play Starfield at launch and you live in an XCloud supported territory, you can pretty much pay for GP and play that game, right in your PC. It’s available on a platform you own. That’s the position Satya et Al are taking.

If anything he is being generous because he is double counting all xbox and PC users with gamepass. The fact that people CAN subscribe to play through their browser or TV doesn't mean anything in context if they haven't or don't. Those people CAN also buy a console, doesn't mean they should count. This is clearly talking about current established audiences.

Don’t complicate what is a simple discussion. By putting it in the cloud, the game is now available to anyone with a chromium browser. Ergo, market is expanded.

Is that the maximum market size for Starfield? Of course not. They’d have to put it on PlayStation and Switch for that. But from their POV, Cloud gives them a bigger market than before when it was strictly console + PC only.

I’m not sure why you’re talking about ‘current established audience’ when the Xbox execs are talking about an expanded market above local console/PC gaming.

 

[Duchess]

I imagine MS will now point at Sony's PS5 sales figures, to add support to their reasons for the purchase. Sony's likely on track to now hit 40m PS5s by the end of 2023, right on time for Spider-Man 2 to drop.

 

[Three]

Not the only reason, plenty of publishers removed their games from GeForce Now.

All for the same reason. What other reason would there be to remove those potential customers some claim to outnumber playstation? They wanted money from platform holders.

 

[feynoob]

People need to understand that all you need for xcloud is a browser, smart tv, and being in countries which supports the service.

People have access to xcloud. It's up to them to subscribe to the service. You don't count how many people are subscribed to, but how many people have access to.

 

[Ozriel]

You've misunderstood. I wasn't saying they were being bought out. They saw it as revenue that platform holders would pay for to get on their services. Not necessarily an acquisition. They removed those so called "millions of TV and mobile users" from being able to buy their games and stream through the service because they know those sales would actually be low but the platform holders coming in and paying them big bucks for it on their service is better.

And yet Capcom, Rockstar, Square and Activision - the publishers that joined Bethesda to leave GFN - are yet to make the bulk of their modern catalogues available for cloud streaming.

Essentially, these publishers want to be paid for their games to be offered for cloud streaming. Neither MS or Sony are allowing purchased games to be streamed, so it’s extremely unlikely Starfield would have launched on any cloud platform.

 

[feynoob]

You've misunderstood. I wasn't saying they were being bought out. They saw it as revenue that platform holders would pay for to get on their services. Not necessarily an acquisition. They removed those so called "millions of TV and mobile users" from being able to buy their games and stream through the service because they know those sales would actually be low but the platform holders coming in and paying them big bucks for it on their service is better.

You can't stream other properties, without paying streaming rights.
This should be a common sense.

 

[Three]

Don’t complicate what is a simple discussion. By putting it in the cloud, the game is now available to anyone with a chromium browser. Ergo, market is expanded.

It's not complicated. By putting it in the cloud it's available to anyone who has subscribed to gamepass ultimate. By putting for download it is available to anyone who buys a console. The issue is that in either case you have to be interested to either buy a console or buy a subscription. You aren’t going to sell to those not interested. Otherwise everybody is a potential customer and just cost to entry is different.

 

[feynoob]

The issue is that in either case you have to be interested to either buy a console or buy a subscription. You aren’t going to sell to those not interested. Otherwise everybody is a potential customer and just cost to entry is different.

Availability and the price is the key here.

 

[Ozriel]

It's not complicated. By putting it in the cloud it's available to anyone who has subscribed to gamepass ultimate. By putting for download it is available to anyone who buys a console. The issue is that in either case you have to be interested to either buy a console or buy a subscription. You aren’t going to sell to those not interested. Otherwise everybody is a potential customer and just cost to entry is different.

There’s a whole world of difference in accessibility between paying $399 for a console or $1 for 3 months trial subscription

 

[Heisenberg007]

I didn’t buy Callisto protocol. So I can’t play it. Doesn’t mean I don’t have access to it on my PS5 if ever I decide to fork out cash for the game.

If you want to play Starfield at launch and you live in an XCloud supported territory, you can pretty much pay for GP and play that game, right in your PC. It’s available on a platform you own. That’s the position Satya et Al are taking.

So you do need Gamepass to play the game, right?

Now do you see what I was talking about? Let's revisit the conversation.

