6 ms·

Microsoft and Nvidia Announce Expansive New Gaming Deal

65 points by mrzool 4y ago

brucethemoose2 4y ago
Makes sense. They would both rather have gaming as a subscription service, rather than something you run on your own hardware.
- dogma1138 4y ago
  NVIDIA very much doesn’t want that, but it sees the writing on the wall and needs to secure its future revenue stream when game streaming becomes fully viable for all. GeForce Now at the 4080 tier costs $20 a month an RTX 4080 costs $1200>… if you live within the coverage area where you can stream at 120-240fps it’s almost a no brainer since the price of a high end GPU is 5-6 years of service in which you’ll get an upgrade every 18-24 months. What NVIDIA lacks is deals with publishers or its own gaming IP. I think that Google killed of Stadia not because it thought that game streaming is a dead end but because it calculated that it already has lost the fight to Microsoft and maybe even Sony since both of them now have racks or consoles to stream games from. NVIDIA is just looking for a life raft because it can’t drop out of its primary market.
  - enos_feedler 4y ago
    Agree with the Stadia. I think the calculus was around cost vs. potential for a moat. Streaming PC ports is not a moatable platform. They wanted to do unique things for games that no other platform could do. Unless the game industry latched onto that the moat just isn’t there. Might as well run a commodity GPU PC streaming service and sell the utility to others. This is exactly what they are doing with Stadia in the cloud.
  - deafpolygon 4y ago
    > Google killed of Stadia not because it thought that game streaming is a dead end but because it calculated that it already has lost the fight to Microsoft Agreed on this. What IP did they actually own? Google did the math and decided it wasn't going to be successful.
  - htag 4y ago
    You're missing two key points to the cost benefit analysis. 1. Modern GPUs are remarkable at holding value. 3080s are selling on ebay at over half the launch MSRP. 2. You'll get better performance locally. People buy 4080s because they want the best.
  - brucethemoose2 4y ago
    $20 a month is the loss leader price. Thats gonna go up when the sector (eventually) matures.
dogma1138 4y ago
It’s to placate regulators and shutdown a very vocal critic of the Activision merger. NVIDIA was one of the loudest voices against and not anymore. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/02/21/microsoft-will-bring-xbox-games-to-nvidias-cloud-gaming-service.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/02/21/microsoft-will-bring-xbo... NVIDIA sees Microsoft as a major competitor but Microsoft on the other hand doesn’t see NVIDIA in the same light they much more worried about SOE. NVIDIA knows that Microsoft cloud gaming and consoles are a direct threat to their PC gaming market. And with Microsoft having a cloud gaming service already NVIDIA fears that the money train might stop. The next console generation (not the mid Gen refresh) might actually be a cloud only box, it would not surprise me if NVIDIA sees GeForce Now as it’s life raft if 5-10 years from now there would be very few who would buy a gaming PC with a GPU.
- fathyb 4y ago
  > The next console generation (not the mid Gen refresh) might actually be a cloud only box It would be a mistake to not research and ship a cheaper cloud-only option given the rent-seeking potential. But unless we see a massive deployment of low-latency high-speed internet in most populated areas, I don't see it replacing offline compute boxes.
  - dogma1138 4y ago
    The next generation of consoles will be in 5-6 years. Fiber rollout is increasing and Starlink can offer 20ms under good conditions right now and it or competing networks can get lower still. A hybrid console is also possible it will have enough horse power to run “casual” games but if you want the top tier you’ll have to stream. Console makers usually don’t make money on hardware so if they can move everyone off it and just stream that’s a no brainer for them.
    - iamthepieman 4y ago
      15 years ago or even just 6 I would have been outraged at that idea. But reality has caught up with me (or the other way around I suppose). Despite my desire to own things and control them, the ammou t of time I have to game is usually a few games a year and only when one really piques my interest. I will play regularly for a month and then be occupied with other pursuits for a couple months or longer before picking up another game. Intense but casual is my gaming style. So if I could treat gaming like Netflix, subscribe when there's a show I want to watch, binge and then cancel, that would be great. The only reason I don't do that is because I got a switch to game with my kids and just can't justify two gaming consile for the amount of time me and my family spend on them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rvnx 4y ago
This is great news!
deafpolygon 4y ago
Microsoft wants the IP behind Activision/Blizzard. This is much bigger than Call of Duty - everyone is just so short-sighted. Call of Duty is the loss leader for Microsoft. But, as an IP, it is somewhat limited so it's ok to pimp this out. This will be Microsoft's Madden, because they will lose more money by limiting it to one platform. Cross-platform support and play will be a keystone strategy, because they get to plaster Microsoft Gaming everywhere. - World of Warcraft on consoles (work has been underway for a while to add direct controller support). And this gives Microsoft instant access to a competitor to Sony's FFXIV. Plus Hearthstone can compete with Wizards of the Coast, and Heroes of the Storm gives them a League of Legends competitor. - Overwatch, combined with Call of Duty and Halo, will lead the way for Microsoft Gaming to have an eSport division for gaming. - Starcraft - eSports. It gives them something to add to their strategy games stuff, and I would imagine that it's not going to be too difficult to integrate aspects of Starcraft into Halo (or vice versa). - Mobile games division (Candy Crush) - with access to a division that knows how to profit off mobile, Microsoft can bring this to other games (or other games to Mobile while profiting - something Nintendo screwed up royally and Sony has no clue how to do). - Crash Bandicoot and Spyro will give Microsoft new mascots to work with, on top of Minecraft, and allow them to attract younger gamers. This has always been a problem for Microsoft - they've always managed to appeal to young adults / new adults, but teenagers that are the target audience of Nintendo are hard. This segment of the market is much more profitable, and increases mindshare for Microsoft. It's not hard to see how this fits in the overall Microsoft Live streaming strategy, because in the future, it will be about streaming games and less about the hardware. In order to stream games successfully, you need IP.
- trinovantes 4y ago
  Starcraft and Heros of the Storm have both ceased development and I doubt Microsoft is interested in reviving them But I can see them reusing those IP as universes for future games just because it's easier to reuse a well known IP than creating from scratch
  - deafpolygon 4y ago
    True, but they are still being played. You can still download and install Heroes of the Storm (and it is a pretty decent game). Reviving it and adapting it to the Xbox console would be an easy step. Starcraft is still being played - and the lore is well established, known and popular world-wide.
shmerl 4y ago
How is it resolving any concerns? MS not releasing games outside MS platforms can still be a problem regardless of any streaming deals.
- smileybarry 4y ago
  Activision-Blizzard was missing from GeForce Now for no reason (GeForce Now is a Windows PC after all). Assuring that gives Nvidia a massive popular library to hook players with. Xcloud is a competitor yes but don’t forget GeForce Now caters to PC players, and they’re looking to stay on mouse and keyboard. Xcloud streams from a console and doesn’t support M&K except for a select few games that support that on a port-on-Xbox level. Even if/when Call of Duty/Overwatch arrives on Xcloud, PC players won’t stream it off Xcloud.
0dayz 4y ago
Outside of the huge ramifications of the Microsoft acquisition, I think that it'll set the new standard for when antitrust gets used. Essentially if this deal goes through it'll most likely neuter antitrust cases for years to come. Same thing with the Adobe figma deal.

