Support NeoGAF

[ChuckeRearmed]

I personally don't think they would take CoD full exclusive after the 10 year deal. They might engage in timed exclusivity (a week, 30 days) either for the full game or content/modes like raids/maps.

Maybe some early Game Pass perks (like pre-orders and how they did with Forza and now Redfall). I don't think Microsoft is interested in pure exclusive - as we saw with Minecraft and in general - splitting the userbase prevents IP from growing. So it is beneficial to support COD everywhere - basically making it is huge huge IP available everywhere.

Most Bethesda games are already on PS and those are MS games now. If MS really wanted to be disruptive (go all the way in), and this is my opinion on it, they should have gone in with native and cloud streaming in their proposal to put Game Pass on competitive platforms.

I think it is becoming pretty clear that Microsoft's idea of putting Game Pass on Playstation means full Game Pass, not just first party but with all third party deals too. Obviously Sony does not want that. And other platform holders either. BYOG services are the exception but they are not pure platforms anyway - after all of them are running Windows (all services essentially) so it is in a sense beneficial for Microsoft to support them. Google could be a decent competitor with their Linux based service but it did not take off due to their strange model and asking to port the games was too much. And expensive.

I think that sooner or later, regulators will take a look at closed ecosystems like consoles. Not today or not even in 5 years but it will happen eventually and Microsoft is essentially preparing for that.

 

[Topher]

So with 70 Billion on the line and 3 Billion in potential fines if the deal doesn't go through... Your contention is that when Microsoft said they offered GP to Playstation and PlayStation refused to carry the service, it wasn't actually Microsoft but the lawyers who mistook GP to means something else??

The problem with this is theory is that submission to regulators are not the equivalent of a forum post. They have a process known as due diligence. Every sentence word is checked repeatedly before submissions, as any misrepresentation could result in charges of Securities Fraud. Which would tank Microsoft's share price and legal standing.

When Microsoft offers the information that PlayStation refused to carry GP on their service to regulators. That's exactly what they mean, otherwise it becomes fraud under the legal framework of the regulatory process.

No, I'm saying the distinction isn't necessary. As I pointed out, Game Pass is available on my smartphone. That's simply a fact. The games are playable through xCloud. So as far as Microsoft is concerned, there isn't any difference and the method of delivery doesn't make what Microsoft's lawyers said untrue.

Who else blocked Game Pass? Apple did from iOS. Are we going to suggest now that doing so meant Microsoft intended to port their game library to iPhone? Of course not. So why must that automatically be the case for PlayStation or even Nintendo, for that matter?

In fact, this very subject was brought up in an email chain between Phil Spencer and Tim Sweeney where the two talked specifically about not "giving up" with xCloud on other platforms. He said nothing about porting games. He said "xCloud".

So I do not get why my assertion that Game Pass on PlayStation was all about a streaming app (just as it is on other devices) is so outlandish. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Rick Dangerous]

Doesn't it trouble anyone that those $69 billions come from other markets where MS has a quasi de facto monopoly (office +windows for enterprises) ? They have not proved anything on the gaming market and they should be allowed to buy their way to the top ? Hmm, fuck those assholes. They don 't deserve it and should not be allowed to make such an acquisition.

 

[sainraja]

Hmm. I’ll have to look for ways to simplify this down even further so even you can understand.

Microsoft says they approached Sony about putting Gamepass on PlayStation. Some of us are speculating that it’d be via a streaming app…and using the Samsung TV as an example was to show that ‘Gamepass’ doesn’t necessarily mean native games.

Not exactly rocket science.

LOL at "I will have to look for ways to simplify this down even further..." I don't get what is up with the attitude, but you were the one trying to shut someone else down for speculating how MS may have approached Sony, but it is totally fine for you to speculate otherwise? Who is redefining what?
I am not sure why I have to explain this, my post was simply saying that, without knowing what MS proposed to Sony with Game Pass, someone "speculating" about native games being proposed is just as silly as someone saying they only offered streaming because "that is how they put it on Samsung TVs", a device that can't play those games natively, where the natively playing option just doesn't exist lol.

We know PS5 can play those games natively (some of those happen to be on the system due to previously being multi-platform). If MS just offered Game Pass with cloud being the only option, that's a stupid deal and Sony is right to decline it. If MS offered native and cloud, Sony is stupid to decline that.

