Xbox Business Update Podcast | Xbox Everywhere Direction Discussion

[arandomguy]

I think the cloud gaming statement are too broad.

My experience is fine with Geforce Now. Granted I guess this is going to depend on your comparison point and definition of fine. I also did "cloud gaming" that was self hosted to play at "work" for the longest time as well. In both cases for me I had 8ms and now 16ms (moved off fiber internet to coax) and it's still fine.

The client has consistently been a desktop PC, and so decoding latency is likely much lower than say using mobile devices (1ms vs. 10ms or even much higher).

Also in both cases the encoder stack on the server side was Nvidia which judging from the limited testing and information out there is likely the best software and hardware stack compared to other solutions.

I haven't tried other cloud gaming or remote options. But judging by information out there, such as Digital Foundry's experience with the PS portal, it could be that alternative solutions are significantly worse.

The other thing is I noticed my electricity bill dropped rather noticeably and I live in an area with very low rates ($0.10 a kWh) albeit I likely also play more than the typical person as well. I do wonder if in higher cost areas if a monthly cloud at some point might even be cheaper than just the electrical cost of local gaming.

Now personally long term I would not stick with GFN ultimate due to various other factors such as it not supporting every game (thank you Google Stadia for giving game companies the idea of double dipping), needing a GPU anyways for non gaming purposes, and modding/customizability limitations. In terms of the direct gaming experience it's still better locally if you assume 1:1 on the hardware (and the local CPU is going to be way better) but that's comparing against a GTX 4080 class GPU which is quite expensive to buy and operate. But's it's far from unplayable by comparison. And if we were to compare against a weaker system it might be a trade off issue.

 

[iroboto]

I think if you are a hardcore gamer, you’re just going to buy the hardware. This is normal behaviour. But if you’re not a hardcore gamer, the cost of entry is getting higher. Streaming makes gaming accessible, the hardcore market is willing to spend thousands on gear of course. But there was never a discussion about streaming being better than native, except when there are massive cost implications, which are coming sooner than expected with the tariffs

 

[arandomguy]

I know anecdotally I had a friend who didn't have a console or a gaming PC, only an existing dated laptop with a IGP, but wanted to try BGIII. I went over some options with him ranging from a console, Steamdeck, a new laptop low end, or a desktop low/mid/high, as well as GFN. He went with GFN for I think a couple of months got his fix and moved on.

 

[see colon]

I think if you are a hardcore gamer, you’re just going to buy the hardware.

That depends a lot on how you define "hardcore". There must be someone out there who plays 100s of hours a month streaming games, which I would define as hardcore. But, maybe they only play Vampire Survivors and Balatro. Is that hardcore?

 

[iroboto]

That depends a lot on how you define "hardcore". There must be someone out there who plays 100s of hours a month streaming games, which I would define as hardcore. But, maybe they only play Vampire Survivors and Balatro. Is that hardcore?

I mean. Yea I suppose there could be. The natural progression for most people is that as they get more into a hobby they justify more expenditure and try to customize the experience for themselves. Typically this involves a bigger and better screen, better graphics performance, better input devices etc.

Not all that different from purchasing sporting gear versus renting it. But I do see someone out there who is always on the go; and streaming is about the only way to get that experience everywhere.

I’m not expecting streaming to replace consoles unless they can match quality at graphical fidelity with a latency that is very close to native.

 

[eastmen]

The thing is, so long as MS want to have Gamepass as a significant revenue stream, if cloud is not up to the task they need to have a none PC gaming platform - even if that platform is even closer to PC than it currently is.

The thing is, if you get too close to being a PC then the user friendly experience suffers and technical issues like shader compilation stutter begin to make the experience less than premium.

From MS's perspective, Xbox hardware is something that there is currently no substitute for as long as they want to keep building Gamepass.

And as the worlds largest game publisher, for game sales, not paying 30% to Sony or Nintendo or Steam gives some room for Xbox hardware costs to be managed even if economies of scale for hardware favour Sony somewhat.

The problem is that MS isn't treating xbox hardware as if there is no substitute. Its treating it like it's Cinderella and MS is the evil stepmom who is giving everything to the evil step sisters.

