Microsoft Project xCloud (Game Streaming), now offering Fortnite free without GPU membership

[Jay]

Obviously they can say one thing in public and another in private but, I'm pretty sure they have said that they wouldn't force publishers to have to allow xcloud support.

If a title is going to be able to be put on xcloud you would need something like that in the agreement. Which we know EA does.

From MS point of view it makes sense, I also expect that all agreements to now explicitly cater for BC so they don't have the same level of issues as they do now with old titles.

I'm pretty sure if a publisher didn't want to go on xcloud or allow BC they wouldn't enforce it.
I do expect them to push hard for it though and in most cases I'm sure it's not a big problem.

At the moment the only way for a game to go on xcloud is via GPU. So maybe in the future there may be a xcloud only subscription $5 or something a month to be able to stream any game you've bought digitally.
That ability would be included in GPU also.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Seems that microsoft have had an ace up their sleeve the entire time withe their upcoming geforce now type streaming offering (not xcloud with game pass, but using xcloud to stream games you own digitally) by requiring all games released on the xbox platform to support streaming, it guarantees that they will have the largest library of games available to stream, and all the big new releases.

If this is true, this is not an "ace" this is extortion and threats. As a dev I may be happy to allow my indie game to released on Xbox and even be included in GamePass but if I'm already selling a profitable mobile version I may not want it automatically included in the bundled streaming because that may hurt my bottom line.

If publishers cannot release games on Xbox platforms on their own preferred terms, this is going to backfire quickly. I feel like some important context is not visible.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

I don't know if it's an ace up their sleeve to try and strong arm developers into streaming exclusivity. Streaming and streaming services will only become more prevalent as the years go on, so developers are going to have to choose between one platform or all of the rest of the platforms.

Is there ever wiggle room on these sorts of terms and conditions? Could a multiplatform indie developer negotiate non-exclusive XCloud rights? I don't see the harm in people being able to stream games that they've bought within the XBox ecosystem: if you buy it, it makes no difference to the developer if you play it on a local device or streamed. I do see harm in a multiplatform indie developers platform flexibility being impeded by exclusivity clauses around method of content delivery.

 

[cheapchips]

How much does a second purchase of title on mobile / PC actually generate for developers?

MS will argue that play anywhere drives engagement, and that drives overall sales.

We don't have that data.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

MS will argue that play anywhere drives engagement, and that drives overall sales.

And I think they would be right. But that's applicable no matter the ecosystem. Steam, Epic, PlayStation, Nintendo. All of those are in a position to do their equivalent of buy once play anywhere. There are probably others besides in the PC and mobile spaces that I can't think of right now or just don't know about.

Microsoft's ecosystem is strong enough, and their streaming technology adept enough, that they don't need to try these sneaky tactics. And they're rich enough that if they want exclusivity, they can put their hand in their pocket and cough up.

One or the other IMO. Buy exclusive rights to the game, or let the developer/publisher release it wherever.

 

[liams]

If this is true, this is not an "ace" this is extortion and threats. As a dev I may be happy to allow my indie game to released on Xbox and even be included in GamePass but if I'm already selling a profitable mobile version I may not want it automatically included in the bundled streaming because that may hurt my bottom line.

If publishers cannot release games on Xbox platforms on their own preferred terms, this is going to backfire quickly. I feel like some important context is not visible.

by "ace up their sleeve" I am in no way saying that this is a move that makes everyone happy, if requiring xcloud support is a requirement for publishing games on the xbox platform, this is a massive boon to the content available for their future streaming plans.

By requiring non-exclusive streaming rights now, before their are wide spread issues like you mentioned, with developers either having a mobile version of the game that could be impacted on mobile, or some other scenario, I feel that microsoft is trying to get ahead of the issue.

Thinking about it a bit more, I wonder if this is more of a move to kneecap stadia as much as it is about securing content for their owned game streaming platform? If you cant release your game on xbox if you have a streaming exclusive deal with stadia it raises the price that stadia has to pay for their deals a ton. I wouldnt be surprised if this played into stadia deciding to stop investing so heavily into the stadia platform.

 

[iroboto]

I don't know if it's an ace up their sleeve to try and strong arm developers into streaming exclusivity.

Pretty sure it’s just right to stream, not right for streaming exclusivity. They want the right to stream so that publishers can’t back out suddenly like they did with GeForce now and call XCloud a separate platform from the rest of Xbox.

I think this is just an extension of what they are already doing anyway, which is getting approval to put games on XCloud. Something they had to go to each publisher to get approval for backwards compatibility. They just rolled BC clauses into their new game platform licenses as well so they don’t have to flag them down later which they have to do for all of their older titles when XCloud didn’t exist. Now they are just rolling XCloud as being part of the Xbox platform.

the concern from indies is that they fear it may violate their EGS exclusive contracts (which likely extend to mobile space). Not that MS is asking for exclusivity. So really the issue actually comes from not realizing that they signed a super all encompassing agreement with EGS

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Pretty sure it’s just right to stream, not right for streaming exclusivity. They want the right to stream so that publishers can’t back out suddenly like they did with GeForce now and call XCloud a separate platform from the rest of Xbox.

