cloudguy said: If you think that an iPhone or even an iPad Pro could store - let alone run - a library of modern generation PlayStation or XBox games - Nintendo Switch is a totally different animal - then you don't follow tech apart from the Apple ecosystem.
"Netflix for games" doesn't offend me. It's just disingenuous, since Netflix streams files (not required for review by App Store) and Xbox cloud gaming would be streaming applications (required for review by App Store).
I don't think that's how MS designed it to work @foregoneconclusion ; If they end up "streaming an application" that's only because Apple might insist they do it that way which they avoid if using a browser as they state they will.
AFAICT the hardware doesn't' really matter much so streaming becomes a gameplay equalizer, the processing power of your device no longer a limiting factor. Subscribers can pick the game they want to play without installing anything, which means no application required. An active subscription is all you need.
To the best of my knowledge your phone or iPad isn't doing any processing, doesn't require storage for the game, and doesn't need a "downloaded game application" unless Apple insists it appears that way. IMO they are absolutely permitted to do that too until some authority determines they cannot. This whole app store rules thing is constantly morphing since the ultimate goal is making as much profit as the market allows and if rules are used to do so it's currently 100% OK. Apple hasn't broken any laws as far as I know and competition authorities themselves are still confused whether they're needed.
Anyway, here's what actually happens with xCloud as I'm not sure you understand what takes place: Button presses from the Xbox controller are sent to a cloud data center maybe a few hundred miles away, and the audio and video is sent back in milliseconds. It's not a game application, every bit of gameplay takes place "in the cloud" and on Microsoft servers and your gameplay device is your receiver. All you need is a good internet connection. To me that's akin to streaming a movie but an interactive one where you can choose the final outcome. Wasn't someone doing that a few months ago, could even have been Netflix? I'll have to look that up.
gatorguy said: Anyway, here's what actually happens with xCloud as I'm not sure you understand what takes place: Button presses from the Xbox controller are sent to a cloud data center maybe a few hundred miles away, and the audio and video is sent back in milliseconds. It's not a game application, every bit of gameplay takes place "in the cloud" and on Microsoft servers and your gameplay device is your receiver.
Games are applications. Regardless of whether they're running locally or from a remote location, you ARE using an application. Unlike a remote desktop app or a remote console app, Xbox cloud gaming would have been selling users access to additional applications through an App Store app. If you want to sell apps to users through the App Store, you have to get those apps reviewed. If you don't want to submit for review, then you sell through the internet/browser instead. The internet isn't something that Apple created or has control over. It seems straightforward to me.
The mobile versions of true console games - which excludes the likes of Fortnite - are not full games. The mobile version of Forza can be installed and run on an iPhone. Full Forza, the one that runs on XBox, absolutely can.
Games are applications? Sure. But so is Office 365, which on your iPhone and iPad (desktop is different) is a placeholder for the actual application that lives in Azure. The same is true of the G Suite apps.
Anyway, the "Netflix for games" concept isn't something that Google, Microsoft, Nvidia and now Amazon invented. The concept has been discussed almost as long as Netflix for movies became available. Lots of smaller companies have tried to launch similar services. The concept was never controversial or offensive to anyone before now, and at present they are only controversial to the tiny subset of people who are absolutely determined to defend every little thing that Apple does for whatever reason that Apple does it. And in the process, they totally forget that Apple changes their minds all the time.
These are the people who back in 2012 mocked the idea of a set top box with an app store like Fire TV and Android TV. These are the people who back in 2012 mocked the idea of a smartwatch. These are the people who back in 2012 mocked phablets, calling them tacky, terrible design and a bad user experience. These are the people who mocked 2-in-1 Android, ChromeOS and Windows Surface devices right up until Apple announced the iPad Pro. These are the people who back in 2010 mocked NFC and mobile payments. These are the people who as recently as a few months ago mocked widgets. These are the people who back in 2015 still claimed "the finger is the best stylus ever!" These are the people who as recently as 2016 were trashing OLED for smartphones even after Apple was using them for smartwatches! These are the people who went endlessly to bat defending Apple's home button-centered navigation right up until the very day that Apple dropped it. These are the same people who claim that "the tech or features weren't ready for prime time until Apple adopted it."
