Project xCloud only adds 10 ms input lag, may need 5 Mbps internet

Project xCloud
Project xCloud (Image credit: Microsoft)

Today, Google is unveiling its streaming platform, but that hasn't stopped Microsoft from dropping some new information about its upcoming Project xCloud streaming service which is expected to enter public trials in 2019. Microsoft's vice president of the gaming cloud Kareem Choudhry sat down with Eurogamer to discuss what to expect from the upcoming service.

When asked about the latency, Choudhry said the following.

From the data centers we have near Washington we're seeing really good latency - less than 10 ms that's being added by the traversal to the cloud. Frankly we find more latency in the Bluetooth stack, connected to an Android phone.

Google's streaming technology requires a lot of bandwidth to stream games at the highest quality, but Microsoft hopes to limit that to the single digits. Choudhry added the following.

We hope to get down to single digit Mbps. I think some of the demos we've shown so far have probably gone down to nine, ten Mbps. Some of the work that we're doing with Microsoft research, I think we'll be able to get a really good video feed probably around six to five.

Lastly, it seems like Project xCloud may be part of Xbox Game Pass. Towards the end of the interview, Choudhry said the following.

Obviously Xbox Game Pass is our subscription service, it's really where we want to deliver great experiences and value to our customers. And right now it's a console product - we have aspirations to bring it to more users and more places. Project xCloud and Xbox Game Pass are going to coexist in some reasonable way.

Hopefully Project xCloud will live up to expectations. In order to be a gaming platform for everyone, it has to be cognizant of internet limitations like data caps. We'll see what the future holds, but answers to those questions will determine who wins the "streaming wars."

Asher Madan handles gaming news for Windows Central. Before joining Windows Central in 2017, Asher worked for a number of different gaming outlets. He has a background in medical science and is passionate about all forms of entertainment, cooking, and antiquing.

