I can't really quite remember journalists cheering for Microsoft this gen at all.They supported Sony way more. Almost every thing Microsoft did this gen until release of Xbox One X was downplayed by gaming press like something insignificant.

Sony should have made possible to stream Remote Play by local network. At least it really seems that it can't do that from my experience. With all the latencies and poor image quality that Remote Play gives you when you use it at home, it really looks like they still use their servers to stream for some reason. So, yeah, if we talk about streaming to home PC, Microsoft solution works better. The concept of Remote Play is way better though. Sony should just add the possibility to stream locally. I also like that Remote Play is on macOS as well unlike Microsoft streaming which is Win10 only.

"For the most part probably because now Sony treats PSNow as their answer to Microsoft B/C program"

I think you have your timeline mixed up. PS Now was created to preserve the PS3 legacy software since the cell processor made it difficult to emulate. The PS2 and PS3 were both backwards compatible but the changes in technology, business models, and the cell made it difficult for the PS4 to run PS3 games including the PS2 classics purchased on the PS3 store. PS2 was a disk only console. PS Now was Sony's way of future proofing as well as offering a Netflix style rental service. Sony was going to evolve the PS Now service over time. They were always going to add PS4 games because PS3 games are not enough to keep the service growing.

Xbox One was not backwards compatible with Xbox 360 in the beginning and Microsoft had no intentions of adding the feature. It wasn't until PS Now launched and Xbox One started losing in sales that Microsoft started working on Xbox 360 BC.

"I can't really quite remember journalists cheering for Microsoft this gen at all.They supported Sony way more."

Well, I don't know what to tell you because that is not the history I've seen. Journalists have been defending the Xbox One since it launched. For the most part they give Microsoft a pass on most things other than the things that they can't hide such as the exclusives issue. They hype up almost everything Microsoft does. The last year has basically been an anti-Sony campaign because Sony didn't want to open the gates to Nintendo and Microsoft. Microsoft received passes over the past 13 years for blocking cross play with PC.

News journalists are not the reason why the PS4 is winning or the reason why Microsoft is making changes. Many journalists owned both since the beginning of the generation. The reason why the PS4 is so far ahead and why Microsoft is making changes is because of the general consumer (majority of gamers) who purchase PS4's but refuse to purchase Xbox Ones. I think if the journalists had their way and if their narratives started influencing the general consumer the Xbox One would've sold better, Microsoft would have never changed, and we would be in trouble.

"Sony should have made possible to stream Remote Play by local network. At least it really seems that it can't do that from my experience."

You can already do that with Remote Play. 

"With all the latencies and poor image quality that Remote Play gives you when you use it at home, it really looks like they still use their servers to stream for some reason. So, yeah, if we talk about streaming to home PC, Microsoft solution works better."

That has not been my experience. Many Xbox One games are only 900p or 720p. The image quality varries based on your home connection, what device you use, streaming resolution, and other factors.

Never had anything to do XCloud, so I wasn't aware of this.

I helped out a friend since he thought he botched up something when buying into the service, but it became apparent it was none of his fault.

Sony says the minimum internet connection speed should be 5Mbit, but these problems came with stable 16Mbit, and he still reported those problems almost a year later after he upgraded to 50Mbit, though the graphics looked much closer to the PS3 original by then. I think instead of 5Mbit, 25Mbit would be more realistic.

1. It is completely not true. You can watch DigitalFoundry video about how Xbox One does B/C. Microsoft implemented some media formats from 360 on hardware level so they worked on this feature way before release.

2. I agree that last year was anti-Sony campaign. But other than that it is hard to remember when journalists ever favored Xbox over PS4. IT ws always the other way around. Probably they defended Xbox on various matter but the most important thing about consoles is what> Of course - games. You can see the reviews of PS4 games and Xbox One games and then see which platform journalists usually favor. Crossplay also wasn't an issue until Nintendo Switch released which is a way more popular than Xbox, almost on PS4 level.

3. While I agree that journalists are not the reason why PS4 is winning, still it is hard to downplay that their articles affect consumers when they make their choice. Otherwise, journalism probably would have died as a speciality a long time ago because it would have been unneeded.

4. And so what? For the first of all, it is not true. Yes, for the most part Xbox One games are 900p, but 720p is even more rare than 1080p. PS4 limits Remote Play to 720p while Xbox doesn't do that.

Because PS Now is not very good and isn’t a catch all type of service. xCloud on paper should have more support and perform miles better.

Also, why would streaming kill indie developers? Idk how PS Now works in terms of the effort developers have to put in to get their games on the service, but on xCloud MS claims it requires no extra work. They can reach a broader audience. Streaming hasn’t killed smaller music artists or the indie film scene.

my experience with ps now was bad, input lag and the games look like old youtube videos even the easy allies were recently discussing how bad it is. Microsoft/Google are just huge companies so ofcourse each move gets more attention.

That's what people said about mobile gaming and now it it's huge and millions of people are playing even games like Fortnite/PUBG on it.  Same about digital games, ten years ago MS announced their first game Tomb Raider anniversary to also be digital available and we had hundreds of disscussions that gamers don't want it and now we are used that a huge chunk of sales are digital.

Fair enough I suppose. But let's look at digital as the only option store fronts...

The phone app markets have been completely arrested by large publishers and pushed Indies almost entirely out. Indies once thrived there and created new ideas but if you cannot make a free app and then Garner the advertisement space or attention to get people on your game you might as well not exist.