 

[adamsapple]

Sony doesn't want a game pass thing, whether a native or streaming app, on the PS5 interface. No point in arguing about something that's flat out not gonna happen.

Relax, guys.

 

[feynoob]

Sony doesn't want a game pass thing, whether a native or streaming app, on the PS5 interface. No point in arguing about something that's flat out not gonna happen.

Relax, guys.

What about ouya?

 

[sainraja]

I think it is becoming pretty clear that Microsoft's idea of putting Game Pass on Playstation means full Game Pass, not just first party but with all third party deals too. Obviously Sony does not want that. And other platform holders either. BYOG services are the exception but they are not pure platforms anyway - after all of them are running Windows (all services essentially) so it is in a sense beneficial for Microsoft to support them. Google could be a decent competitor with their Linux based service but it did not take off due to their strange model and asking to port the games was too much. And expensive.

I think that sooner or later, regulators will take a look at closed ecosystems like consoles. Not today or not even in 5 years but it will happen eventually and Microsoft is essentially preparing for that.

If they really wanted to include third-party offerings with Game Pass on PS, I can see why Sony might not have liked that. If MS is really trying to push the full Game Pass offering, then they both should work something out, where PS gamers can get access to Xbox specific titles and XB gamers can get access to PS specific titles but that is not likely, unfortunately.

We are talking about overall Xbox/MS 1st party games.
Aside of those existing games, you will need to port the remaining games.
Putting those native on a competitive platform means huge drop on your business. It will negatively harm Xbox consoles, same as how putting gamepass with 3rd party games harms Sony revenue.

No, I get all that. That is why I said, if they really wanted to be disruptive, that is what they should do. I am not saying that I see it happening.

 

[sainraja]

Sony doesn't want a game pass thing, whether a native or streaming app, on the PS5 interface. No point in arguing about something that's flat out not gonna happen.

Relax, guys.

We're on a discussion forum, right?

Most conversation in this thread goes in circles anyway.

 

[Pelta88]

No, I'm saying the distinction isn't necessary. As I pointed out, Game Pass is available on my smartphone. That's simply a fact. The games are playable through xCloud. So as far as Microsoft is concerned, there isn't any difference and the method of delivery doesn't make what Microsoft's lawyers said untrue.

Who else blocked Game Pass? Apple did from iOS. Are we going to suggest now that doing so meant Microsoft intended to port their game library to iPhone? Of course not. So why must that automatically be the case for PlayStation or even Nintendo, for that matter?

In fact, this very subject was brought up in an email chain between Phil Spencer and Tim Sweeney where the two talked specifically about not "giving up" with xCloud on other platforms. He said nothing about porting games. He said "xCloud".

Apple's service and an email chain don't detract from the submitted facts here. It's clear you're trying to obfuscate the fact that Microsoft has submitted to two separate regulators under penalty of law, that they tried to put GP on PS. You can claim they really meant whatever you are most comfortable with.

Microsoft: We tried to put Game Pass on PlasyStation but they refused.

Console war bias: When Microsoft said GamePass... They were really talking about Popcorn, Starburst, and Mountain Dew.

 

[azertydu91]

Any accusation made at other posters and their preferences apply to you too. Just swap the company names. The lack of self awareness is not surprising.

It is nice knowing that you pretend to be some kind of authority on the subject, especially after you accused people in a thread of sending death threats, your post got deleted by a mod and then you kept lying about never saying it, until a mod had to come out and confirm that you said it.

Edit: It was not death threats but doxxing someone

 

[adamsapple]

What about ouya?

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

If MS is really trying to push the full Game Pass offering, then they both should work something out, where PS gamers can get access to Xbox specific titles and XB gamers can get access to PS specific titles but that is not likely, unfortunately.

It is not even about access to the games but the thing is that with Game Pass, Sony will lose a lot of third party revenue at once as some of them will be lost to Game Pass revenue anyway (day 1 launches in Game Pass giving subscription revenue but 30% cut and so on). They also potentially lose some GaaS revenue too if some Playstation folks start playing Microsoft's games rather than Sony's own GaaS offering. There is no way Sony and Microsoft can reach an agreement there and I don't envision any agreement between them anytime soon anyway - too many burnt bridges.