85 Comments
  • Well I just watched Google announce Stadia over an hour at GDC. It's great and all. But they have only 1 First party studio. Yeah that's right. 1???!!!! Im afraid up against Xcloud with 13 studios currently and Rumours of 2-3 more announced ar E3 this year, I just don't see Stadia doing well at all. That's not to mention the entire back catalog of Exclusive content Xcloud will have. It sounds to me like Google are prematurely releasing this thing end of this year. They need to have a considerable amount of exclusive content to get people to choose it over Xcloud. I'll be honest I was actually expecting better from Google for its release. Great to hear Xcloud is working so well with lower speeds. MS are really getting this right next Gen.
  • I think the issue is that Amazon is about to do the same so they wanted to beat them.
  • Correct. Right now is about getting those subscribers and games on the platform as quickly as they can
  • It really feels though after watching Google announce this thing, that MS have got this one totally right. Sure MS lost the phone market by being late. But MS are in prime position going into the streaming future where gaming is concerned. Huge first party. Public tests this year. Releasing next year alongside actual consoles to. They learned from Xbox one launch, and are offering traditional consoles for at least another 8 years for definite. So people can make the choice themselves to slowly move over. I kinda feel Google would have been better to announce this thing with at least 6 first party studios. And 3 exclusive games to launch with it. As it is, this is looking extremely bare bones. And gamers hate not having exclusive titles on a system they choose. Just look at the arguments that always ooze out of Gamers. It's always visuals, or lack of content. It seems to me Google spent to much time talking features and YouTube. Just like MS did talking about TV with Xbox One at launch.
  • The only advantage I see is you don't need a "system". It works with what you have, no choice is required. If you buy an Xbox, the controller will work with Google's platform too. I am not sure that is enough, they will need some compelling games and pricing too. I assume they don't have that, else they would have announced it.
  • no system == no running game natively == no gaming on a flight / train / in the basement of some coffee or restaurant / behind some thick wall.
  • I personally would rather see Google go the route of not having exclusive games, but be a platform to allow people to play high-end games on low-end devices. We don't need *another* platform. I want it to stick to "PC" as a platform. This allows them to tackle a fairly non-technical problem as the only hurdle to having games: licensing.
  • Agreed. Google can't even compete with MS in the games arena. Not saying that it will not do well for what it will be, but most people that game enough to want a streaming service have a PS4 or Xbox One/X, where they will want to play current games on the go, in addition to the huge game library they will have access to.
  • They don't want to get too behind because if Amazon and Microsoft get too ahead their platform might fail. They are doing the right thing by releasing and the SDK (or whatever) early so everyone can get in from the beginning. Keeping the packages prices low and more development for the platform and they should be fine.
  • Exactly. Microsoft essentially has to make Project xCloud a free part of Xbox Live Gold or Xbox Game Pass — rumors are they will, and you have like 60 million active users each month. Bam!
  • They need to restructure it, its already confusing paying for game pass and then having to pay for gold if you want to play online.
  • I don't see too much of a restructuring other than possibly selling a bundle of Gold plus Game Pass. As it stands, including Gold in Game Pass doesn't make sense for too many people. There are plenty of single player games and forcing an extra cost on top of it would turn some people off.
  • The 60m monthly active user that MS communicate is not the number of gold + game pass members. That's the number of people that used xb live in the last month of a quarter. That includes people from switch, android, ios, windows...
  • TBH, Microsoft doesn't need a dev kit since they are simply using Xbox Consoles.
  • If you have to use an Xbox console, what is the point? You already play games on your Xbox. The advantage of streaming is not needing a console.
  • They mean that in the data centres, they have "Xbox" architecture. So developers are already optimizing their games for the Xbox hardware, so it won't require any further tweaking for the cloud. Whereas Google requires developers to optimize it for their new system. The advantage of this in terms of Google however is that they can have a much more powerful computer in the data centre if they choose to. You will be able to stream it anywhere, not just to Xbox consoles.
  • He means that the game servers will be Xbox ready already since MS basically makes the hardware so there's no need on the developer's part to make it work on xCloud vs Google's solution which needs a custom API to work. This is a big thing to consider as a game developer / sutdio as it means extra costs on development compared to xCloud which possibly is just a checkbox to enable it if your game already supports Xbox, and most AAA games do so it'll be easy and cheap to get xCloud working.
  • Pay attention to the wording by Microsoft here "less than 10 ms that's being added by the traversal to the cloud." the key word there being ADDED. So that's not the entire latency that's extra latency, and then they mentioned a lot of it was in the bluetooth stack. Google recognized this and bypassed it entirely with their controller that connects via wifi directly to the data center that is streaming the game to cut out that bluetooth connection to the viewing portal you're using to watch the game. Digital Foundry has a video just posted where they spent time with Stadia that was a newer build than Project Stream was from late last year and in their testing playing Assassin's Creed Odyssey via Stadia they had the exact same latency number on connections of 15Mbps and above as playing the game locally on an Xbox One X. That's very impressive. I would say with that kind of responsiveness they are ready to launch this year and are not rushing it.