Here's the deal: Apple is hoping that game streaming will fail. Not because of any specific reason like competition with Apple Arcade but rather because of general reasons: Apple's entire business model with the iPhone and iPad is exclusive apps that run on premium hardware. No one can compete with the Ax chips and even were Samsung or Google to come close, they still wouldn't have a ton of quality apps that are only available on iOS. Streaming apps make all that irrelevant. They lend themselves to multiplatform design by their very nature and they work just fine on very cheap hardware because nearly all the processing is done in the cloud.
Microsoft, meanwhile, has the opposite agenda. They will make more money off hosting streaming apps in Azure than they ever will on XBox hardware sales because XBox consoles are basically designed, manufactured and sold at a loss. (The R&D and hardware costs of the XBox One X and PS5 going through the roof are why AAA game prices are going from $60 to $70). When it doesn't and becomes as profitable and common as film, TV show and music streaming, Apple will want their 30% cut. So - as they always do - Apple will claim that they have solved all the security and privacy issues, that 5G/Wi-Fi 6 adoption is now commonplace so they are ready to support game streaming. And you and the other unpaid Apple publicists will nod your head and agree just like you have in the past.
gatorguy said: Anyway, here's what actually happens with xCloud as I'm not sure you understand what takes place: Button presses from the Xbox controller are sent to a cloud data center maybe a few hundred miles away, and the audio and video is sent back in milliseconds. It's not a game application, every bit of gameplay takes place "in the cloud" and on Microsoft servers and your gameplay device is your receiver.
Games are applications. Regardless of whether they're running locally or from a remote location, you ARE using an application. Unlike a remote desktop app or a remote console app, Xbox cloud gaming would have been selling users access to additional applications through an App Store app. If you want to sell apps to users through the App Store, you have to get those apps reviewed. If you don't want to submit for review, then you sell through the internet/browser instead. The internet isn't something that Apple created or has control over. It seems straightforward to me.
Gosh you sure are hard-headed. No you won't be using a game app. You're receiving streamed media, sound and action, from Microsoft servers. You will not be running a game app under xCloud and any "app" that Apple requires will simply be meant for ensuring Apple got a cut of it. It will not be the game itself.
So no, as far as I can tell you won't be running a game app. It will essentially be interactive media streaming, not so different from a movie IMO.
gatorguy said: Anyway, here's what actually happens with xCloud as I'm not sure you understand what takes place: Button presses from the Xbox controller are sent to a cloud data center maybe a few hundred miles away, and the audio and video is sent back in milliseconds. It's not a game application, every bit of gameplay takes place "in the cloud" and on Microsoft servers and your gameplay device is your receiver.
Games are applications. Regardless of whether they're running locally or from a remote location, you ARE using an application. Unlike a remote desktop app or a remote console app, Xbox cloud gaming would have been selling users access to additional applications through an App Store app. If you want to sell apps to users through the App Store, you have to get those apps reviewed. If you don't want to submit for review, then you sell through the internet/browser instead. The internet isn't something that Apple created or has control over. It seems straightforward to me.
Gosh you sure are hard-headed. No you won't be using a game app. You're receiving streamed media, sound and action, from Microsoft servers. You will not be running a game app under xCloud and any "app" that Apple requires will simply be meant for ensuring Apple got a cut of it. It will not be the game itself.
So no, as far as I can tell you won't be running a game app. It will essentially be interactive media streaming, not so different from a movie IMO.
From here on out, as of today, it looks like the preferred delivery to an iOS/iPadOS device will be via browser, so should we even be talking about apps anymore? Amazon, and MS as of yesterday, have decided that, and Google will likely follow, as will any other game streaming platforms.
