Some developers already make games that require an internet connection. Don't worry, offline game hasn't gone away because of it.

Thats why the XBox brand has 300,000 dedicated servers just for gaming. From that i am guessing those 300,000 servers can be used for whatever Xbox need them for. I believe if they want to go over that qauntity then MS will have to charge it out to Xbox.

All inner company buisness, which is a good thing because theres no out sourcing.

The difference here is Microsoft already has one of the largest cloud computing services in the world, and undergoing a feat like Crackdown 3 wouldn't even make Azure break a sweat. Sony meanwhile has Gaikai for PS Now, but it's not the same thing as what Azure does for Crackdown 3. Allowing people to buy games on PS Now would hog up PS Now servers and would require a hefty financial committment from Sony. Not long after Sony bought their cloud company Gaikai, Microsoft spent more money than that simply upgrading one of their Azure datacenters. Just to give you an idea of the difference.

People might have scoffed at Microsoft's talk of using their cloud for gaming when the Xbox was revealed, and until Gamescom it was rightfully so, but Azure is nothing to joke about. They have tons of servers and in each of these servers can spin up many virtual servers whenever the need arises and these virtual servers can be closed when no longer needed. There isn't some large financial burden required for Crackdown 3, the infrastructure is already in place. These are server farms and datacenters powered and full of employees already there for Azure.

This is like asking if McDonalds loses money on the soft drinks employees drink while at work.

He is like in a constant fear that things will be horrible if such and such happens. EA Access will totally destroy the industry to this guy. Is is gaming paranoia? Is there such a thing?

MS is money they don't lose them they print them. :D

Are you one of those guys believing everything MS says? From an economical point of view that 300K servers statement makes no sense. If during most time let's say only 100K servers are needed the remaing 200K are better being released to Azure. On the other hand at the launch of a game with an intensive use of the Cloud, like it could be Crackdown where everybody on the first day will go frenzy shooting buildings, more than 300K servers could be needed. And those will be stolen from the servers available to commercial customers. In a company I was working for during the peak time of the year (tax returns) they had to double to computing capacity. That was achieved physically renting more RAM and CPUs (yes, they were added to the servers). Thus Phil Spencer before launching a similar game is better planning with Azure which is the best time for not overloading the servers. The ideal is obviously having a constant use of the resources.

Also 300K servers means little. If those servers are Windows (because Azure runs Linux as well) they are weak. A single multiprocessor large Unix server can count for many Windows servers. And if those servers are virtual machines like the ones they rent to customers they are even weaker. Indeed MS love to play with those words. 300K servers, 20x the power of the Xbone. 20x of what? 20x CPU for a total of 2TFLOPS or 20x GPU, counting up to 26TFLOPS? Same for their servers. They should specify the raw power of the average server in the pool available to XBL.

Also be sure that Azure charges XBL. In internal "phoney money" and maybe with few free coupons, but it's a standard accounting procedure to put the internal transactions into budgets.

if it will sell good, no
if it will sell bad, yes

yet it is really that easy ;)

And ?

Microsoft have a lot of servers, so they don't spend money for the game to run on these servers ? Either the servers were installed for the game, or the servers were installed for something else, like renting. In each case, they spend or lose money. Running servers isn't free. Or all the cloud services would be free too....

Crackdown requires the cloud. The cloud costs money. The customer doesn't pay for the cloud after the purchase of the game. So Microsoft fund the cloud for the game, and spend money on it.

If the game didn't cost much to develop, maybe they won't lose money before a long time. Maybe the cost is nothing for Microsoft. But yes, they will lose more and more money on the game the longer the servers stay online. 

EDIT : It's like your example, yes. McDonalds does lose money for the soft drinks employees drink while at work. You know, if you usually buy your soft drinks 50 cents and sell it for $1, and your employee drinks it instead of selling it, you lost $1 (your investment + the lost added value)... It's maybe not a lot for McDonalds, but it's still a loss. Like MS.

The servers were installed for something else. They already exist. Azure it not reaching capacity on servers, like... ever. So the only "cost" of using the servers is the electricity required to run the datacenter and the cost of the employees who work there. And these things would be paid whether Crackdown 3 was using the cloud or not. That's the great thing about the entirety of the infrastructure already being in place. And since it's all virtual, there's virtually no difference for Azure.

Why would cloud services be free just because the owner of the cloud services uses the service? Azure is still a massive business that required a huge investment for Microsoft. There are still many businesses who use it.

Also, MS makes money off of Xbox Live, which is required to use these servers. It's not as if there is no revenue stream for MS once the games have been sold.

Lastly, my example was perfectly fine because no, McD's doesn't lose money on employees drinking soft drinks. The syrup cannisters are already in place, already paid for. An employee pouring a couple medium cups of orange soda doesn't even make a splash in the water. The customers who pay for that syrup have already more than made up for the cost of buying it, by a long shot. Fast food places make tons of money off of soda.

I'm not sure if Crackdown 3 will lose money, but I'm pretty sure Xbox is losing money considering all the bundles and price drops it has gotten.