Business Issues with Streaming Services on other Platforms *spawn*

Phil Spencer said Microsoft would like that too, but indicated Nintendo likely won't allow it.

 

For the same reason Apple don't like it either, it's basically a portal that will erode demand for games in Apple's and Switch's ecosystems.

As I understand it, Microsoft could deploy xCloud on iOS but they don't want to have to submit the individual games in the service for review. Nor do they want to submit all the metadata for each game so it would be found in the AppStore search - this latter issue would surely work in Microsoft's benefit, because imagine your in the AppStore and looking for mobile version of a console/PC game and they'll be a half-a-dozen AppStore knock-offs but for anything in xCloud, you'll find the real McCoy which will lead you do xCloud which may lead you giving money to Microsoft. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

These multi-billion dollar companies - Apple, Epic, Microsoft - arguing amongst themselves is kind of pathetic.

 

Actually that’s Probably not why.

Nintendo has no intention of making modern games and modern hardware. But this has allegedly happened before

About ten years ago, the different IP holders Microsoft (owned Rare and some things in the game) Activision (owned Bond License), and Nintendo (owned the majority of the game) reached a deal to make a remake of Goldeneye. The existence and video of it has leaked, so we know it’s real. The following was told to me at GDC by people who were involved, and take it as you will.

The game never came out not due to money, but due to Nintendo. Allegedly the deal contained verbiage that said that the Wii version of the game would have identical performance to the Xbox version, something Nintendo interpreted very differently. It had online, and the game played essentially the same. Unfortunately Nintendo took this to mean that Microsoft would replicate Xbox Live for the Wii and give it to them. When they were told this wasn’t happening, they took their ball and went home.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if something similar happened here, that Nintendo, who has zero interest in the internet beyond the Switch Shop made piles of demands with little return for Microsoft and they gave up, at least until Xcloud is proven popular. I’d also speculate that since the video subsystem is barest of binds, not even including on hardware DRM last I heard, that getting low latency streaming gaming working on it may have required MS to send their people over to finish it for them, and Nintendo may have been unwilling to allow outside people near their OS. Im not certain what secrets they’d steal

I would also argue that Apple’s “if you just submit every game” bluff was called, they’d find something else They want that in-app billing for their 30%.

 

@Bickle2 what has any of that got to do with Apple or Epic? Your comment on Nintendo seems incompatible with Nintendo's best selling game, Animal Crossing, having a big multiplayer aspect as does some of the other big IP's on Switch: Fortnite, Pokemon Sword & Shield, Minecraft, Super Mario Party, Minecraft Dungeons, Mario Tennis Aces, Diablo III, Super Smash Brothers, Luigi's Mansion, Splatoon, Overcooked, Rocket League, New User Mario Bros. U Deluxe and Mario Kart - and that Nintendo sell an online multiplayer package. In fact I can't think of any Nintendo-developed game on Switch that does not have online play.

Naturally Apple, the greedy bastards, want 30% of all transactions made through their online services so you just do what Netflix does and don't allow payments through the App Store.

 

Only a tiny percentage of iOS apps are allowed to do that though.

 

it’s not incompatible in the slightest.Nintendo outsourced all of their online services and they forgot to leave memory and CPU allocations at the system level for chat because it wasn’t something they were thinking about (which is why you need to use your phone). Games that do do it, like the PS3 before them have to allocate game resources if they wish to run chat inside the game

I said they don’t care about it. Not that they didn’t do it. They have zero interest in investing in online infrastructure beyond the barest of minimums. Need I remind you that Nintendo just rebadged an NVIDIA Shield? They don’t even make their own hardware anymore.

Apple knows they can’t get away with going after a Netflix, and I’m sure that the appropriate palms have been greased on both sides.

 

@Bickle2 And I still don't see what any of your issue with Nintendo's online service has to do with Apple, Epic or Microsoft? What's your point?

 

intedned to reply to BRIT, sorry

 

Sorry for being ratty. Bad week.

 

Ya'll need some Snickers?

 

No worries, we all have them

 

Apple has made some changes to their T&C related to game streaming platforms. From my quick read, they simply do not get it. Not in the least bit. This is more of a gesture of "Fuck You" than anything else.

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/apple-aapl-game-streaming-services-app-store-with-conditions

Apple (AAPL) - Get Report issued new App Store guidelines on Friday that will permit game streaming services, such as Stadia from Alphabet's (GOOGL) - Get Report Google and Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Report xCloud, with some caveats.

The iPhone giant pointed to the guidelines on its developer site, and the new rules mark a change from a prior policy that blocked game streaming services on iOS.

Under the revised guidelines, game streaming services must submit individual games to the App Store, which will them be vetted and approved for download by Apple.

"Games offered in a streaming game service subscription must be downloaded directly from the App Store, must be designed to avoid duplicate payment by a subscriber, and should not disadvantage non-subscriber customers," Apple said on its developer blog.

 

It's like this because unlike video and music they are not involved(aka getting a piece of the pie) with gaming in the same way. It would be hard for them to fuck with Spotfiy because Apple Music exists, or Netflix because Apple TV+/iTunes exists...

That being said if Microsoft and Google did try to follow those rules I'm not sure it would be so bad from a user experience perspective ...it would be no different really than having desktop shortcuts for Steam games.

From a business perspective it is probably a non-starter though.

 

Its impossible, given Apples condition of: "and should not disadvantage non-subscriber customers". How do you list a game that is part of a subscription only service that does not disadvantage non-subscribers?

 

Right and that's why I was trying to separate my argument in a user experience vs business perspective way

 

Dumbest shit I ever heard. Its like saying any game offered on the app store "should not disadvantage any non-paying customers". How do you do that without being free? If you don't want to be at a "disadvantage", all you have to do is simply subscribe.

Apples condition is more like "and should not create a disadvantage to Apple's wallet". LOL. Apple thinks that most will subscribe through the xbox and they won't experience a material benefit from allowing the service on iOS. This has nothing to do with negatively affecting iOS owners. "Who will want to buy iOS games when console games will be available that offer visuals that the iPhone can't support natively?" is the question that motivating Apple's stance.

 

Yeah, at first I thought okay they can simply flood the iOS store with hundreds of game submissions that should be merely a deep-linked shortcut to launch the singular streaming app platform (Stadia or Game Pass or PSNow). There's likely technical details that may have to be developed and supported from there on out for that.

And what do you list the game price as?

I think you even mentioned having to maintain adding and removing of games as they enter and leave the service. So increased cost for iOS.

 

Microsoft says no. Good for them.



Tommy McClain

 

Indeed, good on you MS. More and more of these roadblocks for iOS users will just push more iphone users to Android.