  • But again if they don't have the library and ecosystem, lower latency makes little sense. I also think they're going to have to have a plan to deal with the fact that most of the people interested in streaming already have a library of games they aren't going to want to rebuy or rent on another service. Unless Stadia is super cheap compared to Game Pass + X Cloud then Google is going to fail at least in the short term
  • These aren't special versions of games, It's just the PC version of the game that you can get on Steam. I was in Project Stream and it was just Assassin's Creed exact same game as from Ubisoft store on PC. For being in the beta I even got to keep my copy of Ass Creed and my progress was saved so if I download it from Ubisoft right now on my PC it's where I left off from Project Stream. Now, yes people already have libraries and that will be more troublesome for some more than others. Personally I don't mind starting to build a library in another ecosystem. But keep in mind these are just PC games so there is no reason you wouldn't be able to play with people who also bought the game on Steam for instance. It's just that if bought on Stadia you'll have the ability to play it on any device rather than limited to devices you install Steam on.
  • Google can't just stream a proprietary directX api game without paying Microsoft for a VM license of windows 10 per user like Shadow is currently doing. Google has to stream Vulkan games only. This compared to Microsoft who will be able to stream any Xbox 360/Xbox One Directx 11/12 game.
  • You're completely wrong. Stadia games will run on Linux and Vulkan, they've specifically said this.
  • They specifically said that it is an instance of Linux, so unless the game developers are porting to Linux, it ain't gonna happen........ Steam tried and failed to get developers to do so for their Steam Boxes. Google has an interesting concept here, and I think it will work, but will it be affordable, on a per game, or subscription. Not to mention all the "Hard Core" gamers that will not want to stream, and will cry about always connected requirements
  • Games. Exclusive games. Noone cares for anything else. They are releasing prematurely because they have no exclusive first party. That should have been one of the biggest priorities out there. They spent to much time talking features and YouTube. Just like Xbox One did with TV at its launch. Average Joe consumer isn't going to look at anything but games. Advertising wise, people are going to see oy on Xcloud after seeing games. And are not going to see that on Games for Stadia. So people are going to ask. Why should I choose that over Xcloud. Because there is all these games I can't play if I choose Stadia.
  • I think Google is mainly just interested in being the backbone that allows you to play your games on whatever device you want. They don't need to have exclusives. This isn't a walled garden, if you play a game on Stadia you're going to be playing with the people who bought the game on Steam too. Stadia is just an avenue to give you options so you're not tied to just one device or one location for playing the games you want. Be honest, when was the last time you bought a first part game from Steam? Does Valve even make games anymore lol? I'm being facetious there but you get my point. Having a great store that offers a good quality service doesn't need first party games to be successful, it just needs to fill a need. When Steam launched there wasn't a one stop shop digital storefront to buy games you had to download every game from individual publishers websites and it was a mess. Steam filled that need. Google with Stadia is trying to fill the need of our always on connected devices and giving us access to all our games all the time regardless of location and device, nothing more.
  • I think Google just wants a cut of the third-party market. They don’t care about exclusives on that scale.
  • I was referring to exclusive titles. Not third party. Both will have the same 3rd party titles. It will. Come down to which company has the exclusives. Much like traditional consoles. But in the streaming space.
  • Wait so NOW exclusive games matter? Where was your outcry over the Xbox One having less exclusive games than I can count on one hand? Oh wait, different company, so different rules apply.
  • I have been very vocal about how happy I am that MS has bolstered its first party line up. Pretty sure I've been touting their acquisitions with praise. And I can't wait to see what they are working on. I've been pretty transparent that I want more exclusives on Xbox. And we are getting that now. So yeah Exclusives have and always will be important. I even said numerous times that MS have been doing better on their first Party to go against Google. For 6 months I've said this. So not sure where your getting that from. I'm saying Google need to do the same. Perhaps even more so being new to the game. They have no fanbase. And having no exclusive content gives it 0 identity. At this point who's gonna buy it outside the curious? PC gamers have hardware better than those specs they showed already. Playstation gamers already have access to all the 3rd party it will have. Plus a ton of exclusives. Xbox gamers already have access to all 3rd party it will have. Plus exclusives already and a bigger first party going forward. Switch owners might do it. Or they could wait for Xcloud and have all the same games Stadia will have but also Xbox existing catalog of exclusives plus all the exclusives going forward. At this stage Stadia is nothing but a 3rd party streaming service.
  • If you already have a console, what is the point of streaming? You can already play games natively if you have a console. Streaming means you don't need any special hardware. Just a controller and a fast connection. It is available everywhere, not just tethered to your TV or desktop.