65 points by mrzool 4y ago

Makes sense. They would both rather have gaming as a subscription service, rather than something you run on your own hardware.

dogma1138 4y ago
NVIDIA very much doesn’t want that, but it sees the writing on the wall and needs to secure its future revenue stream when game streaming becomes fully viable for all. GeForce Now at the 4080 tier costs $20 a month an RTX 4080 costs $1200>… if you live within the coverage area where you can stream at 120-240fps it’s almost a no brainer since the price of a high end GPU is 5-6 years of service in which you’ll get an upgrade every 18-24 months. What NVIDIA lacks is deals with publishers or its own gaming IP. I think that Google killed of Stadia not because it thought that game streaming is a dead end but because it calculated that it already has lost the fight to Microsoft and maybe even Sony since both of them now have racks or consoles to stream games from. NVIDIA is just looking for a life raft because it can’t drop out of its primary market.
- enos_feedler 4y ago
  Agree with the Stadia. I think the calculus was around cost vs. potential for a moat. Streaming PC ports is not a moatable platform. They wanted to do unique things for games that no other platform could do. Unless the game industry latched onto that the moat just isn’t there. Might as well run a commodity GPU PC streaming service and sell the utility to others. This is exactly what they are doing with Stadia in the cloud.
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  > Google killed of Stadia not because it thought that game streaming is a dead end but because it calculated that it already has lost the fight to Microsoft Agreed on this. What IP did they actually own? Google did the math and decided it wasn't going to be successful.
- htag 4y ago
  You're missing two key points to the cost benefit analysis. 1. Modern GPUs are remarkable at holding value. 3080s are selling on ebay at over half the launch MSRP. 2. You'll get better performance locally. People buy 4080s because they want the best.
- brucethemoose2 4y ago
  $20 a month is the loss leader price. Thats gonna go up when the sector (eventually) matures.

dogma1138 4y ago

It’s to placate regulators and shutdown a very vocal critic of the Activision merger. NVIDIA was one of the loudest voices against and not anymore. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/02/21/microsoft-will-bring-xbox-games-to-nvidias-cloud-gaming-service.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/02/21/microsoft-will-bring-xbo... NVIDIA sees Microsoft as a major competitor but Microsoft on the other hand doesn’t see NVIDIA in the same light they much more worried about SOE. NVIDIA knows that Microsoft cloud gaming and consoles are a direct threat to their PC gaming market. And with Microsoft having a cloud gaming service already NVIDIA fears that the money train might stop. The next console generation (not the mid Gen refresh) might actually be a cloud only box, it would not surprise me if NVIDIA sees GeForce Now as it’s life raft if 5-10 years from now there would be very few who would buy a gaming PC with a GPU.