MS's strength for a long time was having the most powerful consoles. Xbox 360 , xbox one x , xbox series x. Now they are content with a playstation 5 pro not only being the best console hardware for 3rd party games but the best hardware for many of xbox's once exclusive games .

IF MS goes oem then it wont even be priced competitively anymore since no oem will be willing to take a loss on the hardware. Which means shelling out for an xbox next could cost several hundred more than a similarly spec ps6. Even if MS gets a jump on Sony with a new console a year early Sony will simply gain access to a year newer hardware which it could also price lower and be more competitive than MS both price and power wise.


MS may be the biggest game publisher now but it isn't doing anything for their hardware platform. At the end of the day with game pass having more games then ever and more MS published games than ever xbox hardware continues to decline in sales.

I would love to see xbox succeed. I've always been a xbox fan but I just don't see it happening with the current strategy change. The previous strategy was to have a new xbox based on a 12 core zen 6 and new amd gpu with 24gig / 8 gig set up. Now it seems like it will be a much reduced console release for their new platform with more ai elements than it was previously going to have to get copilot synergy.


I personally have already decided to invest in a living room pc to replace my series x and MS just gave me a gift since it will go for more money on the used market with the price jump. I have a few friends in my group that have also decided to go pc . They are all going steam first because that is where everyone is and they all have games on the platform already.


I just don't see anything coming down the pipe from MS that will bring anyone back into the hardware. I don't even see anything that will really keep that many people in the hardware next gen.

Now of course anything is possible. MS could release an extremely powerful xbox with custom hardware that isn't availble on anything else making it the best place to play not just Microsoft games but 3rd party games however that seems really doubtful to me with the way they have regressed on the surface line up.

 

[eastmen]

I mean. Yea I suppose there could be. The natural progression for most people is that as they get more into a hobby they justify more expenditure and try to customize the experience for themselves. Typically this involves a bigger and better screen, better graphics performance, better input devices etc.

Not all that different from purchasing sporting gear versus renting it. But I do see someone out there who is always on the go; and streaming is about the only way to get that experience everywhere.

I’m not expecting streaming to replace consoles unless they can match quality at graphical fidelity with a latency that is very close to native.

would streaming even be the best option for getting an experience on the go ? I would imagine a steam deck which is $300 or even one of the windows handhelds would be a better option since a lot of places wont get great internet.

I tried xcloud earlier this year we visted friends in Virgina and flew down and xcloud was a no go on the plane's wifi. We then took amtrack vehicle train down to florida and xcloud was a no go on amtraks service and trying it on tmobile on the train we'd transition between towers too often and it would become a stuttering mess. I've also tried it commuting to nyc on nj transit and it was a no go.

Maybe 6g or 7g ?

 

[arandomguy]

There might be some differing definitions of on the go here. I'm on the go and want to game on the go, but it's to fixed places with capable internet connections. I'm not on the go in the sense I want to game while actually travelling.

I’m not expecting streaming to replace consoles unless they can match quality at graphical fidelity with a latency that is very close to native.

I don't think this idea that streaming is at odds with consoles or PC gaming is really the right way to look at it. Just personally I've used self hosted streaming for quite some time now and it's not to replace an actual PC for me. It just enabled me to game with more options.

The other thing to look at is mobile gaming. Mobile gaming grew to such an extent it's bigger than console/PC gaming in terms of revenue. Yet if we look at the Nintendo Switch as a console that it would actual be in the most direct competition with it was actually the most successful console of it's generation. And despite everything we're seeing an emerging market with PC handhelds and now even talk about Sony and MS re-entering handhelds.

 

[rntongo]

The problem is that MS isn't treating xbox hardware as if there is no substitute. Its treating it like it's Cinderella and MS is the evil stepmom who is giving everything to the evil step sisters.

MS's strength for a long time was having the most powerful consoles. Xbox 360 , xbox one x , xbox series x. Now they are content with a playstation 5 pro not only being the best console hardware for 3rd party games but the best hardware for many of xbox's once exclusive games .

IF MS goes oem then it wont even be priced competitively anymore since no oem will be willing to take a loss on the hardware. Which means shelling out for an xbox next could cost several hundred more than a similarly spec ps6. Even if MS gets a jump on Sony with a new console a year early Sony will simply gain access to a year newer hardware which it could also price lower and be more competitive than MS both price and power wise.