I am factoring it in.

xCloud is available in Gamepass Ultimate only and, therefore, is tied to the maximum number of GPU subscribers. I'm assuming ALL 25 million subscribers are Gamepass Ultimate users and have access to xCloud. That's still less than PlayStation's MAU which no longer have access to Zenimax games.

Your argument is only valid when you disingenuously lump XCloud in with existing Gamepass subscribers. But that’s incorrect.

The addressable market for XCloud is anyone with a web browser in markets where XCloud is available. NOT people already subscribed to GP. The platform is the browser or smart TV.

1. You need Gamepass Ultimate to access xCloud. If someone doesn't have XGP Ultimate, they can't play XGS/Bethesda games.
2. There are 25 million XGP users. So, at most, only 25 million people will have access to Bethesda games via xCloud if they released today.
3. And because Microsoft has made these games exclusive, they won't be available to 135 million PlayStation users anymore.

So because of Microsoft's acquisition, inclusion of Bethesda games to GP, and exclusive of PS users:

Increase = 25 million gamers
Decrease = 135 million gamers

Hence, Microsoft's acquisitions decrease the total number of players that can access Bethesda games, not increase them as they've been lying in their PR.

I literally cannot make this simpler than this. If somebody still doesn't "understand" it, they are just playing dumb to protect Microsoft's false narrative.

 

[feynoob]

So you do need Gamepass to play the game, right?

Now do you see what I was talking about? Let's revisit the conversation.

1. You need Gamepass Ultimate to access xCloud. If someone doesn't have XGP Ultimate, they can't play XGS/Bethesda games.
2. There are 25 million XGP users. So, at most, only 25 million people will have access to Bethesda games via xCloud if they released today.
3. And because Microsoft has made these games exclusive, they won't be available to 135 million PlayStation users anymore.

So because of Microsoft's acquisition, inclusion of Bethesda games to GP, and exclusive of PS users:

Increase = 25 million gamers
Decrease = 135 million gamers

Hence, Microsoft's acquisitions decrease the total number of players that can access Bethesda games, not increase them as they've been lying in their PR.

I literally cannot make this simpler than this. If somebody still doesn't "understand" it, they are just playing dumb to protect Microsoft's false narrative.

Why don't you calculate the potential customers who would join them?
Also why count that many users, when only less than 5% would buy the game's lifetime?
Your math makes no sense.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Availability and the price is the key here.

There’s a whole world of difference in accessibility between paying $399 for a console or $1 for 3 months trial subscription

There's this weird unsubstantiated argument that Cloud subscription services are more accessible and attractive than $399 consoles.

If that were true, there would be more xCloud gamers than PS5s sold. Meanwhile, the reality is:

• XGP = 25 million in 6 years.
• PS5 = 30 million in 2 years.

 

[analog_future]

That's official data.

Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service grows to 25 million subscribers

Just as Microsoft adds Activision to the Xbox Game Pass library

www.theverge.com

This is from literally a year ago. Are you going with the assumption that Game Pass has gained zero subscribers in the last 12 months?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Why don't you calculate the potential customers who would join them?
Also why count that many users, when only less than 5% would buy the game's lifetime?
Your math makes no sense.

Potential customers? lol what is that? We're basing arguments on dreams and hopes?

I'm talking about today's reality. Today, if Redfall/Starfield is released, fewer people will have access to these games because of exclusivity as compared to if Microsoft hadn't acquired Zenimax.

 

[Heisenberg007]

This is from literally a year ago. Are you going with the assumption that Game Pass has gained zero subscribers in the last 12 months?

What's the current 100% confirmed GP sub number? Please share that if you have official information, and I'll update my calculation.

 

[feynoob]

Potential customers? lol what is that? We're basing arguments on dreams and hopes?

I'm talking about today's reality. Today, if Redfall/Starfield is released, fewer people will have access to these games because of exclusivity as compared to if Microsoft hadn't acquired Zenimax.

Because potential customers= the availability of the product to the consumers.
Just like how your entire PS4/Ps5 userbase had a chance to buy their games.

Gamepass is on PC, and isnt exclusive to Xbox console only.

That is the key part that is wrong with your math.

If Bethesda releases their game now, people can subscribe to gamepass pc, and not have to buy an Xbox. Or use xcloud.
They aren't only tied to Xbox consoles.