  • Simple, people who want to play the games they have at home, on their tablet/phone/motel TV when away from home.
  • Yup. My son can't play his Xbox games at his mom's because he has no console there. He can't wait to play RDR Online with me and my 2 nephews who live in a different town and have only have one console between them. Think of this type of scenario times at least 30 million. Almost all Xbox players will be able to play anywhere. That's a massive amount of revenue to be had for Microsoft.
  • Will xCloud have cross-save capability? I honestly don't know. But if you're going in with Stadia, then you'll have to play Stadia everywhere (at home or otherwise) to keep your progress. So, it's simple, but only for those that want that one system.
  • @Sin
    But then question does arise. If you want to stream and you want full digital (like Richard) why even buy a XB or the next xbox?
  • Come on mate. I do want full digital. I am already. And yes I will fully utize streaming as well. I can't always get on my Cinema screen TV to play with a family of 5. So streaming on my phone my Xbox games is a fantastic addition. Would I move solely to streaming at some point? Quite possibly. But I'm in no rush. I would have to have a TV with Android on it to start with. And I don't plan on upgrading my TV on the next 3 years.
  • Simple, just because you have access to something doesn't mean you should always use it. For instance, our mobile internet is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than our broadband internet. But when I'm at home, I connect to the WiFi because I don't want to eat into the data I have for my phone. Streaming vs on system is a similar notion. Also if your internet goes down for whatever reason, you don't want that to impact your enjoyment of games at home.
  • That being said I also imagine that in the future there will be a lot of people that forego consoles in favour of solely streaming. Which, remembering your discussion about 100 million Game Pass subscribers is how Microsoft plans on achieving that. If people can pay 10 bucks a month for access to console quality gaming on their phone or tablet, they will do it. I still am of the mindset that in two, maybe three generations consoles will be a thing of the past.
  • @Richard
    We've had debates where you used to downplay the importance of exclusives, so please stop.
    https://www.windowscentral.com/what-were-expecting-microsofts-xbox-e3-20...
  • That's not downplaying the need for exclusives at all. That article and discussion was about the importance of a more powerful machine. With my posts trying to show there are plenty of people who possibly choose their system based on power. Or the better place to play 3rd parties. Not once in any comment did I say MS didn't need more exclusives. The whole argument to my posts in that thread was to reference why people would choose to buy the X. Don't take the discussion out of context to try and paint a picture. The exclusives MS has already people enjoy. Me being one of them. Would I want more? Of course. More is better than what you already have. This discussion is about a new entry into the gaming sector. As I pointed out in another comment to you here. Sony entered with Crash, MS with Halo, Nintendo with Mario. A new Comer needs a reason for consumers to choose that product. Why would anyone choose to leave their ecosystem (Playstation, Xbox, Steam, Nintendo) to play the same 3rd party games they already have access to. But lose all the exclusives they already have? Its a genuine consumer question? OK so you might say we'll they may want to play these 3rd party titles anywhere they are. That's a valid point. But what happens when a consumer sees Xcloud, which does the same thing but has instantly an entire catalog of exclusive games. And a shed load in development already? Please try and forget the arguing we usually do, and see it from the genuine consumer place I'm coming from. From all gamers.
  • I'm not talking anything out of context these are your exact words:
    " Less than 20% of people who buy a PS4 buy its exclusives. Based on some maths of console sales and games sales. That leaves 80% that buy it because its the most powerful. " You're literally saying 20% are buying because of exclusive and 80% because of power. ofc you brought bs numbers to support your argument but that's not your point. In this topic you say:
    "Games. Exclusive games. Noone cares for anything else." Again your exact quote. LOL "Please try and forget the arguing we usually do, and see it from the genuine consumer place I'm coming from. From all gamers."
    Unlike others I don't change my mind. I do believe exclusives are important. So that's why I was happy when Google announce that it'll invest money into making games. And yes, at the moment MS does have more studios, more IPs... The thing here is we know too little about all these future tech to really make a proper prediction about the future. I'm not even sure either Stadia or XCould or other services will be a success...
  • Well those figures aren't wrong. I don't know what you want me to say. I can't force PS4 gamers to buy more God Of War copies. Or Horizon Zero Dawn. But your right. I did say that. In reference to showing you why there was every chance people would choose to buy a more powerful console. You can't take that comment and remove it from the context of that specific article. That's what Fake news does. Remove the context. I'm not arguing. I know you understand the point I'm making.
  • in the linked article, you pretty much make an argument that no one cares about exclusives and only care about power. in this article, you're making the argument that people only care about exclusives. there's no removed context. you added extra context to drive that point home by adding statistics to show exclusives are not important. i honestly don't think anyone understands the point you're making anymore.