Now if consoles were to become general purpose devices and forced to be "unwalled" similarly to digital market act or something - that would be interesting. But Sony will suffer the most from it anyway as Nintendo relies on their own first party games anyway and Microsoft is slowly pivoting from day 1 launches to recurring Game Pass revenue. Third party publishers will probably benefit a lot, but again not necessary as just like PC demonstrated (and probably mobile) - there is too much inertia behind the most popular stores (Steam for example).

 

[Topher]

Apple's service and an email chain don't detract from the submitted facts here. It's clear you're trying to obfuscate the fact that Microsoft has submitted to two separate regulators under penalty of law, that they tried to put GP on PS. You can claim they really meant whatever you are most comfortable with.

Your "submitted facts" never specify that those games would be natively ported and so factually, they are 100% in line with my assertion that putting Game Pass on PS was going to be accomplished via xCloud. Do I know that? No. Neither do you. Which goes back to my point that we do not know the details of what was offered.

 

[DarkMage619]

It is nice knowing that you pretend to be some kind of authority on the subject, especially after you accused people in a thread of sending death threats, your post got deleted by a mod and then you kept lying about never saying it, until a mod had to come out and confirm that you said it.

Edit: It was not death threats but doxxing someone

If you think Austin Evans was lying about the threats he received you are free to think so. I have never accused anyone of being a shill or gave any one any death threats either. The mod confirmed nothing of the sort. Nice attempt at a deflection though. You have anything on the actual topic of this thread?

 

[Ezekiel_]

The whole 'GamePass on PlayStation' is an interesting one.

Let's posit 2 things :
1. Microsoft wants GP to be on as many devices as possible to increase subscriber numbers.
2. Sony wants third party publishers to release games on their store and get a revenue cut of each transaction.

I think both those things are fairly self evident and reasonable.

Let's posit one last thing : They both want to maximize their gains (revenue/profit/marketshare/etc.)

So, why isn't GP on PS consoles?


From the PoV of MS :

If you natively port every single first party game to PS, and make a 'EA Play' type subscription, you effectively kill one of the reasons to get an Xbox, and basically become a third party publisher. Sony sells more consoles, gains more revenue. You might get more subscribers and revenue, but you transform your business from platform holder to publisher. You could still make consoles, but buying a PlayStation would simply be a better option because it gives you access to more games. You get ~70% of every sale instead of 100% from your store.

So what can MS do to maximize their gains?

Offer a GamePass PS4/PS5 app, like Netflix and Disney+, and offer your first party catalog through cloud streaming only.

But here's the catch : since it's a streaming app, and subscriptions and microtransactions don't go through PSN, you get to keep all, or most, of the revenue.


From the PoV of Sony :

Obviously you would be interested in having a publisher publish all their games on PSN and get the revenue cut from sales and microtransactions.

If their proposition is to instead make a streaming app, allowing them to bypass your store, then what is there to gain from that? You would most likely lose out on revenue spent on your store. These consoles aren't open platforms with a number of stores.


So I think it might be true that MS offered Sony to put GP on their consoles, but evidently the terms weren't mutually benefactory.

Even EA Play took like 5 years to arrive on PS consoles, so clearly there were things that needed to be worked out.

If MS offered a 'EA Play' type deal to Sony, they would accept in a heartbeat.

I don't think MS have any intention to get 'regular publisher' terms though.

It's the same reason Steam or the Epic Games Store doesn't allow GP either.

 

[b6a6es]

Sony doesn't want a game pass thing, whether a native or streaming app, on the PS5 interface. No point in arguing about something that's flat out not gonna happen.

Relax, guys.

Imo it’s of whether its Full GP or just MS titles only GP (akin to Ubisoft+ & EA Play) to avoid any cannibalization of 3rd party titles (especially Indie), hence why ecen Nintendo Rejected putting even cloud GP on switch, hell even Apple & Google rejected putting Xcloud on their mobile storefronts for that reason alone

 

[feynoob]

The whole 'GamePass on PlayStation' is an interesting one.

Let's posit 2 things :
1. Microsoft wants GP to be on as many devices as possible to increase subscriber numbers.
2. Sony wants third party publishers to release games on their store and get a revenue cut of each transaction.

I think both those things are fairly self evident and reasonable.

Let's posit one last thing : They both want to maximize their gains (revenue/profit/marketshare/etc.)

So, why isn't GP on PS consoles?


