Topher
Gold Member
Last edited:
We at least this tells me you dont want to have discussion anymore.
This wasn't clear enough?
"At this point, I have no more desire to discuss this with you as you are getting strangely personal for some silly reason."
![]()
It didn't matter. This was opinion vs opinion. Convo was going nowhere.
If its just opinion vs opinion why quote me in the first place....
Well you either lied or cant read, you cherry picked a line from one point i made and tried to use it as evidence for my stance on a different point.Typically debating differing opinions is enjoyable. Calling others liars puts the conversation in a direction I would rather not go down. Not sure why that is hard to understand.
Well you either lied or cant read, you cherry picked a line from one point i made and tried to use it as evidence for my stance a different point.
Its either trolling or conversing in bad faith.
But once I pointed that out, you haven't aknoledged it.
It wasn't even a major point of contention and you went straight for the "liar" card. Nah.....you can whine about it all you want. You are going on ignore. I should have know better than to try and have a conversation with some who is "Founder of western console warring".
![]()
If you want to pretend like MS only makes video games. Look up who makes up the 5 Big Tech companies. You're not going to see Sony and Nintendo on that list. You will find Amazon, Google, and Microsoft jockeying for position.Man.....................you crazy lol.
At least they’re acknowledging the issue, and openly speaking about it implies they’re doing something about it.
It’s clear they’re making big moves, but people need to understand that what they did recently is long term play, we’re talking several years down the road before we see the fruit.
Easier said than done. You can't throw money at quality and talent.
Naughty Dog are in a class of their own. That’s not possible unfortunatelyYou look at Sony devs like ND who could have easily continued with the Uncharted franchise, but instead created TLOU. No doubt, they are already creating a new IP. I look at a lot of incoming MS games and I see Fable, Forza, Halo, Perfect Dark. Only Starfield is the new IP from MS side I have genuine excitement for and I just feel it smacks of a lack of creative talent; unwilling to take risks. And it isn’t just about creating a new IP, it is also about creating big characters, like Nathan and Joel. For me, MS defo need a ND tier developer.
MS clearly now own a lot of talent, but they just seem intent on working mostly on established franchises, which is great if that’s what you want, but at some point you need to freshen things up, most certainly if you want to compete with Sony devs who tend to not want to rest on their laurels.Naughty Dog are in a class of their own. That’s not possible unfortunately
If you want to pretend like MS only makes video games. Look up who makes up the 5 Big Tech companies. You're not going to see Sony and Nintendo on that list. You will find Amazon, Google, and Microsoft jockeying for position.
The context of all conversations should be about their video games divisions. Comparing other business intrests of console makers is usually just market cap fanboying.To be fair......this is a videogame forum. And we are clearly talking about the Xbox brand and the Xbox team here. They for sure are competing with Playstation and Nintendo.
Lol except... Phil Spencer from last year "When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward."To be fair......this is a videogame forum. And we are clearly talking about the Xbox brand and the Xbox team here. They for sure are competing with Playstation and Nintendo.
I mean I guess if you all just want to ignore what the Xbox head thinks about it too. Seems more like you're jumping to a very weak "fanboy" claim.The context of all conversations should be about their video games divisions. Comparing other business intrests of console makers is usually just market cap fanboying.
I know I would. That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard him say. Just how ARE Google and Amazon video games doing these days? Amazon and Google make such bad consumer products in other areas that are far easier than video games, I wouldn't count on them delivering anything truly of note that somehow elevates them beyond what Sony and Nintendo are doing. I mean, give me a break.Lol except... Phil Spencer from last year "When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward."
So I guess you're also disagreeing with Phil Spencer too?
Because he's looking at a bigger long term picture than what people on this forum want to acknowledge? What's wrong is thinking that only 3 companies could possibly ever be successful in the gaming world. Amazon and Google just got into this very recently. You expect them to just instantly match the studio outputs for companies that have doing it for 3 decades?I know I would. That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard him say. Just how ARE Google and Amazon video games doing these days? Amazon and Google make such bad consumer products in other areas that are far easier than video games, I wouldn't count on them delivering anything truly of note that somehow elevates them beyond what Sony and Nintendo are doing. I mean, give me a break.
This idea that consumer behavior will turn on a dime, or that big companies can merely throw money at something and deliver greatness is beyond ridiculous. If Spencer truly believes that, I think he is about as wrong as a person can be about a topic.