MS may be the biggest game publisher now but it isn't doing anything for their hardware platform. At the end of the day with game pass having more games then ever and more MS published games than ever xbox hardware continues to decline in sales.

I would love to see xbox succeed. I've always been a xbox fan but I just don't see it happening with the current strategy change. The previous strategy was to have a new xbox based on a 12 core zen 6 and new amd gpu with 24gig / 8 gig set up. Now it seems like it will be a much reduced console release for their new platform with more ai elements than it was previously going to have to get copilot synergy.


I personally have already decided to invest in a living room pc to replace my series x and MS just gave me a gift since it will go for more money on the used market with the price jump. I have a few friends in my group that have also decided to go pc . They are all going steam first because that is where everyone is and they all have games on the platform already.


I just don't see anything coming down the pipe from MS that will bring anyone back into the hardware. I don't even see anything that will really keep that many people in the hardware next gen.

Now of course anything is possible. MS could release an extremely powerful xbox with custom hardware that isn't availble on anything else making it the best place to play not just Microsoft games but 3rd party games however that seems really doubtful to me with the way they have regressed on the surface line up.

Yeah I share the same view, but I'm keeping my Series X the whole gen, dont think I'll ever sell it. MS Gaming now depends on third party revenue so having Xbox games on Playstation making money is going to be one of the KPIs moving forward i.e they are going to make sure Playstation hw and the Playstation Store is a first class citizen. So next gen I see a lot of people moving to the PS6 as well while MS makes money hand over fist as a third party publisher.

 

[rntongo]

would streaming even be the best option for getting an experience on the go ? I would imagine a steam deck which is $300 or even one of the windows handhelds would be a better option since a lot of places wont get great internet.

I tried xcloud earlier this year we visted friends in Virgina and flew down and xcloud was a no go on the plane's wifi. We then took amtrack vehicle train down to florida and xcloud was a no go on amtraks service and trying it on tmobile on the train we'd transition between towers too often and it would become a stuttering mess. I've also tried it commuting to nyc on nj transit and it was a no go.

Maybe 6g or 7g ?

If you have a PC running steam + a Steam Deck then you're good since you can stream to the Steam Deck while on the go.

 

[iroboto]

I know anecdotally I had a friend who didn't have a console or a gaming PC, only an existing dated laptop with a IGP, but wanted to try BGIII. I went over some options with him ranging from a console, Steamdeck, a new laptop low end, or a desktop low/mid/high, as well as GFN. He went with GFN for I think a couple of months got his fix and moved on.

Yea my brother is in this camp as well. They are space limited, so GFN is his go to. Though he stays with it as he is a heavy user of the platform. The kids have the consoles, but GFN fidelity is higher and the slight latency he is willing to deal with.

 

[function]

MS's strength for a long time was having the most powerful consoles. Xbox 360 , xbox one x , xbox series x. Now they are content with a playstation 5 pro not only being the best console hardware for 3rd party games but the best hardware for many of xbox's once exclusive games .

Yeah, MS have positioned themselves poorly. Trouble is by going with two systems at the start (S & X) they left no room for a Pro type machine. And despite the X being very powerful (and showing it now too in many games) MS did absolutely nothing at all to create killer apps that would push it because they wanted every game to drive Gamepass, which meant supporting Xbox One and a wide variety of PCs.

IF MS goes oem then it wont even be priced competitively anymore since no oem will be willing to take a loss on the hardware. Which means shelling out for an xbox next could cost several hundred more than a similarly spec ps6. Even if MS gets a jump on Sony with a new console a year early Sony will simply gain access to a year newer hardware which it could also price lower and be more competitive than MS both price and power wise.

I think OEM only would be a mistake, as like you say it would likely drive up costs. MS could sell the chip to manufacturers at a discount, mirroring the old style of console production, to help with costs but a number of vendors in a shrinking market would still suffer from economies of scale compared to one large vendor.

Third party Xboxes might make sense to add variety to a product range though, even if they used the same chip. They could use storage size, form factor, and potentially even adjustments like better cooling and PSU and limited (and pointless) clock boosts like PC GPUs.

What I think would be the worst of all worlds though is simply and Xbox branded PC. Fuck me that's depressing.