Physical format of PC has long since died, digital games rules there. Yet a study I saw not to long ago says a very small percentage of Steam market games are even profitable. Nothing sells unless it is discounted because Steam users have become accustomed to constant sales. Which means shrinking profit margins. And yet again...large publishers rule it now as they get all the visibility. 

If you you are not the type of multiplayer game with microtransactions to support yourself on app stores or PC then you seem to suffer from digital format only.

I think the options of digital or stream are beneficial...but dangerous if they become the only for anyone that isn't a large publisher.

"1. It is completely not true. You can watch DigitalFoundry video about how Xbox One does B/C. Microsoft implemented some media formats from 360 on hardware level so they worked on this feature way before release."

I doubt that. When Xbox One launched, when asked about Xbox One not being backwards compatible with the Xbox 360, Don Mattrick and other Microsoft executives stated backwards compatibility was not something people use (only 5% use it) and if you have backwards compatibility, you're just backwards. They downplayed it.

Two years later, they announce Xbox 360 BC and begin to take shots at Sony and PS Now even though Sony stated PS Now was never supposed to be a replacement for bc. If Xbox One wasn't losing or if PS Now didn't exist they would've have worked on Xbox 360 bc. I think they started working on Xbox 360 bc as a PR move and because they needed a way to add more games to Games With Gold and pave the way for Game Pass to compete with PS Now.

"2. I agree that last year was anti-Sony campaign. But other than that it is hard to remember when journalists ever favored Xbox over PS4. IT ws always the other way around. Probably they defended Xbox on various matter but the most important thing about consoles is what> Of course - games. You can see the reviews of PS4 games and Xbox One games and then see which platform journalists usually favor. Crossplay also wasn't an issue until Nintendo Switch released which is a way more popular than Xbox, almost on PS4 level."

There are many more examples besides the asinine cross play anti-Sony campaign. This very topic is an example. There are definitely fraudulent journalists out there with a clear agenda to promote Microsoft products but it's not really about what media outlets "favor". I'm not necessarily saying they favor one or the other.

The only thing I can go by is the way they behave or the things they write. Many times you can spot the double standards, lies, or hypocrisy in the narratives and articles from media outlets like IGN, Gamespot, Forbes, Business Insider, Games industry Biz, Polygon, and countless others. And what I've seen the past 6+ years is that this has been going on in Microsoft's favor and often goes against facts and logic. I don't really see this trend when it comes to the PS4.

I don't know the reason. It could definitely be that some of them are just Microsoft shills, but sometimes it comes from outlets who I don't think are Xbox loyalists. In these cases it could be they're trying to generate views from console wars or they're just trying to manipulate people into buying an Xbox because they don't like how the PS4 is winning. Regardless of the reason lies are lies and bad journalism is bad journalism and doesn't benefit the industry.

When Xbox One and the PS4 launched in 2013 and 2014 I read Game Informer magazines. The writers were constantly pushing people towards buying an Xbox One. They would complain about the PS4 and complain about the sales gap between the systems but they would never actually address any problems the Xbox One had. The official Xbox magazine constantly mentions and tries to downplay the PS4. Of course that is to be expected from an Xbox propaganda magazine that supported and defended everything Microsoft did in 2013 and 2014 then turned around to obsess over resolution when the Xbox One X launched.

It really doesn't seem like the media outlets "favor" the PS4 with the way these media outlets behave. The gaming media has been extremely kind to Microsoft all things considered. It's the sales that haven't been kind.

"3. While I agree that journalists are not the reason why PS4 is winning, still it is hard to downplay that their articles affect consumers when they make their choice. Otherwise, journalism probably would have died as a speciality a long time ago because it would have been unneeded."

Just because many gaming centric news outlets make money doesn't make them actual journalists.  The reason why they make money is because of viewers and ads. Just because people click on the articles doesn't mean they're influencing purchasing decisions.

I'm sure they influence or fool some people but many articles are click-bait that draws in fanboys who already made their decision. Other readers can  probably see through news outlet bullshit. That still doesn't make these news outlets any less terrible though.

"4. And so what? For the first of all, it is not true. Yes, for the most part Xbox One games are 900p, but 720p is even more rare than 1080p. PS4 limits Remote Play to 720p while Xbox doesn't do that."

The PS4 base model limits Remote Play to 720p probably because of a limitation put in place b y Sony for technical reasons such as RAM and unrelated to the quality of the actual service that you claimed was inferior. The PS4 Pro is capped at 1080p for Remote Play. Both models scale dynamically based on connection quality.

The Xbox One offers 1080p 60fps but we know it struggles to hit that standard in games much less streaming them. The 1080p 60 fps option on Xbox One seems more like just a marketing point or check box.

Regardless, this has very little to do with my original point. The point is that it was asinine that journalists were hyping up streaming from Xbox to PC and claimed it was superior. This was before the feature even launched. Forbes was one outlet I remember who did this.

1. Who streams from a console to a PC at home? Probably a very small portion that doesn't include the journalists who hyped the idea.

2. Streaming anywhere to a Vita, PSTV, PC, or Android phone trumps streaming to a Windows PC only in your local home connection.

How does 'PSNow sucks' in any way answer the question: why are the media pretending it doesn't exist and hasn't existed for years? At least it proves it exists, I suppose, and clearly long enough for people to form an opinion on it.  So many dishonest people these days.