I think this is just an extension of what they are already doing anyway, which is getting approval to put games on XCloud. Something they had to go to each publisher to get approval for backwards compatibility. They just rolled BC clauses into their new game platform licenses as well so they don’t have to flag them down later which they have to do for all of their older titles when XCloud didn’t exist. Now they are just rolling XCloud as being part of the Xbox platform.

the concern from indies is that they fear it may violate their EGS exclusive contracts (which likely extend to mobile space). Not that MS is asking for exclusivity. So really the issue actually comes from not realizing that they signed a super all encompassing agreement with EGS

I'm referring to the following:

"Project xCloud Support. Publisher grants Microsoft a worldwide, royalty-free, exclusive, transferrable, sublicensable license, solely as part of Project xCloud, to (a) broadcast, transmit, distribute, host, publicly perform and publicly display, reproduce, make available, communicate to the public, and stream Software Titles and gameplay of Software Titles to Streaming Devices; and (b) provide use, access, and control of the gameplay of a Software Title on any Streaming Device."

This may just be the agreement between Microsoft and EA. If so, that's their business. My concern is the "Publisher grants Microsoft a worldwide, royalty-free, exclusive, transferrable, sublicensable license" part. If that's universal, that's a very underhanded way of locking developers into your ecosystem IMO. The kind that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

The "we're so big that of course you're going to need to be on our platform" attitude is exactly what cost Sony so dearly with the PS3. And one of the main things they addressed with the PS4.

It's also the attitude that cost Microsoft so dearly at the launch of the XBoxOne. It would be a self defeating sort of boldness if Microsoft are trying that same attitude now, having spent the entirety of the last generation recovering from the blunder at its start.

So if this is just "being on our platform includes streaming" then fair enough. That's a sensible move that doesn't overreach. If they're going for a "release wherever, but streaming is exclusively ours" sort of haymaker, they're leaving themselves wide open to some debilitating body shots.

 

[iroboto]

I'm referring to the following:



This may just be the agreement between Microsoft and EA. If so, that's their business. My concern is the "Publisher grants Microsoft a worldwide, royalty-free, exclusive, transferrable, sublicensable license" part. If that's universal, that's a very underhanded way of locking developers into your ecosystem IMO. The kind that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

The "we're so big that of course you're going to need to be on our platform" attitude is exactly what cost Sony so dearly with the PS3. And one of the main things they addressed with the PS4.

It's also the attitude that cost Microsoft so dearly at the launch of the XBoxOne. It would be a self defeating sort of boldness if Microsoft are trying that same attitude now, having spent the entirety of the last generation recovering from the blunder at its start.

So if this is just "being on our platform includes streaming" then fair enough. That's a sensible move that doesn't overreach. If they're going for a "release wherever, but streaming is exclusively ours" sort of haymaker, they're leaving themselves wide open to some debilitating body shots.

That looks like a timed exclusive clause there for EA. I suspect most contracts will say non-exclusive perpetual license (as per the rest of the contract does)

For Project xcloud this one says exclusive, but no mention of the word perpetual.

Often the contracts need to be looked at by a case by case basis. I do believe this is a partnership for sure for as long as (EA Access is part of Game Pass). I think once you see EA Access separate from Game Pass, you would see EA games (the ones eligible) be streamable on other platforms. It also prevents EA from running their own streaming software with EA Access (which is what I imagine MS is likely most worried about because of how much they must pay EA Access to be part of GPU), so basically they've given their rights to MS to provide all streaming for the duration of this partnership.

OT: that parity clause does exist!

 

[Silent_Buddha]

by "ace up their sleeve" I am in no way saying that this is a move that makes everyone happy, if requiring xcloud support is a requirement for publishing games on the xbox platform, this is a massive boon to the content available for their future streaming plans.

This is only true if it doesn't incentivize a developer to forgo publishing their title on Xbox. It's only been in the past year that Phil Spencer has managed to persuade some developers to offer formerly PlayStation exclusive games (like the Yakuza series) on Xbox.

Considering that the PlayStation install base is significantly larger than the Xbox user base and that some publishers still only publish some of their games on PlayStation, a move by MS to force developers to allow streaming of their game on XCloud if they want to publish their game could instead convince those developers that they are better off just releasing on PlayStation and PC instead of PlayStation, Xbox, and PC.

As well since this appears to mostly be targetting indie developers then it would be PS, NSW (very indie friendly), and PC versus PS, Xbox, NSW, and PC. At this point while it would cut out some of your revenue potential the Xbox is an increasingly smaller part of the potential revenue slice. At that point, many indie devs would likely forgo releasing on Xbox in order to retain full control over how their title is released to consumers.