MS may be the biggest game publisher now but it isn't doing anything for their hardware platform. At the end of the day with game pass having more games then ever and more MS published games than ever xbox hardware continues to decline in sales.

I'd argue that the only thing MS are doing for Xbox hardware is pushing Gamepass. Other than this, their software strategy is doing absolutely nothing for Xbox. Which is in equal parts baffling and weirdly funny.

Then again, for a long time parts of MS's software strategy was doing nothing for their software. Killing Lionhead, realising they need games like Fable, creating a new studio to make Fable, losing years in development and having no Fable. Also, absolutely everything to do with the way they've handled Halo - like a drunk that keeps slipping in their own vomit while stuck in a timeloop.

Anyway, I think MS is limiting their losses for this gen.

Now of course anything is possible. MS could release an extremely powerful xbox with custom hardware that isn't availble on anything else making it the best place to play not just Microsoft games but 3rd party games however that seems really doubtful to me with the way they have regressed on the surface line up.

I agree - MS need an Xbox that provides a premium gaming experience. They also need to make sure that they have games that can show that it is a premium device, which is where they failed so spectacularly early on this generation and did so by design. They need this not just for game sales but for Gamepass - just because you're using Gamepass doesn't mean you don't want spectacular games.

They also need to have a cheaper device too, because the barrier for entry to Gamepass should be as low as possible. They also need a handheld. They also need to have that wifi low latency gamepad for streaming.

Will they do any of this? I don't know - quarterly earning reports and decision making that is not customer focused might mean 'no'. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[iroboto]

would streaming even be the best option for getting an experience on the go ? I would imagine a steam deck which is $300 or even one of the windows handhelds would be a better option since a lot of places wont get great internet.

I tried xcloud earlier this year we visted friends in Virgina and flew down and xcloud was a no go on the plane's wifi. We then took amtrack vehicle train down to florida and xcloud was a no go on amtraks service and trying it on tmobile on the train we'd transition between towers too often and it would become a stuttering mess. I've also tried it commuting to nyc on nj transit and it was a no go.

Maybe 6g or 7g ?

On to the Go is a pretty vague definition. For me on the go means landing at a hotel, sitting around in a car park etc, an area where you are not at your home setup for the best experience, but you're stable enough to pull out a controller and sit down and play quietly. Plane is never really going to fly here, it's just got way too much latency because we don't have any actual technology to speed that up.

If you're actually trying to play while in motion/transit, a mobile handheld is what you need because streaming is going to be heavily interrupted each time you pass through towers. It's doable, but it will take some time to get there, the infrastructure has to be designed to support it. 6G isn't necessary, for that, but MS would definitely have to move their servers to edge to support that level of moving/streaming.

The issue I have with handhelds, and I think most people feel similar, if you're used to big screen gaming due to immersion or what have you, it's really painful to go back to a small screen. Any screen that has an HDMI port can support an amazon fire stick, a bluetooth controller and you're technically good to go.

Series S quality was always going to hurt, but we're enthusiasts here, we were never the target market for this. They can reduce latency further with a wifi controller, but outside of that, and moving their servers to the edge, I'm not sure how much more they can reduce the latency.

 

[see colon]

Yeah, MS have positioned themselves poorly. Trouble is by going with two systems at the start (S & X) they left no room for a Pro type machine. And despite the X being very powerful (and showing it now too in many games) MS did absolutely nothing at all to create killer apps that would push it because they wanted every game to drive Gamepass, which meant supporting Xbox One and a wide variety of PCs.

I would only disagree with this because Hellblade 2 and Indiana Jones are 2 of the best looking games of this generation and both showcase the Series X well.

 

[iroboto]

Yeah, MS have positioned themselves poorly. Trouble is by going with two systems at the start (S & X) they left no room for a Pro type machine. And despite the X being very powerful (and showing it now too in many games) MS did absolutely nothing at all to create killer apps that would push it because they wanted every game to drive Gamepass, which meant supporting Xbox One and a wide variety of PCs.

I think the most important aspect that hasn't been hit until lately, was that games just didn't look next generation. The population of PS5Pro users is super tiny, and at its price point, I don't see that population growing much more than it has.