I look at a lot of incoming MS games and I see Fable, Forza, Halo, Perfect Dark. Only Starfield is the new IP from MS side I have genuine excitement for and I just feel it smacks of a lack of creative talent; unwilling to take risks.
MS clearly now own a lot of talent, but they just seem intent on working mostly on established franchises, which is great if that’s what you want, but at some point you need to freshen things up,
Regardless of how halo turns out things need to change at 343. It shouldn’t take this long to deliver a game.They have the tentpole names, but for some reason fail to deliver on the games. They have HALO for goodness sake....perhaps this is some kind of recognition the way they are managing their studios isn't as good as it should be.
It’s called an opinion mate, and I respect yours. However, it doesn’t change my point one bit. Out of all those games you mentioned, only one new IP (Starfield) has me genuinely excited and other than Indy (an already established icon), I don’t see any upcoming big characters. I mentioned ND and their ability to create new characters and new IP and you compared a list of games I didn’t mention, then listed a load of games that the majority are yet to be released, or we know very little about. It seems we are both trying to make different points here.Just a reminder:
God of War is a year older than Gears Of War and only a year younger than Fable.
Uncharted is only a year younger than Gears Of War.
Ratchet and Clank is only a year younger than Halo.
Gran Turismo is 8 years older than Forza and 7 years older than Fable.
Point being, most established franchises are old.
Sony's freshest 1st party IP's as of right now (carried over from the end of last gen or announced this gen) are The Last Of Us 2, Horizon 2, Ghost of Tsushima, Spiderman 2 and Wolverine.
Microsoft's freshest 1st party IP's as of right now (carried over from the end of last gen or announced this gen) are Ori, Flight Simulator 2020, Starfield, Redfall, Hellblade 2, The Outer Worlds 2, Avowed, Project Mara, Contraband, Indiana Jones and Everwild.
Forza Motorsport, Fable and Perfect Dark are being rebooted (just like God of War had to be). Refreshed.
I dunno what it looks like from your vantage point but that's alot of new energy.
Lol except... Phil Spencer from last year "When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward."
So I guess you're also disagreeing with Phil Spencer too?
Because he's looking at a bigger long term picture than what people on this forum want to acknowledge? What's wrong is thinking that only 3 companies could possibly ever be successful in the gaming world. Amazon and Google just got into this very recently. You expect them to just instantly match the studio outputs for companies that have doing it for 3 decades?
Also, how are their games doing? Did New World not have a massive launch very recently? I guess we should just ignore that too.
The main limit people are running into is people's attention, and their time. That is proving to be the last limited resource. Netflix views gaming as a main competitor because it's just taking up so much of people's time that are into it that they don't really watch Netflix much. Spencer is probably looking at engagement numbers and sees rival services that take people's time as a threat. In the past, he's stated that he believes Nintendo in particular is a positive force for Xbox, since they don't really steal consumers away from Xbox, and also are a nice gateway into getting younger and more casual gamers interested in consoles at all when they otherwise might skip it in favor of phones. I'm sure when talking about Amazon and Google as rivals, he's talking about the sheer size of the companies as well and their ability to get into literally anything they want if they just decide they want to do it. Both Amazon and Google were buying studios recently, and moving into cloud gaming. Seems pretty obvious what he's talking about.Yes I am! Why would Phil Spencer be talking about Apps, Movies, Music, etc on "The Cloud" when he runs the Xbox part of Microsoft?
- Amazon ships products to people in one day using Amazon Prime, has Prime TV, Amazon Music, etc.
- Google has Android phones, Google Drive to share docs, a search engine, Google HOME devices, etc.
What product does Phil Spencer oversee that competes with any of the things above that are listed?
The fact this escapes people on this forum is a bit weird.The main limit people are running into is people's attention, and their time. That is proving to be the last limited resource. Netflix views gaming as a main competitor because it's just taking up so much of people's time that are into it that they don't really watch Netflix much. Spencer is probably looking at engagement numbers and sees rival services that take people's time as a threat.
And if you've noticed, MS has been buying companies specifically to help them with cloud infrastructure, and gaming will continue to expand in that direction in the future, whether we like it or not. Sony and Nintendo are already well behind the other 3 in terms of that aspect. It is kind of odd to see everyone just dismiss what Spencer is saying outright. It makes perfect sense if you just step back from the normal Sony v Xbox conversation that gaf loves to cling to.I think that when Spencer is talking about Google and Amazon he is talking about competition in the cloud. On a cloud gaming level, there is Luna, Stadia, and xCloud. That competition is still in its infancy and whether or not it really takes off and we see a true gaming version of "cloud wars" remains to be seen. As things stand right now, Sony and Nintendo are Microsoft's primary competition in gaming. Amazon releasing a successful game doesn't really change that at all.