  • Again. It was in relation to One X. One X doesn't have any exclusives. Because you could just buy a One S. I was refuting an argument that Noone cares about power. Which is the sole reason X and PS4 Pro exist. More power. I was showing that exclusive sales show that's not the sole reason people chose PS4 to begin with. Look at the article and what the discussion is about. Don't take the comment out of context. That article was written before One X came out. As it turns out One X has been outselling Pro now for awhile according to NPD. So it does show people do buy for power also. This discussion here is about a new gaming company coming in. And exclusives are a must for a new entry.
  • wow You still don't get it.
  • No I get it. Your taking those comments out of context. Like politicians do. And choosing to ignore the 10s of comments I have made on exclusives over the years here. I'm sure in the future you will come back here grab some posts of mine and take them out of the context we are in here and use them. Context is everything.
  • No there is no context. You are clearly saying only 80% didn't buy the console for their exclusive. The only context is that you were on that topic trying to promote MS's XB Scorpio, so you had to hype power there downplaying exclusives in the process.
    Here you are trying to promote MS's XCloud so you are hyping exclusives over all the features provided by Stadia. That's what salespeople do, focus on the product they are selling at the moment. You only talked of exclusives when it comes to XB exclusives or when MS started buying studios. When MS changes their policies, you change the stuff that you're hyping.
  • If you're buying an Xbox or a PS4, I don't think you're the main target. I think this is trying to change who can play what kind of games, where, and and for what price. This could allow someone to play something that requires hundreds of dollars of hardware for a fraction of the price. Exclusives are decisive when price difference is negligible. But if you're looking at someone who can't afford an Xbox or a high-end gaming system, they can now play (theoretically), AAA titles for the cost of the service and controller. So, its not going to be exclusives that make or break it, but literally what is available in their library.
  • Yes, but the total latency then is like 100 ms or less if you add the display input latency and controller latency. Right now Google is 166 to 188 ms.
  • So you agree, the title of the article is misleading?
  • Yes, the wording is important. Looks like the author got his title wrong.
  • Google hasn't completely eliminated latency, that's simply not possible. The controller still needs to connect to the cloud. Besides, you can use Stradia without the controller, so they'll have the same exact issue as Microsoft in those situations.
  • You are right to some extend, and I think the idea to directly connect to Wi-Fi is interesting. However, on the other hand, it means if you are not playing at home, you are probably in trouble (even if you are in somewhere has Wi-Fi, the controller probably can't connect to it if it requires webpage based login; and I think if you use your phone as hotspot, you will have same lag issue). Therefore the controller is opposite to the idea of mobile gaming.
  • No doubt the controller will have an app for Android and iOS (and probably PC) to configure it. I don't think it'll be that big of an issue. You'll probably set it up in the Home app the same way you setup Chromecast.
  • 166-188 is not the same as 145.
  • Makes you think that MS does actually know what they are doing after all.
  • I honestly think they probably wanted to know what Google was doing.
  • I don't think they necessarily need to have much exclusive content if any at launch, they just need content in general.
  • @Richard
    What's important is the number of games not the number of studios. So far we know nothing about the number of teams, number of games, number of employees and how much resource Google is actually putting into this.
  • But we do know they have just a single first party studio. Sure they could have 2 teams in it. But no way they the amount of people in resources at 1 studio in comparison to Sony, Nintendo and now MS. No way. Just look how many employees Sony has across all its studios. MS to now. For something officially releasing in 8 months games needs to be the focus. A reason to want to engage with it. When MS entered they needed a killer exclusive app. They did that with Halo. Sony did it with Crash Bandicoot. There is just nothing screaming buy into me at all.
  • You're talking about different markets. Streaming offers capabilities that standard consoles do not. *That's* the "killer" app. So, its really just going to be what games are available. Exclusives aren't the selling point. Simply *how* you play is the selling point. So, for some people, it's already sold as an idea. They just need a library large enough to keep people happy.
  • Your forgetting entirely about Xcloud. Xcloud is exactly the same. Playable on Android devices (Android TV, phone, tablet), PC, IOS and OSX. The difference being Xcloud has an entire existing library of exclusives. Hriozon 4, Gears 4, Halo 5 etc etc. And 13 studios currently all making exclusive ganes that will be in Xcloud when they release. So my point stands. What AAA title is Google launching with it? And 'IF' they somehow have been working on an exclusive gane for the last 3 or 4 years. How many more are they able to make over the next 3 years with 1 studio? It's telling that Jade has only been head of the first party studio for 6 months. So are they only starting to make an exclusive title now in the last 6 months? So there first title could be 3 years away. Google isn't alone in the streaming war. Xcloud enters public testing this year. And will fully release less than 12 months after Google releases. Google needs big exclusives right from the off. Because the competition has a ton of exclusives coming and existing for Xcloud at its launch right off the bat. It's vital for a new gaming platform to give a reason to consumers over its rivals to purchase them.