Xbox is doing a great job of showcasing good looking titles on their consoles, whether they have the most powerful console, which used to matter, doesn't really seem to matter as much. Not because we aren't counting pixels and stuff etc as we were before, but a vast majority of titles were cross generation. People didn't see the 'power' or need to upgrade to next gen. But I think as of late, those titles are now being show cased and bringing out titles that truly look next gen is more important than the discussion around pixels and upscaling techniques.

The power discussion will have its place sometime, but we were so late to market for these titles, that people are finally seeing the value of their original purchase 5 years ago.

 

[QPlayer]

Some people over-mystify the need for a powerful traditional console in business view. Yes, for us hardcore gamers it would be nice if they released a Series XXX now, which would not provide lukewarm PSpro performance..., but a real leap in graphics. But that would certainly cost a lot today. Look, everyone is raising hardware prices now, market costs are forcing it. If you want a powerful XXX series today, it would cost at least $1000. Even in the most popular ecosystem, only hardcore would buy this, for how much? Maybe 3-5% of the potential user base. Even the PS5pro is barely bought for $700... The masses need cheaper hardware. The days when you can get a generational leap for $ 500 are gone, as of today, it costs at least double.

MS knows all this, so it has chosen the path of taking a significant part of the burden off its shoulders and handing over the hardware to OEMs. What is certain is that there will be more price/performance categories in the Xbox-PC segment and it is also likely that a console-like UI/OS will be released for general PCs. The most important key to all of this will be Game Pass. This will easily allow the Xbox experience to be brought to a wider audience who just want to pay for games. In a world of increased game prices, this will be essential. The hardcore layer can buy more expensive Xbox-PC models, depending on how much performance they want. Next Xboxes coming, but not in a traditional form. We will soon get an answer on how to achieve this.

 

[function]

I would only disagree with this because Hellblade 2 and Indiana Jones are 2 of the best looking games of this generation and both showcase the Series X well.

I agree that those are fantastic looking games, but they didn't come until 2024 and one of those - Indiana Jones - is from a developer MS purchased back in 2021.

While MS were making cross gen games for Gamepass there was nothing to really showcase the hardware. There is nothing wrong with cross gen games but to have nothing to showcase your expensive, loss leading, figurehead machine is idiocy of the highest order. The first couple of years are critical in establishing momentum, and part of that is the gaming proposition you present to core gamers, early adopters and tech enthusiasts and MS lost this battle and they did so by design. This is the crazy bit.

Sony at least had Astro Bot, Ratchet and Clank and a version of Spiderman with RT reflections coming out the wazoo. RT was the big thing MS were pushing during the Series X hardware reveal, and yet the software MS themselves made intentionally did nothing with it. Some with the SSD - Ratchet and Clank was deliberately made to showcase the storage speed, and indeed MS's solution would have been fast enough to do exactly the same thing. Did they showcase it? No.

MS had Halo Infinite, which they had the sheer audacity to claim was "built from the ground up for Series X" even as it ran on base Xbox One.

I think the most important aspect that hasn't been hit until lately, was that games just didn't look next generation. The population of PS5Pro users is super tiny, and at its price point, I don't see that population growing much more than it has.

Xbox is doing a great job of showcasing good looking titles on their consoles, whether they have the most powerful console, which used to matter, doesn't really seem to matter as much. Not because we aren't counting pixels and stuff etc as we were before, but a vast majority of titles were cross generation. People didn't see the 'power' or need to upgrade to next gen. But I think as of late, those titles are now being show cased and bringing out titles that truly look next gen is more important than the discussion around pixels and upscaling techniques.

The power discussion will have its place sometime, but we were so late to market for these titles, that people are finally seeing the value of their original purchase 5 years ago.

I agree with all of this, I just also think that MS should have done something to showcase their hardware - like Sony did, to great effect and for a relatively small investment. Sony mostly stayed cross gen for a long time too bu they did do something to create titles that established what their next gen proposition to customers was.

But for MS, if it didn't scale well across Gamepass systems, games didn't have it. Now there are fewer Xbox users, so now there are fewer potential Gamepass customers. Incredibly myopic, and incredibly Microsoft.

 

[iroboto]

I agree with all of this, I just also think that MS should have done something to showcase their hardware - like Sony did, to great effect and for a relatively small investment. Sony mostly stayed cross gen for a long time too bu they did do something to create titles that established what their next gen proposition to customers was.