From the PoV of MS :

If you natively port every single first party game to PS, and make a 'EA Play' type subscription, you effectively kill one of the reasons to get an Xbox, and basically become a third party publisher. Sony sells more consoles, gains more revenue. You might get more subscribers and revenue, but you transform your business from platform holder to publisher. You could still make consoles, but buying a PlayStation would simply be a better option because it gives you access to more games. You get ~70% of every sale instead of 100% from your store.

So what can MS do to maximize their gains?

Offer a GamePass PS4/PS5 app, like Netflix and Disney+, and offer your first party catalog through cloud streaming only.

But here's the catch : since it's a streaming app, and subscriptions and microtransactions don't go through PSN, you get to keep all, or most, of the revenue.


From the PoV of Sony :

Obviously you would be interested in having a publisher publish all their games on PSN and get the revenue cut from sales and microtransactions.

If their proposition is to instead make a streaming app, allowing them to bypass your store, then what is there to gain from that? You would most likely lose out on revenue spent on your store. These consoles aren't open platforms with a number of stores.


So I think it might be true that MS offered Sony to put GP on their consoles, but evidently the terms weren't mutually benefactory.

Even EA Play took like 5 years to arrive on PS consoles, so clearly there were things that needed to be worked out.

If MS offered a 'EA Play' type deal to Sony, they would accept in a heartbeat.

I don't think MS have any intention to get 'regular publisher' terms though.

It's the same reason Steam or the Epic Games Store doesn't allow GP either.

Yup, it's a lose/lose situation.
Neither offer is viable for either party.

 

[Ozriel]

someone "speculating" about native games being proposed is just as silly as someone saying they only offered streaming because "that is how they put it on Samsung TVs", a device that can't play those games natively, where the natively playing option just doesn't exist lol.

No. I clearly made posts explaining why I felt it was extremely implausible that they’d want to bring GP to PlayStation as native games. Reasons such as the fact that it would pretty much ruin Xbox console prospects if MS were to being all their first party games to the platform, essentially becoming third party. Also because it would significantly hike the fees they pay 3rd parties to put their games on the service. Not once did I say “they only offered streaming because that’s how they put it on Samsung TVs”

Again, this isn’t rocket science. You just aren’t listening.

Done with this line of discussion anyway.

 

[GHG]

If you think Austin Evans was lying about the threats he received you are free to think so. I have never accused anyone of being a shill or gave any one any death threats either. The mod confirmed nothing of the sort. Nice attempt at a deflection though. You have anything on the actual topic of this thread?

Allow me to jog your memory you pathological liar:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/hard...actually-better.1617827/page-7#post-264548655

It is nice knowing that you pretend to be some kind of authority on the subject, especially after you accused people in a thread of sending death threats, your post got deleted by a mod and then you kept lying about never saying it, until a mod had to come out and confirm that you said it.

Edit: It was not death threats but doxxing someone

You were correct originally, it was about the death threats.

 

[Pelta88]

Microsoft: It does not make financial sense to remove COD from the PS platform.

Also Microsoft:



Their PR portrays them as almost Bipolar.

 

[azertydu91]

Allow me to jog your memory you pathological liar:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/hard...actually-better.1617827/page-7#post-264548655



You were correct originally, it was about the death threats.

Yep DarkMage619 lying again, thanks for providing the source...I don't know what else to add.You provided the source to my claim and he didn't for his, nor can he, sadly dcmk7 is no longer here, I'm sure he'd gladly joined us.

 

[feynoob]

Allow me to jog your memory you pathological liar:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/hard...actually-better.1617827/page-7#post-264548655



You were correct originally, it was about the death threats.

DarkMage619

 

[Dick Jones]

Allow me to jog your memory you pathological liar:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/hard...actually-better.1617827/page-7#post-264548655



You were correct originally, it was about the death threats.

DarkMage when caught by the bollix

On mature recollection, I'm sure DarkMage will apologise profusely for his error...or he will most likely hide for three days and resume posting here while ignoring the comment

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

exactly. and you can see it like this as well:
10 years is enough time for MS to destroy the CoD IP.

 

[GHG]

DarkMage when caught by the bollix

On mature recollection, I'm sure DarkMage will apologise profusely for his error...or he will most likely hide for three days and resume posting here while ignoring the comment

It's the latter, always.

 

[Pelta88]

exactly. and you can see it like this as well:
10 years is enough time for MS to destroy the CoD IP.