 

[Three]

And yet Capcom, Rockstar, Square and Activision - the publishers that joined Bethesda to leave GFN - are yet to make the bulk of their modern catalogues available for cloud streaming.

Why would it have to be the bulk of their catalogue somewhere? Rockstar got paid big by Google for Red Dead Redemption on the now failed Stadia. Square got paid for Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 + 2.5 ReMIX, Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue, Kingdom Hearts: Melody of Memory, and Kingdom Hearts 3 available for streaming on PS+ Premium. Capcom got paid for streaming rights to RE7 etc on gamepass.

Essentially, these publishers want to be paid for their games to be offered for cloud streaming. Neither MS or Sony are allowing purchased games to be streamed, so it’s extremely unlikely Starfield would have launched on any cloud platform.

Why? Based on what? Nobody was talking about Starfield in particular anyway but why not if they offered enough? What stopped it being sold on say Stadia or Luna or Steam/GFN with streaming rights?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Because potential customers= the availability of the product to the consumers.
Just like how your entire PS4/Ps5 userbase had a chance to buy their games.

Gamepass is on PC, and isnt exclusive to Xbox console only.

That is the key part that is wrong with your math.

If Bethesda releases their game now, people can subscribe to gamepass pc, and not have to buy an Xbox. Or use xcloud.
They aren't only tied to Xbox consoles.

Nope. There's nothing wrong with my calculation.

That's not my argument. My argument is that Microsoft claims that these acquisitions allow them to make these games available to more people than ever before. That's not true.

Scenario #1 -- If Zenimax remained independent

Zenimax games would have been available to:

• 135 million PlayStation users
• 65 million Xbox users
• 120 million Steam users
• Total = 320 million users

Scenario #2 -- After Microsoft acquired Zenimax

Zenimax games would now be available to:

• 65 million Xbox users
• 120 million Steam users
• 25 million Gamepass/xCloud users
• Total = 210 million uses (and that's despite counting XGP/xCloud users totally separate from Steam and Xbox users, although there is a huge overlap).

It's 320 million vs. 210 million. Microsoft's acquisitions are reducing the total number of gamers who will have access to these games, not increasing them.

 

[feynoob]

There's this weird unsubstantiated argument that Cloud subscription services are more accessible and attractive than $399 consoles.

If that were true, there would be more xCloud gamers than PS5s sold. Meanwhile, the reality is:

• XGP = 25 million in 6 years.
• PS5 = 30 million in 2 years.

Stupid math man.
There are more than 700m computers out there. More than 100m of these computers can run games. These computers have access to gamepass. And can Sub to the service, if they want to play the game.

 

[feynoob]

Nope. There's nothing wrong with my calculation.

Your entire math is wrong.
You are calculating the PS5 sales yet you keep ignoring the PC numbers that are in the wild that have access to gamepass.
These users can Sub to gamepass.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Your entire math is wrong.
You are calculating the PS5 sales yet you keep ignoring the PC numbers that are in the wild that have access to gamepass.

You keep conveniently ignoring that I have already included 120 million Steam PC users in the above calculation.

These users can Sub to gamepass.

Again, you are talking about "potential customers".

Well, two can play at that game. There are 8 billion people in the world, and they can buy a PS5, so Microsoft is taking Zenimax games away from 8 billion PlayStation gamers.

See how that sounds?

Edit. Well, I've presented my arguments with actual numbers, and I'm done. If somebody doesn't want to see or accept this, I can't make them. Cheerio.

 

[Three]

There’s a whole world of difference in accessibility between paying $399 for a console or $1 for 3 months trial subscription

Sure, so with such a lowered cost of entry where are these subscribers then? Surely the current subscribers number is the current subscribers number and the current console owners number is the current console owners number. We don't talk about people who may want to subscribe like we don't talk about people who may want to buy a console. Those aren't a current audience so trying to count potential owners of PS5 and potential subscribers of GPU is one and the same and rather silly.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Ive only skimmed some comments but I think we can all healthily agree that if Starfield was launching on PS5 it would have an potential sales base of 30 million, I think a game of that magnitude could easily sell an extra 5 million copies on PS5 alone more than even a top tier Sony exclusive for a game that is essentially the next Skyrim / Fallout.

I think we all need to admit that.