fathyb 4y ago
> The next console generation (not the mid Gen refresh) might actually be a cloud only box It would be a mistake to not research and ship a cheaper cloud-only option given the rent-seeking potential. But unless we see a massive deployment of low-latency high-speed internet in most populated areas, I don't see it replacing offline compute boxes.
- dogma1138 4y ago
  The next generation of consoles will be in 5-6 years. Fiber rollout is increasing and Starlink can offer 20ms under good conditions right now and it or competing networks can get lower still. A hybrid console is also possible it will have enough horse power to run “casual” games but if you want the top tier you’ll have to stream. Console makers usually don’t make money on hardware so if they can move everyone off it and just stream that’s a no brainer for them.
  - iamthepieman 4y ago
    15 years ago or even just 6 I would have been outraged at that idea. But reality has caught up with me (or the other way around I suppose). Despite my desire to own things and control them, the ammou t of time I have to game is usually a few games a year and only when one really piques my interest. I will play regularly for a month and then be occupied with other pursuits for a couple months or longer before picking up another game. Intense but casual is my gaming style. So if I could treat gaming like Netflix, subscribe when there's a show I want to watch, binge and then cancel, that would be great. The only reason I don't do that is because I got a switch to game with my kids and just can't justify two gaming consile for the amount of time me and my family spend on them.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rvnx 4y ago

This is great news!

deafpolygon 4y ago

Microsoft wants the IP behind Activision/Blizzard. This is much bigger than Call of Duty - everyone is just so short-sighted. Call of Duty is the loss leader for Microsoft. But, as an IP, it is somewhat limited so it's ok to pimp this out. This will be Microsoft's Madden, because they will lose more money by limiting it to one platform. Cross-platform support and play will be a keystone strategy, because they get to plaster Microsoft Gaming everywhere. - World of Warcraft on consoles (work has been underway for a while to add direct controller support). And this gives Microsoft instant access to a competitor to Sony's FFXIV. Plus Hearthstone can compete with Wizards of the Coast, and Heroes of the Storm gives them a League of Legends competitor. - Overwatch, combined with Call of Duty and Halo, will lead the way for Microsoft Gaming to have an eSport division for gaming. - Starcraft - eSports. It gives them something to add to their strategy games stuff, and I would imagine that it's not going to be too difficult to integrate aspects of Starcraft into Halo (or vice versa). - Mobile games division (Candy Crush) - with access to a division that knows how to profit off mobile, Microsoft can bring this to other games (or other games to Mobile while profiting - something Nintendo screwed up royally and Sony has no clue how to do). - Crash Bandicoot and Spyro will give Microsoft new mascots to work with, on top of Minecraft, and allow them to attract younger gamers. This has always been a problem for Microsoft - they've always managed to appeal to young adults / new adults, but teenagers that are the target audience of Nintendo are hard. This segment of the market is much more profitable, and increases mindshare for Microsoft. It's not hard to see how this fits in the overall Microsoft Live streaming strategy, because in the future, it will be about streaming games and less about the hardware. In order to stream games successfully, you need IP.

trinovantes 4y ago
Starcraft and Heros of the Storm have both ceased development and I doubt Microsoft is interested in reviving them But I can see them reusing those IP as universes for future games just because it's easier to reuse a well known IP than creating from scratch
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  True, but they are still being played. You can still download and install Heroes of the Storm (and it is a pretty decent game). Reviving it and adapting it to the Xbox console would be an easy step. Starcraft is still being played - and the lore is well established, known and popular world-wide.

shmerl 4y ago

How is it resolving any concerns? MS not releasing games outside MS platforms can still be a problem regardless of any streaming deals.

smileybarry 4y ago
Activision-Blizzard was missing from GeForce Now for no reason (GeForce Now is a Windows PC after all). Assuring that gives Nvidia a massive popular library to hook players with. Xcloud is a competitor yes but don’t forget GeForce Now caters to PC players, and they’re looking to stay on mouse and keyboard. Xcloud streams from a console and doesn’t support M&K except for a select few games that support that on a port-on-Xbox level. Even if/when Call of Duty/Overwatch arrives on Xcloud, PC players won’t stream it off Xcloud.

0dayz 4y ago

Outside of the huge ramifications of the Microsoft acquisition, I think that it'll set the new standard for when antitrust gets used. Essentially if this deal goes through it'll most likely neuter antitrust cases for years to come. Same thing with the Adobe figma deal.