Which do you think is most likely?

 

[IFireflyl]

Sony doesn't want a game pass thing, whether a native or streaming app, on the PS5 interface. No point in arguing about something that's flat out not gonna happen.

Relax, guys.

I don't think that's entirely correct. If Microsoft said they wanted Game Pass on PlayStation, and that the games used on PlayStation would be native applications, that's a win for Sony. The reason being, why buy an Xbox when PlayStation can provide a native version of every game? And since it's a native application, Sony would get paid by Microsoft to publish their games on PlayStation.

But Microsoft certainly isn't offering to make native applications of their first-party content for PlayStation. They would be shooting themselves in the foot by essentially saying, "Don't buy our hardware as it has now become pointless to own an Xbox." Anyone arguing that the "Game Pass on PlayStation" comment isn't referring to xCloud is being foolish. While I disagree with that one section of what you said, I think that your overall point is still correct. Game Pass isn't coming to PlayStation. Full stop.

 

[TheGodfather07]

exactly. and you can see it like this as well:
10 years is enough time for MS to destroy the CoD IP.

It's impossible, even for Microsoft. It's like fifa. That shit is the same every single year and it just get bigger and bigger. Cod is the same type. It can literally stay the same for those 10 years and it would still be just as big and successful as it is today. Actually like fifa, they can even make it worse and it would make no difference.

 

[DarkMage619]

Ten years is an eternity in tech. On top of that no other deal accepted by the CMA was longer than ten years. It makes no sense after ten years and expanding the franchise to every platform under the sun for MS to suddenly remove the game and make it exclusive. It is like some are ignoring the historical precedent with Minecraft another IP expanded after acquired it.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Which do you think is most likely?

well, we should look at the past:

mismanagement of the Fable IP.
mismanagement of the Halo IP.
mismanagement of the Crackdown IP.

stagnation in "Gears".

is almost a certainty CoD stumbles in the next 5 years. (and this is not necessarily because MS) I feel CoD is like a rubber band about to snap

then, MS's awesome management track record would finish the work.

 

[Warablo]

I don't think Microsoft should be legally binded to a lifetime of CoD on all platforms, but what is sufficient time if they wanted to make it exclusive should it be?

So many things could change in 10 years. Sony/Xbox policies, consoles, CoD as a franchise could be completely different.

 

[Topher]

Allow me to jog your memory you pathological liar:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/hard...actually-better.1617827/page-7#post-264548655



You were correct originally, it was about the death threats.

 

[Neofire]

Microsoft: It does not make financial sense to remove COD from the PS platform.

Also Microsoft:



Their PR portrays them as almost Bipolar.

Exactly and the audacity to blatantly come and say that Sony can develop something to compete with the largest fps franchise in the world lol....even though noone else has in the past two decades but Sony had 10 years to do it

 

[In Cold Blood]

It seems abundantly clear that Microsoft plans to make COD exclusive. No matter the PR they put out, not wanting to expand the licensing deal beyond a specified term is telling.

Especially when you think back to the first offer of 3 years.

So what if they do? They own it. So long as they keep their side of the contract that's it.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Ten years is an eternity in tech. On top of that no other deal accepted by the CMA was longer than ten years. It makes no sense after ten years and expanding the franchise to every platform under the sun for MS to suddenly remove the game and make it exclusive. It is like some are ignoring the historical precedent with Minecraft another IP expanded after acquired it.

You know what makes even less sense? Thinking Microsoft will keep cod on PS of their own accord. You actually believe that? You do understand that the 10 years is because Microsoft have to do that. Not because they want to right? Remember the 3 years? Lol you think Microsoft would have renegotiated with Sony after that instead of having cod as an exclusive on gamepass? I know you don't really believe this.

 

[Gobjuduck]

Cant wait for this deal to go through. The Microsoft hate is palpable here.

 

[Topher]

Cant wait for this deal to go through. The Microsoft hate is palpable here.

 

[Dick Jones]

It's the latter, always.

I was off by 3 days. Only took 10 posts to ignore your post destroying him and start posting again.

 

[Bernardougf]

Any accusation made at other posters and their preferences apply to you too. Just swap the company names. The lack of self awareness is not surprising.

Hey dont try to put your shoes on me.. you chose to put them in .. use them proudly little warrior

 

[IFireflyl]

Cant wait for this deal to go through. The Microsoft hate is palpable here.