Apple's happy to have the control of their platform, though won't see any revenue,
Game streaming platforms should find the browser sufficient to meet their requirements, and since no revenue will go to Apple, they are actually in a superior position. MS may not be happy about how this ended up, but based on all to the arguments about the equivalence of Netflix to Game streaming here on AI, I don't see any problems with that delivery method.
Everyone should be very happy with the outcome today.
gatorguy said: Anyway, here's what actually happens with xCloud as I'm not sure you understand what takes place: Button presses from the Xbox controller are sent to a cloud data center maybe a few hundred miles away, and the audio and video is sent back in milliseconds. It's not a game application, every bit of gameplay takes place "in the cloud" and on Microsoft servers and your gameplay device is your receiver.
Games are applications. Regardless of whether they're running locally or from a remote location, you ARE using an application. Unlike a remote desktop app or a remote console app, Xbox cloud gaming would have been selling users access to additional applications through an App Store app. If you want to sell apps to users through the App Store, you have to get those apps reviewed. If you don't want to submit for review, then you sell through the internet/browser instead. The internet isn't something that Apple created or has control over. It seems straightforward to me.
Gosh you sure are hard-headed. No you won't be using a game app. You're receiving streamed media, sound and action, from Microsoft servers. You will not be running a game app under xCloud and any "app" that Apple requires will simply be meant for ensuring Apple got a cut of it. It will not be the game itself.
So no, as far as I can tell you won't be running a game app. It will essentially be interactive media streaming, not so different from a movie IMO.
From here on out, as of today, it looks like the preferred delivery to an iOS/iPadOS device will be via browser, so should we even be talking about apps anymore? Amazon, and MS as of yesterday, have decided that, and Google will likely follow, as will any other game streaming platforms.
Apple's happy to have the control of their platform, though won't see any revenue,
Game streaming platforms should find the browser sufficient to meet their requirements, and since no revenue will go to Apple, they are actually in a superior position. MS may not be happy about how this ended up, but based on all to the arguments about the equivalence of Netflix to Game streaming here on AI, I don't see any problems with that delivery method.
Everyone should be very happy with the outcome today.
You are correct as you often are Tmay.
Marketwise it won't matter, but user wise it may be a lesser experience than a native app might deliver. With Google being very quiet on the subject I'm curious whether they have some other plan. Perhaps not but Apple and Google have been on friendlier terms of late and Stadia is on the App Store.
gatorguy said: Anyway, here's what actually happens with xCloud as I'm not sure you understand what takes place: Button presses from the Xbox controller are sent to a cloud data center maybe a few hundred miles away, and the audio and video is sent back in milliseconds. It's not a game application, every bit of gameplay takes place "in the cloud" and on Microsoft servers and your gameplay device is your receiver.
Games are applications. Regardless of whether they're running locally or from a remote location, you ARE using an application. Unlike a remote desktop app or a remote console app, Xbox cloud gaming would have been selling users access to additional applications through an App Store app. If you want to sell apps to users through the App Store, you have to get those apps reviewed. If you don't want to submit for review, then you sell through the internet/browser instead. The internet isn't something that Apple created or has control over. It seems straightforward to me.
Gosh you sure are hard-headed. No you won't be using a game app. You're receiving streamed media, sound and action, from Microsoft servers. You will not be running a game app under xCloud and any "app" that Apple requires will simply be meant for ensuring Apple got a cut of it. It will not be the game itself.
So no, as far as I can tell you won't be running a game app. It will essentially be interactive media streaming, not so different from a movie IMO.
From here on out, as of today, it looks like the preferred delivery to an iOS/iPadOS device will be via browser, so should we even be talking about apps anymore? Amazon, and MS as of yesterday, have decided that, and Google will likely follow, as will any other game streaming platforms.
