GeForce now is very impressive and the latency is now good enough for many genres (on a superfast gaming monitor, not a TV, even in game mode), but I feel they’ve hit the limit of the speed of the light and I’m not convinced they can over come that barrier to make all genres viable.
@Jaz007 the CMA said it was about cloud, not games.
So just as you say “Microsoft need to improve and make better games if they want to compete”, so Sony “needs to improve and make a half decent cloud service if they want to compete”.
If Sony are protected from competition and allowed to retain their massively dominant position, why would they improve their cloud service?
They could install a baked bean can in your house, attach a piece of string to it, and the other end to their server.
You’d still buy the PS6 over the next Xbox or a PC. Do you see the problem?
The market needs to change. I’m sorry to say this, but the market needs to change in such a way that people like you are forced to consider other options, such that these firms feel the need to compete. If that means taking things away from you on your Playstation, then I’m afraid for the greater good that has to be done to break Sony’s near monopoly.
It’s clear that at the moment, you aren’t even remotely close to considering competitors. Be honest, at no point were you agonising over which console to buy. It was a done deal before the PS5 and XSX were even announced.
That’s why the CMA is wrong. I present you and most of the posters here as evidence to support my case.
@Jaz007 I feel like when people talk about “Ms should compete instead of expanding” what they really mean is “based on my perspective that the only form of competition is by making mixed media brand franchises in a template know known as aaa games” and are probably the same people laughing at Kirby dream buffet and psvr2 and just not getting that the competition is bigger than who can create the most sequeled, merchandisable pop culture franchise.
Not entirely meaning you, I know you’re interested in psvr2 at least, but there’s a large swath of people I’ve seen where the same people that think what ms needs to do to “compete” is just crank out “aaa games” and are the same people that say Sony shouldn’t waste time and money on psvr2.
I think overall there’s too much navel gazing at “this is what is important in gaming to me therefore what what the whole industry is about” and not enough looking at what the industry really is.
Yes ms has marketing problems. Yes ms has issues with getting exclusives out in a timely and complete fashion. Yes Ms still has inventory issues on consoles being unavailable. Those are all problems. But demands that “they just need to somehow invent a winning formula right away and get it to market within a year instead of buying what they need otherwise they should just spin their wheels forever until it happens someday” is just unrealistic at this point in the games platform industry. In the Sega 90s it was possible but it’s too mature an industry now for that kind of cowboy pioneer business innovator schtick.
Also also disagree though about Sony innovating. Psvr2 is innovative and everyone ridicules it. but Sony hasn’t been innovative since PS3. Well, vita, anyway. They’re very conservative, iterative, and reactive. Outside vr, innovative isn’t an adjective I’d apply to them.
This content was originally published here.