And if you've noticed, MS has been buying companies specifically to help them with cloud infrastructure, and gaming will continue to expand in that direction in the future, whether we like it or not. Sony and Nintendo are already well behind the other 3 in terms of that aspect. It is kind of odd to see everyone just dismiss what Spencer is saying outright. It makes perfect sense if you just step back from the normal Sony v Xbox conversation that gaf loves to cling to.
Most recently, they acquired Cycle Computing and CloudKnox Security. And yes, Sony jumped onto Azure, which only demonstrates what I said about them being well behind the other 3 companies in the cloud arena.What companies are you referring to as far as "helping" MS with cloud infrastructure? MS is already among the leaders in cloud. That is why Sony will be using Microsoft Azure. Situations like these where corporations are rivals in one business segment and partners in another are very common.
Frankly, I think Spencer is talking above his pay grade. Yes, Microsoft's key rivals are Amazon and Google and their respective cloud businesses.. But that is not Phil Spencer's key rivals. At least, not yet. Phil Spencer threw more shade at Sony's presence on PC this past year than he has ever said about Google and Amazon combined. When Phil Spencer headlines everything with the xCloud platform over the Xbox console platform then maybe we can talk about his competition with Google and Amazon.
I think a FPS or 2 are on the way from one of these studiosSure, but they also have what Sony don’t.
Arcade racer in Forza Horizon and a major FPS in Halo.
Jim? Jim? Hello?
Most recently, they acquired Cycle Computing and CloudKnox Security. And yes, Sony jumped onto Azure, which only demonstrates what I said about them being well behind the other 3 companies in the cloud arena.
It's truly baffling that you say "Spencer is talking above his pay grade", but you feel like WE are in a better position to pontificate on the matter. Fact is that Amazon and Google have enough money to rival MS in any endeavor they choose, while Sony and Nintendo simply do not. It is almost like you're taking it as a personal slight to suggest that Sony is not their primary rival in the years to come. MS is never playing the short game, they are ALWAYS trying to expand into every facet of your life, just like Amazon and Google. Gaming is now a massive revenue machine more than its ever been. I do not understand why people think that Google and Amazon are doomed to failure in the gaming market, just because Stadia didn't light the world on fire.
If, ten years ago, a grocery store chain suggested that Amazon would be a main competitor for them, it might have sounded just as crazy to you. It's not so crazy now, is it? You all are acting like it's literally impossible for 2 of the biggest companies in the world to make inroads into gaming over the next 20 years. That just makes zero sense.
Do you think Netflix is more worried about Hulu or Disney+? Same basic principle.
The main limit people are running into is people's attention, and their time. That is proving to be the last limited resource. Netflix views gaming as a main competitor because it's just taking up so much of people's time that are into it that they don't really watch Netflix much. Spencer is probably looking at engagement numbers and sees rival services that take people's time as a threat. In the past, he's stated that he believes Nintendo in particular is a positive force for Xbox, since they don't really steal consumers away from Xbox, and also are a nice gateway into getting younger and more casual gamers interested in consoles at all when they otherwise might skip it in favor of phones. I'm sure when talking about Amazon and Google as rivals, he's talking about the sheer size of the companies as well and their ability to get into literally anything they want if they just decide they want to do it. Both Amazon and Google were buying studios recently, and moving into cloud gaming. Seems pretty obvious what he's talking about.
As far as Sony not being listed a competitor, that's pretty silly. Probably just a PR strategy to de-emphasize the direct rat race and try to coexist and provide something that complements Playstation instead of replacing it. MS sees themselves as the main cloud offering and sub service going forward above all else.
And if you've noticed, MS has been buying companies specifically to help them with cloud infrastructure, and gaming will continue to expand in that direction in the future, whether we like it or not. Sony and Nintendo are already well behind the other 3 in terms of that aspect. It is kind of odd to see everyone just dismiss what Spencer is saying outright. It makes perfect sense if you just step back from the normal Sony v Xbox conversation that gaf loves to cling to.