Regards,
SB

 

[see colon]

I'm referring to the following:



This may just be the agreement between Microsoft and EA. If so, that's their business. My concern is the "Publisher grants Microsoft a worldwide, royalty-free, exclusive, transferrable, sublicensable license" part. If that's universal, that's a very underhanded way of locking developers into your ecosystem IMO. The kind that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

The "we're so big that of course you're going to need to be on our platform" attitude is exactly what cost Sony so dearly with the PS3. And one of the main things they addressed with the PS4.

It's also the attitude that cost Microsoft so dearly at the launch of the XBoxOne. It would be a self defeating sort of boldness if Microsoft are trying that same attitude now, having spent the entirety of the last generation recovering from the blunder at its start.

So if this is just "being on our platform includes streaming" then fair enough. That's a sensible move that doesn't overreach. If they're going for a "release wherever, but streaming is exclusively ours" sort of haymaker, they're leaving themselves wide open to some debilitating body shots.

I'm not a lawyer
This is a legal document about licensing Xbox titles, and because this only applies to Xbox titles, it wouldn't prevent a non-Xbox title from appearing on another streaming service. So the license is exclusive in that it prevents the Xbox game from being streamed somewhere that isn't Xcloud. If you want to make your game available on PSnow, you would just use the Playstation version of it. If you wanted it on Stadia, you would have to make a Stadia compatible one. So on and so forth.

 

[Arnold Beckenbauer]

Is it possible to play Xbox games like Gears 5 with mouse and keyboard on PC?

 

[AlphaWolf]

Is it possible to play Xbox games like Gears 5 with mouse and keyboard on PC?

I would hope so considering you can play gears 5 on xbox with kb and mouse.

 

[dobwal]

I'm referring to the following:



This may just be the agreement between Microsoft and EA. If so, that's their business. My concern is the "Publisher grants Microsoft a worldwide, royalty-free, exclusive, transferrable, sublicensable license" part. If that's universal, that's a very underhanded way of locking developers into your ecosystem IMO. The kind that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

The "we're so big that of course you're going to need to be on our platform" attitude is exactly what cost Sony so dearly with the PS3. And one of the main things they addressed with the PS4.

It's also the attitude that cost Microsoft so dearly at the launch of the XBoxOne. It would be a self defeating sort of boldness if Microsoft are trying that same attitude now, having spent the entirety of the last generation recovering from the blunder at its start.

So if this is just "being on our platform includes streaming" then fair enough. That's a sensible move that doesn't overreach. If they're going for a "release wherever, but streaming is exclusively ours" sort of haymaker, they're leaving themselves wide open to some debilitating body shots.

"Exclusive" can be related just to Xbox software. It would technically remove the ability for someone to devise software that allows someone to plug an xbox into a PC or some other device and stream their xbox library over the internet.

The big pubs wouldn't be interested in locking streaming of their franchises to one service in a wholesale fashion.

 

[Arnold Beckenbauer]

I would hope so considering you can play gears 5 on xbox with kb and mouse.

Maybe I miss something, but I cannot find the option for KB&M. I get the touch controls, but not KB&M.

Edit: Bing says, it's not possible.
How To Play Xbox Cloud Gaming Beta For PC And iOS | TheGamer

There is also a reddit discussion, so no KB&M support. That's sad.

 

[AzBat]

Why not play the regular version(on console or PC) instead of the xCloud version?

Tommy McClain

 

[Arnold Beckenbauer]

Why not play the regular version(on console or PC) instead of the xCloud version?

Tommy McClain

Because I don't want?

Seriously: I have the original Xbox One, but I don't play every day or week. I turn it on and there is a new OS update. Then almost every week there is an update for Gears 5 or MCC. With xCloud I can play some games on my Windows tablet or PC.

 

[AzBat]

Because I don't want?

Seriously: I have the original Xbox One, but I don't play every day or week. I turn it on and there is a new OS update. Then almost every week there is an update for Gears 5 or MCC. With xCloud I can play some games on my Windows tablet or PC.

Xcloud was built as a controller experience with some support for touch. Just know that going in. When you start using a mouse & keyboard a PC with local games is the better experience.

Tommy McClain

 

[eastmen]

Next gen cloud gaming is ready for Microsoft employees.

Spoiler: stuff

While all titles have improved performance and load times on next gen cloud gaming servers the following titles have been enhanced even further
Ark , call of sea , crosscode , dead by daylight , desperados 3 , distiny 2 , forza horizons 4 , gears 5 , gears tactics , grounded , halo master cheif , morkredd , no mans sky , ori , outriders , sea of thieves , superhot , subnautica , state of decay 2 , toryst , rainbox six seirge , yes your grace

 

[SmooTh]

What is meant by "have been enhanced even further"?