And the Sony hate is nonexistent? Both sides have had people acting like retards for over 700 pages.

 

[Topher]

Hey dont try to put your shoes on me.. you chose to put them in .. use them proudly little warrior

Are you still ignoring me for liking TLOU 2?

Just....checking

Edit: seems he is. Lol

 

[azertydu91]

And the Sony hate is nonexistent? Both sides have had people acting like retards for over 700 pages.

Acquisitions threads: comes with an extra chromosome....
Yeah it tends to bring passion and passionate responses, as usual emotions can be far from logic, facts or empathy.

 

[ManaByte]

Ten years is an eternity in tech. On top of that no other deal accepted by the CMA was longer than ten years. It makes no sense after ten years and expanding the franchise to every platform under the sun for MS to suddenly remove the game and make it exclusive. It is like some are ignoring the historical precedent with Minecraft another IP expanded after acquired it.

Exactly ten years ago people cared when one console could hit 1080p and the other only did 720p. These days it’s no big deal if you can’t hit 4K.

 

[sainraja]

No. I clearly made posts explaining why I felt it was extremely implausible that they’d want to bring GP to PlayStation as native games. Reasons such as the fact that it would pretty much ruin Xbox console prospects if MS were to being all their first party games to the platform, essentially becoming third party. Also because it would significantly hike the fees they pay 3rd parties to put their games on the service. Not once did I say “they only offered streaming because that’s how they put it on Samsung TVs”

Again, this isn’t rocket science. You just aren’t listening.

Done with this line of discussion anyway.

You provided the link to MS putting games on Samsung TV in response to the poster you were in conversation with, where I thought the implication was, if they are putting Game Pass cloud on Samsung TVs, they will do the same on the PS (had that deal gone through)—my main point was, that it is a silly point to use to prove that, when your other points seem more valid. Maybe I misunderstood.

Anyway, you're not the only one done with this conversation.

 

[Topher]

Exactly ten years ago people cared when one console could hit 1080p and the other only did 720p. These days it’s no big deal if you can’t hit 4K.

Xbox console warrior take of the day goes to......

ManaByte

Congrats.

You were awarded extra points for bringing up console warrior bullshit from 3 years ago. nice job

 

[feynoob]

Cant someone stand up for the poor MS?


Sometimes I wonder if that video is satire or a reality.

 

[ManaByte]

Xbox console warrior take of the day goes to......

ManaByte

Congrats.

You were awarded extra points for bringing up console warrior bullshit from 3 years ago. nice job

Ten years ago resolution was the biggest thing. Now people argue over .4% frame rate differences and textures zoomed in 400x.

 

[Topher]

Ten years ago resolution was the biggest thing. Now people argue over .4% frame rate differences and textures zoomed in 400x.

Ten years ago the difference was noticeable.

 

[ManaByte]

Ten years ago the difference was noticeable.

So you’re saying gaming has changed a lot in ten years.

 

[sainraja]

No, I'm saying the distinction isn't necessary. As I pointed out, Game Pass is available on my smartphone. That's simply a fact. The games are playable through xCloud. So as far as Microsoft is concerned, there isn't any difference and the method of delivery doesn't make what Microsoft's lawyers said untrue.

True and fair enough.

Who else blocked Game Pass? Apple did from iOS. Are we going to suggest now that doing so meant Microsoft intended to port their game library to iPhone? Of course not. So why must that automatically be the case for PlayStation or even Nintendo, for that matter?

It doesn't automatically have to mean that, but it can be a point of consideration given that the games on Game Pass can be made available natively on the PS5 system (they already share a lot of games in their libraries, specially if you are going to bring in third-party titles) vs. iOS where a lot more work would need to be done.

In fact, this very subject was brought up in an email chain between Phil Spencer and Tim Sweeney where the two talked specifically about not "giving up" with xCloud on other platforms. He said nothing about porting games. He said "xCloud".

So I do not get why my assertion that Game Pass on PlayStation was all about a streaming app (just as it is on other devices) is so outlandish. It makes perfect sense.

Well, whatever the case, Microsoft should have offered native w/ xCloud (minus third-party) if they wanted to make it work. Offering just the xCloud app is silly IMO and probably why it was turned down. Didn't Microsoft also turn down PS+ being on their system?