But for MS, if it didn't scale well across Gamepass systems, games didn't have it. Now there are fewer Xbox users, so now there are fewer potential Gamepass customers. Incredibly myopic, and incredibly Microsoft.

Yes, unfortunately it took them a very long time to get running and that massively impacted their ability to compete here in the traditional space. To be fair, hardware was never really their strong suit. They lacked the channels to compete well outside of North America. It's just not something they do well, they don't seem interested in the logistics of warehousing a lot of hardware products unlike Sony which has been doing this since the 60s.

Regardless, the history has been written, they have to keep pushing forward now. MS now is building up their muscle in paving the way on how to make sub services work, as well as paving the way for cloud gaming and multi-license strategies. They're going to leverage their expertise into OEM as well as OS to make this work. And this might be a better direction for them. I know people don't like it, but from a business perspective, this makes more sense given the investments and history of this company.

 

[eastmen]

Yeah, MS have positioned themselves poorly. Trouble is by going with two systems at the start (S & X) they left no room for a Pro type machine. And despite the X being very powerful (and showing it now too in many games) MS did absolutely nothing at all to create killer apps that would push it because they wanted every game to drive Gamepass, which meant supporting Xbox One and a wide variety of PCs.

I disagree. MS could have done what sony did and introduce a higher spec higher cost machine . instead they add more storage and raised the price of the series x.

I think OEM only would be a mistake, as like you say it would likely drive up costs. MS could sell the chip to manufacturers at a discount, mirroring the old style of console production, to help with costs but a number of vendors in a shrinking market would still suffer from economies of scale compared to one large vendor.

what would be the point of that? MS would simply increase losses while introducing another middle man. Costs for ms would surely be higher for ms than simply building the console themselves.

Third party Xboxes might make sense to add variety to a product range though, even if they used the same chip. They could use storage size, form factor, and potentially even adjustments like better cooling and PSU and limited (and pointless) clock boosts like PC GPUs.

But it would also introduce confusion into market. Esp if the third parties start putting out slightly tweaked versions of the box each year. I think we can see windows vr as an example of how badly this will work.

What I think would be the worst of all worlds though is simply and Xbox branded PC. Fuck me that's depressing.

very

I'd argue that the only thing MS are doing for Xbox hardware is pushing Gamepass. Other than this, their software strategy is doing absolutely nothing for Xbox. Which is in equal parts baffling and weirdly funny.

Then again, for a long time parts of MS's software strategy was doing nothing for their software. Killing Lionhead, realising they need games like Fable, creating a new studio to make Fable, losing years in development and having no Fable. Also, absolutely everything to do with the way they've handled Halo - like a drunk that keeps slipping in their own vomit while stuck in a timeloop.

Anyway, I think MS is limiting their losses for this gen.



I agree - MS need an Xbox that provides a premium gaming experience. They also need to make sure that they have games that can show that it is a premium device, which is where they failed so spectacularly early on this generation and did so by design. They need this not just for game sales but for Gamepass - just because you're using Gamepass doesn't mean you don't want spectacular games.

They also need to have a cheaper device too, because the barrier for entry to Gamepass should be as low as possible. They also need a handheld. They also need to have that wifi low latency gamepad for streaming.

Will they do any of this? I don't know - quarterly earning reports and decision making that is not customer focused might mean 'no'. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sure they are trying to limit the losses this gen. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle. When they launch next gen hardware people will say oh well MS is releasing their games on switch 2 and playstation anyway so I can wait a few months to half a year to buy the game on a different platform. if MS suddenly decides to make everything exclusive again then you will have people with pitch forks complaining at every turn.

I personally think a two system with a handheld would work for them if they had a strong library of real exclusive games.

Move to zen 6/rdna 4/5 and have a low end system at xbox series x or better performance and a higher end system that pushes performance even with a higher cost. Then have a handheld based on the same technology that uses the neweest upscalling and take a 900p-1080p image and scale it.

The problem is MS wont make the exclusives because they could have used that strategy when they bought bethesda and then activision and grown makret share but didn't.

 

[eastmen]

On to the Go is a pretty vague definition. For me on the go means landing at a hotel, sitting around in a car park etc, an area where you are not at your home setup for the best experience, but you're stable enough to pull out a controller and sit down and play quietly. Plane is never really going to fly here, it's just got way too much latency because we don't have any actual technology to speed that up.