But the reality is, Every Sony game or nintendo game could sell millions of more games if they were on every platform. Microsoft purchased Zenimax, and the purpose of THAT purchase was to bolster their first party exclusive out put as to incentivise people to buy into the Xbox eco system, be it game pass or whatever. Just like Sony or Nintendo use their first party IP.

So, all in all it is what it is.

Starfield will drive more game pass subscription sign ups than any game in hirstory. I'm pretty much certain in that, across PC and xbox. Wouldnt surprise me if it created more than 5 million sign ups. Even if its for a quid. How many of those stay subscribed after a month of binging on starfield, or just turn around and buy it because they adore it so much is anyones guess.

 

[Riky]

Potential customers? lol what is that? We're basing arguments on dreams and hopes?

I'm talking about today's reality. Today, if Redfall/Starfield is released, fewer people will have access to these games because of exclusivity as compared to if Microsoft hadn't acquired Zenimax.

Those games are next gen only, so you can deduct the entire PS4 userbase.
Because they are now first party they are available via Gamepass to every Xbox One, Mobile Phone,Tablet, PC owner without the required spec and some Samsung TV owners.
They wouldn't have been if those games weren't first party.

So yes more people have access to those games at launch than before.

 

[gothmog]

Great conversation, but streaming still sucks.

 

[Pelta88]

This is from literally a year ago. Are you going with the assumption that Game Pass has gained zero subscribers in the last 12 months?

Phil Spencer literally just said GP has reached a saturation point. Or let me quote the man directly...

“I’ve seen growth slow down, mainly because at some point you’ve reached everybody on console that wants to subscribe,”

Xbox Game Pass growth is ‘slowing down’ on console, claims Phil Spencer | VGC

Xbox Game Pass growth on console is “slowing down,” according to Xbox boss Phil Spencer.

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[GHG]

There’s a whole world of difference in accessibility between paying $399 for a console or $1 for 3 months trial subscription

And yet most people aren't doing that. I wonder why.

 

[feynoob]

You keep conveniently ignoring that I have already included 120 million Steam PC users in the above calculation.

Steam doesn't have gamepass.

Again, you are talking about "potential customers".

Well, two can play at that game. There are 8 billion people in the world, and they can buy a PS5, so Microsoft is taking Zenimax games away from 8 billion PlayStation gamers.

See how that sounds?

Edit. Well, I've presented my arguments with actual numbers, and I'm done. If somebody doesn't want to see or accept this, I can't make them. Cheerio.

Again, you are ignoring the key point here.
Every active PC can access gamepass depends on whether your country supports it or not.

Your example for PS5 depends on production. While gamepass depends on the users access.

 

[geary]

Also yes, you have got a big bunch of ps4 players and with logic of some people here, Sony should continue publishing games on ps4 indefinitely as otherwise some players will miss out on games if these are not published on their hardware

This actually makes some twisted sense. Sony not publishing Returnal and R&C pn PS4 deprived gamers of content.

 

[Ozriel]

Why? Based on what? Nobody was talking about Starfield in particular anyway but why not if they offered enough? What stopped it being sold on say Stadia or Luna or Steam/GFN with streaming rights?

We were talking about Bethesda. Starfield is their next game.

What stopped it being sold on say Stadia or Luna or Steam/GFN with streaming rights?

They’d already pulled their games off GFN, so that’s not likely. And Stadia’s dead so…

 

[Ozriel]

And yet most people aren't doing that. I wonder why.

That’s for Microsoft to decipher. In the meantime, they’re continuing putting Xbox hardware in datacenters to reach a large audience.

Phil Spencer literally just said GP has reached a saturation point. Or let me quote the man directly...

“I’ve seen growth slow down, mainly because at some point you’ve reached everybody on console that wants to subscribe,”

http://[URL]https://www.videogamesc...-slowing-down-on-console-claims-phil-spencer/

[/URL]

‘Slow down’ and ‘cease’ are two entirely different things.

Great conversation, but streaming still sucks.

I’m really impressed how civil it all is, despite how we stand at different sides of the divide. Much respect to everyone.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I’m really impressed how civil it all is, despite how we stand at different sides of the divide. Much respect to everyone.

That's the bare minimum threshold for how it should be. Opposing views are fine, but personal disrespect isn't in any case.

Much love y'all.