Chazore said:
Imagine if they didn't lose 3 gens in a row, then they wouldn't feel any sort of need to do deals with any of the big 3, such as the power push for crossplay, to make use of your competitors audience, or trying to get one if not two of your competitors, to use your specific online network (again, another show of power play). Interests being self serving hold nothing in this discussion, so I'll just regard that as an empty second starting sentence. You being invested in a brand is a given, based on how you talk about said brand vs all the others (which other folk do on here already, for their favourite brands). I couldn't care less about 15 studios they own, because a chunk of those do not design what I am interested in. What I am interested in, is what Nvidia is proposing, because their form allows me to play via the games I have bought, on multiple storefronts, not just one, and that's all I've ever wanted, in regards to streaming services. See, I would think that someone of your age, would know that wiping out your competition, locking the gates and forming an empire of a monopoly would be something of a bad thing, because it leads to stagnation, a lack of innovation and choice from other fields. You are apparently the same age as me, yet you think like someone who is 12, but heavily invested in brand name alone, rather than looking at the future of technology (you only see the future as being MS, again, focus on the brand, not tech in general, as in tech not MS related). Either way, I want the other contenders to remain on the field and improve, rather than being wiped out by an already insanely rich company. I actually want choice in my side of gaming, and I do not want it ruled by a company, that has previously turned it's back on me, and then turned around to place shackles on my beloved hobby. |
Saying MS is only more progressive and forward thinking only being due to them losing does not invalidate where they are as a company. I don’t care if it’s genuine, fact is they are doing it and are imo the most progressive and choice conscious of the big 3.
GFN clearly isn’t sustainable. They are streaming games without giving a cut, hence developers pulling out. They don’t contribute anything and have nothing to offer, other then merging your library for streaming. Which again gives no incentives for devs to stay.
Not caring about the 15 studios...we’ll let me say I’m all for seeing my favourite brand succeed but I’m not going to disregard people within the same ecosystem as me. Xbox Studios make FPS, TPS, arcade racer, sim racer, small to large scale WRPGS, turn based strategy, RTS, simulator etc. They appeal to different people, creating a larger pool of diverse gamers. I’d say that matters more then a competitor that offers nothing themselves.
I see Xcloud taking a early monopoly, then I foresee sometime down the line Sony will take Ps Now more seriously. I think Stadia or GFN are pretenders. As long as Sony remains on top with consoles, MS will continue to be more progressive and take better care of their gamers, because end of day, game streaming is in its infancy.
Edit: You make subtle digs about me, yet your last paragraph you talk about MS like a bad ex girlfriend. We both have bias, you aren’t above it.
Last edited by sales2099 - on 25 April 2020Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