If you're actually trying to play while in motion/transit, a mobile handheld is what you need because streaming is going to be heavily interrupted each time you pass through towers. It's doable, but it will take some time to get there, the infrastructure has to be designed to support it. 6G isn't necessary, for that, but MS would definitely have to move their servers to edge to support that level of moving/streaming.

The issue I have with handhelds, and I think most people feel similar, if you're used to big screen gaming due to immersion or what have you, it's really painful to go back to a small screen. Any screen that has an HDMI port can support an amazon fire stick, a bluetooth controller and you're technically good to go.

Series S quality was always going to hurt, but we're enthusiasts here, we were never the target market for this. They can reduce latency further with a wifi controller, but outside of that, and moving their servers to the edge, I'm not sure how much more they can reduce the latency.

Yes so if someone wants to play on the go then a handheld is going to be a better investment. Even sitting in a car park or in a hotel that way you can actually you know that the game on the go. When the switch came out I played zelda on the train to boston , I played zelda in the hotel before bed, I took my switch with me to the convention and played multiplayer with other switch users.

I talk about it in other threads but my favorite nintendo handheld ever was the 3d for street pass. I kept my 3ds on me everywhere, When I went to disney , when I went ot japan , when I went to italy. It be a lot of fun taking my 3ds out and seeing who I met and going through the puzzles and adventure games built into it.

Xcloud is really a limited experiance and as long as it needs an external connection it will stay that way.

Even in a hotel wifi provided from them is terrible and lots of hotels being made of thick dense concrete degrades wireless signals from network carriers.


You say its tough to go back to a small screen vs a large screen. But my steam deck and almost every other handheld out there supports usbc to hdmi to connect to a big tv. I was on a cruise last year and my nephews and I played a bunch of games on my steam deck connected to the tv in the cabin.

Some people over-mystify the need for a powerful traditional console in business view. Yes, for us hardcore gamers it would be nice if they released a Series XXX now, which would not provide lukewarm PSpro performance..., but a real leap in graphics. But that would certainly cost a lot today. Look, everyone is raising hardware prices now, market costs are forcing it. If you want a powerful XXX series today, it would cost at least $1000. Even in the most popular ecosystem, only hardcore would buy this, for how much? Maybe 3-5% of the potential user base. Even the PS5pro is barely bought for $700... The masses need cheaper hardware. The days when you can get a generational leap for $ 500 are gone, as of today, it costs at least double.

MS knows all this, so it has chosen the path of taking a significant part of the burden off its shoulders and handing over the hardware to OEMs. What is certain is that there will be more price/performance categories in the Xbox-PC segment and it is also likely that a console-like UI/OS will be released for general PCs. The most important key to all of this will be Game Pass. This will easily allow the Xbox experience to be brought to a wider audience who just want to pay for games. In a world of increased game prices, this will be essential. The hardcore layer can buy more expensive Xbox-PC models, depending on how much performance they want. Next Xboxes coming, but not in a traditional form. We will soon get an answer on how to achieve this.

I disagree with you.

THe ps5 pro is a misstep because its limited by the ps5 . They didn't move forward enough in the design. If there were a real cpu upgrade , a large amount of ram added and they had a better gpu technology there would have been a lot of demand for the console.

I have also heard talk from friends of mine in the playstation ecosystem that they were waiting for gta 6 to upgrade to the ps5 pro but since it was delayed today they are going to push the purchase back a year.

Lets be honest for the majority of the market performance maters to an extent. Imagine back in 2020 if Sony released a console at the same specs as the series s and that was it and MS had the series x out. People would have been skipping over the sony console.

But you say all you did and then contradict yourself with the oem talk. Oems need to make a profit on the hardware. So they are going to end up charging a lot more for the same console design than sony or MS will charge. You forget about a lack luster ps5 pro at $700. You may end up with a xbox oem at $1,000 that performs the same as a $500 ps6. That is where another problem lies.

PCs and consoles are very different products. I would suggest looking at windows vr headsets vs oculus and the index. MS went the oem route and now windows vr is dead. Too many headsets with slight changes , a bunch of them with underwhelming quality and performance. Oculus and valve decided to build their own and they are still around selling hardware.