Apple's happy to have the control of their platform, though won't see any revenue,
Game streaming platforms should find the browser sufficient to meet their requirements, and since no revenue will go to Apple, they are actually in a superior position. MS may not be happy about how this ended up, but based on all to the arguments about the equivalence of Netflix to Game streaming here on AI, I don't see any problems with that delivery method.
Everyone should be very happy with the outcome today.
You are correct as you often are Tmay.
Marketwise it won't matter, but user wise it may be a lesser experience than a native app might deliver. With Google being very quiet on the subject I'm curious whether they have some other plan. Perhaps not but Apple and Google have been on friendlier terms of late and Stadia is on the App Store.
I get the impression that Apple was happy to work with Amazon, and I expect that they would be happy to work with both MS and Google, to optimize game streaming for Safari. I'm not sure what advantages that Chrome or Edge would have, given that there isn't any need for Safari's rendering engine, but I suppose we will find out.
It's still conceivable that Apple will come up with an evolved policy for Game streaming via apps, but the current policy isn't friendly to game collections.
gatorguy said: Gosh you sure are hard-headed. No you won't be using a game app. You're receiving streamed media, sound and action, from Microsoft servers. You will not be running a game app under xCloud and any "app" that Apple requires will simply be meant for ensuring Apple got a cut of it. It will not be the game itself.
So no, as far as I can tell you won't be running a game app. It will essentially be interactive media streaming, not so different from a movie IMO.
FYI: go to Microsoft's Xbox cloud gaming site for some clues as to what a Xbox cloud gaming subscriber would be using. The phrase "play Xbox games" is used repeatedly. It's almost as if Microsoft wants people to know that they'll be using gaming applications.
cloudguy said: Here's the deal: Apple is hoping that game streaming will fail. Not because of any specific reason like competition with Apple Arcade but rather because of general reasons: Apple's entire business model with the iPhone and iPad is exclusive apps that run on premium hardware. No one can compete with the Ax chips and even were Samsung or Google to come close, they still wouldn't have a ton of quality apps that are only available on iOS. Streaming apps make all that irrelevant.
My guess would be that Apple is confident that they can create hardware/software with functions and features that will continue to sell. So far, streaming hasn't made PC or console hardware irrelevant, and that will probably continue to be the case well into the future. Streaming games seems more like a convenient add-on than a replacement, and obviously the ability to play off-line is something users want as well. I'm sure you've noticed the number of music and video streaming services that tout off-line consumption these days.
Comments
If they end up "streaming an application" that's only because Apple might insist they do it that way which they avoid if using a browser as they state they will.
AFAICT the hardware doesn't' really matter much so streaming becomes a gameplay equalizer, the processing power of your device no longer a limiting factor. Subscribers can pick the game they want to play without installing anything, which means no application required. An active subscription is all you need.
To the best of my knowledge your phone or iPad isn't doing any processing, doesn't require storage for the game, and doesn't need a "downloaded game application" unless Apple insists it appears that way. IMO they are absolutely permitted to do that too until some authority determines they cannot. This whole app store rules thing is constantly morphing since the ultimate goal is making as much profit as the market allows and if rules are used to do so it's currently 100% OK. Apple hasn't broken any laws as far as I know and competition authorities themselves are still confused whether they're needed.
Anyway, here's what actually happens with xCloud as I'm not sure you understand what takes place: Button presses from the Xbox controller are sent to a cloud data center maybe a few hundred miles away, and the audio and video is sent back in milliseconds. It's not a game application, every bit of gameplay takes place "in the cloud" and on Microsoft servers and your gameplay device is your receiver. All you need is a good internet connection. To me that's akin to streaming a movie but an interactive one where you can choose the final outcome. Wasn't someone doing that a few months ago, could even have been Netflix? I'll have to look that up.
EDIT: Yup, Black Mirror: Bandersnatch on Netflix.
The mobile versions of true console games - which excludes the likes of Fortnite - are not full games. The mobile version of Forza can be installed and run on an iPhone. Full Forza, the one that runs on XBox, absolutely can.