Most recently, they acquired Cycle Computing and CloudKnox Security. And yes, Sony jumped onto Azure, which only demonstrates what I said about them being well behind the other 3 companies in the cloud arena.
It's truly baffling that you say "Spencer is talking above his pay grade", but you feel like WE are in a better position to pontificate on the matter. Fact is that Amazon and Google have enough money to rival MS in any endeavor they choose, while Sony and Nintendo simply do not. It is almost like you're taking it as a personal slight to suggest that Sony is not their primary rival in the years to come. MS is never playing the short game, they are ALWAYS trying to expand into every facet of your life, just like Amazon and Google. Gaming is now a massive revenue machine more than its ever been. I do not understand why people think that Google and Amazon are doomed to failure in the gaming market, just because Stadia didn't light the world on fire.
If, ten years ago, a grocery store chain suggested that Amazon would be a main competitor for them, it might have sounded just as crazy to you. It's not so crazy now, is it? You all are acting like it's literally impossible for 2 of the biggest companies in the world to make inroads into gaming over the next 20 years. That just makes zero sense.
Do you think Netflix is more worried about Hulu or Disney+? Same basic principle.
It is weird. I think they're just giving people options now. Xbox X, S, PC, Cloud (mobile, TV stick). They're pretty much console agnostic at this point. Its a post console vision. But if you want a console go for it. Gamepass and cloud are post boxed sales and individual ownership. But if you want to buy games go for it. Im enjoying the multiple options.The bolded is weird considering Phil said this right before releasing their latest console offerings.
Other businesses these big corpo do have huge influence in how the console one is done.The context of all conversations should be about their video games divisions. Comparing other business intrests of console makers is usually just market cap fanboying.
That's why I said "we" in the first place.We are both "pontificating" regardless of what position we are in and I'm just expressing my opinion. Absolutely none of this is on a personal level (including Sony's rival status) so let's bring it down a notch, dude.
Back on point, my point is that cloud services is the battleground in which MS, Google, and Amazon are fighting. Not gaming. Down the road a bit that could change, but I'm not convinced that cloud gaming is going to be the massive battleground others think it is. No, that isn't saying it is "impossible" or anything of the sort. Obviously a lot of folks see it as the next big thing in gaming. I'm not sure. But let me clarify my statement on Spencer. Phil Spencer obviously has dreams that one day that is where the gaming fight will take him, but in the meantime, he is focusing entirely on Sony and Nintendo. So yeah, if Spencer is talking about rivals in cloud services then that is definitely above his pay grade. If he is talking about rivals "one day" then that is just premature.
They don't "have the will, desire, or knowledge"?? Nothing to show for it? I mean you guys are just entirely willing to ignore anything that goes against your thinking here. Did I dream that New World already has over 13 million players in a month, or....? What about Amazon makes you think they "don't have the will"? Google you can maybe make that case, but you're ignoring how HUGE gaming is in the market. There's NO way that Amazon is going to ignore that market, and I highly doubt that Google is just going to ignore it either. There's too much money on the table for them to pack it in already.No Phil is talking over his head and just being dismissive. His main competitors have offerings on the cloud too. Not as good as MS of course, but they have something. Phil is trying to change the narrative and is hoping there's enough small-minded gamers to follow his thinking. It's great marketing, but most of us didn't fall for it.
Yeah, I'm saying it's almost impossible! They don't have the will, desire, or knowledge to survive the gaming industry. They both have been trying for the last 5 years with literally nothing to show for it.
That's why I said "we" in the first place.
Gaming is also a cloud service moving forward. This is a huge waste of time to debate, because you're just refusing to acknowledge that the landscape can change. There's no real reason to ignore cloud gaming services growing over time.
They don't "have the will, desire, or knowledge"?? Nothing to show for it? I mean you guys are just entirely willing to ignore anything that goes against your thinking here. Did I dream that New World already has over 13 million players in a month, or....? What about Amazon makes you think they "don't have the will"? Google you can maybe make that case, but you're ignoring how HUGE gaming is in the market. There's NO way that Amazon is going to ignore that market, and I highly doubt that Google is just going to ignore it either. There's too much money on the table for them to pack it in already.
Pretty much. Jim Ryan is the champ, Phil Spencer is the #1 contender and Bezos is training in a gym in Brooklyn.It's silly to think otherwise. If this was a boxing match, Phil Spencer's main competition would be Jim Ryan. Not Jeff Bezos.