Conina said:
That's very naive. Of course they would have to expand virtual machines for tens of millions additional xCloud users. Every Teraflop they have to calculate for the additional xCloud-needs they can't calculate at the same time for other customers. Other customers who pay a "little bit" more for their virtual machines than $15 per month: https://azureprice.net/?_memoryInMB_min=16 And every additional teraflop Microsoft calculates "in the cloud" produces costs for them (more energy, more cooling, more servers, perhaps even additional lots and buildings for expansion of the new servers...) |
I am sure they can recoup that. Currently GP is earning them billions so this doesn't seem like an issue.
| Machiavellian said: Yes you are right, there is a huge difference between only making hardware for MS server farms which is comprised for XCloud with Series X and making it to sell to customers. The same R/D you mentioned still has to happen, no matter if you building it for the server farm or you are building it for customers. There is a big difference you seem to be missing. When MS sells to the customers they recoup that cost with game sells and services. MS cannot recoup that cost if that same hardware is running in a server farm. This in big business would be considered a loss for each piece of hardware added to the server farm. So how many subs would it take to overcome that lose. This would mean MS would be reliant for all their revenue from XCloud which as we have stated is no where close to being a viable solution over local hardware. So now MS would lose all the revenue as we stated again from their services running on local hardware. You lose all your sales from games being sold and played on your local hardware, you lose license fees for every game that is sold on your local hardware. It really appears you do not fully grasp the business model. GP cannot survive on XCloud alone, it would not work. MS would bleed money and the games division would be operating in the red for years if not longer. How many subs would it take to not only over come all the lost revenue we have talked about before but also lose revenue in all the studios making games. Those are also cost you have to consider as well because its not cheap making AAA games and if MS is purchasing more studios and publishers to make GP a service that has first party content every quarter then how much of a cost is that to the gaming division. So if MS is losing 200 per console, how much are they losing per server farm without selling to consumers. How do MS continue to sell their services on top of hardware and fund game development and the cost of upgrading that hardware cycle. Nothing that you have stated comes close to making that a reality. 50 million subs is not going to cut it, it would take something north of 150 million which MS is no where close to accomplishing. |
Than why cant they go the Steam route? Just offer GP as a digital store front?
GP is already proven to be earning billions so the costs will be covered with the loss on console hardware.
Even Phil said he doesn't see the need for mid gen hardware, its simply not worth the investment anymore.
Essay Pro