Games are applications? Sure. But so is Office 365, which on your iPhone and iPad (desktop is different) is a placeholder for the actual application that lives in Azure. The same is true of the G Suite apps.
Anyway, the "Netflix for games" concept isn't something that Google, Microsoft, Nvidia and now Amazon invented. The concept has been discussed almost as long as Netflix for movies became available. Lots of smaller companies have tried to launch similar services. The concept was never controversial or offensive to anyone before now, and at present they are only controversial to the tiny subset of people who are absolutely determined to defend every little thing that Apple does for whatever reason that Apple does it. And in the process, they totally forget that Apple changes their minds all the time.
These are the people who back in 2012 mocked the idea of a set top box with an app store like Fire TV and Android TV.
These are the people who back in 2012 mocked the idea of a smartwatch.
These are the people who back in 2012 mocked phablets, calling them tacky, terrible design and a bad user experience.
These are the people who mocked 2-in-1 Android, ChromeOS and Windows Surface devices right up until Apple announced the iPad Pro.
These are the people who back in 2010 mocked NFC and mobile payments.
These are the people who as recently as a few months ago mocked widgets.
These are the people who back in 2015 still claimed "the finger is the best stylus ever!"
These are the people who as recently as 2016 were trashing OLED for smartphones even after Apple was using them for smartwatches!
These are the people who went endlessly to bat defending Apple's home button-centered navigation right up until the very day that Apple dropped it.
These are the same people who claim that "the tech or features weren't ready for prime time until Apple adopted it."
Here's the deal: Apple is hoping that game streaming will fail. Not because of any specific reason like competition with Apple Arcade but rather because of general reasons: Apple's entire business model with the iPhone and iPad is exclusive apps that run on premium hardware. No one can compete with the Ax chips and even were Samsung or Google to come close, they still wouldn't have a ton of quality apps that are only available on iOS. Streaming apps make all that irrelevant. They lend themselves to multiplatform design by their very nature and they work just fine on very cheap hardware because nearly all the processing is done in the cloud.
Microsoft, meanwhile, has the opposite agenda. They will make more money off hosting streaming apps in Azure than they ever will on XBox hardware sales because XBox consoles are basically designed, manufactured and sold at a loss. (The R&D and hardware costs of the XBox One X and PS5 going through the roof are why AAA game prices are going from $60 to $70). When it doesn't and becomes as profitable and common as film, TV show and music streaming, Apple will want their 30% cut. So - as they always do - Apple will claim that they have solved all the security and privacy issues, that 5G/Wi-Fi 6 adoption is now commonplace so they are ready to support game streaming. And you and the other unpaid Apple publicists will nod your head and agree just like you have in the past.
So no, as far as I can tell you won't be running a game app. It will essentially be interactive media streaming, not so different from a movie IMO.
Apple's happy to have the control of their platform, though won't see any revenue,
Game streaming platforms should find the browser sufficient to meet their requirements, and since no revenue will go to Apple, they are actually in a superior position. MS may not be happy about how this ended up, but based on all to the arguments about the equivalence of Netflix to Game streaming here on AI, I don't see any problems with that delivery method.
Everyone should be very happy with the outcome today.
Marketwise it won't matter, but user wise it may be a lesser experience than a native app might deliver. With Google being very quiet on the subject I'm curious whether they have some other plan. Perhaps not but Apple and Google have been on friendlier terms of late and Stadia is on the App Store.
It's still conceivable that Apple will come up with an evolved policy for Game streaming via apps, but the current policy isn't friendly to game collections.
My guess would be that Apple is confident that they can create hardware/software with functions and features that will continue to sell. So far, streaming hasn't made PC or console hardware irrelevant, and that will probably continue to be the case well into the future. Streaming games seems more like a convenient add-on than a replacement, and obviously the ability to play off-line is something users want as well. I'm sure you've noticed the number of music and video streaming services that tout off-line consumption these days.