  • Unless you can play games on xCloud with just a keyboard and mouse, you'll always be required to purchase *some* game hardware (ie: controller). Stadia lets you play a game without any dedicated purchase of hardware. I played Assassin's Creed Odyssey on my Surface Pro 4. It's similar but not exactly the same. Moreover, I don't think exclusives are going to drive this. Price is going to. The whole crux of why they're doing this is so you can avoid purchasing hardware. It's even been mentioned in xCloud's press release. According to Google, it took a team about a week to optimize a game for Stadia. So it's simply going to be size of library and pricing. Game Pass could give MS an edge here, but only if Google doesn't do something similar. We don't *know* what kind of library Google will have. It's all guesswork in that department. And also, it will still come down to experience as well. Stadia may have less lag and better responsiveness. A lot can happen in less than 12 months. Plus, for all we know, Google may even offer free gaming on the Stadia with ad-support. Who the hell knows?
  • I'm not sure how much Xcloud info you have been following. But I'll break. It down for you. If you so wish you can play with touch controls even on a device that supports it. A developer who makes the game for the physical Xbox One or Xbox 2 next year does 0 extra work for it to work on Xcloud. Nothing at all. It just works on Xcloud straight away. Every game already made for Xbox One. All of them. Will run on Xcloud with no extra work needed whatsoever. Your full Xbox console dashboard comes with you on Xcloud. With Stadia developers have to specifically design for it. It runs a totally different API. They can't even port PC versions across with ease. So the crux of the situation as I see it. Is as follows. Google Stadia very small library of games at launch. Maybe 100 titles by 2020 Xmas? 1 or 2 first party games in the first 2 years max? Xcloud will have 1472 games available at launch. And by 2020 60 or 70 exclusive titles not found on Stadia. That's including every exclusive the Xbox One already has, and adding some via predicting what will release in the next 18 months. I honestly can't see Google competing with that at all. Xcloud is going to steal all the limelight in 3 months at E3. Also it appears Stadia isn't for portable. As it relies on wifi. Heck there controller needs wifi. No mobile network. Xcloud is designed to run on mobile networks. Because MS ha e designed Xcloud differently than Stadia. Part of the high latency code runsocally on the device your using. Making connection speeds needed lower on entry.
  • With so many players entering at once, I fear this market will collapse on itself before it gets a chance to live.
  • That's what betas are for.
  • i think he means "players" as in Microsoft, Google, etc and the market being defined as stream-gaming will collapse.
  • For most of this generation so many MS/XB "fans" used to downplay the importance of exclusives, now it looks like these same people will start hyping them again. It's so funny how people change their priority and opinion based on what a company does.
    Kinect is the future of gaming, BC is important since 2015, Power wasn't important and "subjective" between 2013 to 2017 then it became the most important thing since 2017. LOL Anyway, on XCloud and Stadia, so far I'm not a fan of either. Still early though I like physical, I like gamers having control and not being in a close environment where all your data and information is stored and studied by these companies.
    I saw Google's presentation and the only thing that got me interested was when they announced a new studio, meaning they'll invest money to make games. I think that's the one thing I'll take from the presentation.
  • I've got to admit the sudden emphasis on exclusives now has made me laugh.
  • Maybe the 'fans' downplayed the importance of exclusives, but certainly not Phil Spencer and the Xbox leadership who have been on a shopping spree for first party studios over the last year, and also working hard on backwards compatibility. It's all about content, Sony and Nintendo know this very very well, and I think Xbox has learned as well. Tech without the content is dead because it really is all about the games whether people want to admit it or not.
  • It's the fans that I was talking about, specifically fans on this very website. You dare bring up the wealth of Sony exclusive games and you'll be shot down quick smart, but now, suddenly because Microsoft has the potential to have an increased level of exclusive titles (we are merely assuming that all of the acquired studios don't end up getting shut down like previous efforts)suddenly exclusives matter. Funnily enough it kind of reminds me of the resolution arguments, resolution and graphical fidelity meant nothing between the Xbox One and PS4, suddenly now that it's the One X and PS4 Pro, 4k and visual quality is suddenly the most important part of console gaming.
  • Which fans exactly? Can you point them out other than Richard? It's funny how people who don't even own an Xbox or maybe played 1-2 MS games via steam spend so much time commenting and trolling people on this website when they should supposedly be busy playing all those exclusives that Sony has....
  • Which fans?
    Well you for one. You're a perfect example. Someone who has been downplaying the importance of exclusives when talking about the lack of exclusives on XB1 vs the PS4, while hyping MS's exclusives and hyping the purchase of new studios...
    Yes, I can point out others... The rest of your comment is the typical argument, when a company "fan" runs out of argument. Try to censor someone's opinion and criticism...
    I don't know about you but I live in a country where I have freedom of speech and I have the right to give my opinion. Don't come here and tell gamers/consumers to shut up because we consumers have a rights and have a freedom of speech just like how company "fans" have the right to try and damage control for the company they worship...
    Even though it doesn't really matter I did play a couple of games on XB Win10. That's because MS hardly made exclusives this gen... But like I said, that doesn't everyone can give their opinion whether they are fanboys, casual gamers or potential customers or anyone else... If my opinions upset you, you're free to ignore it. You are free to discuss gaming with me or you would just move along like you usually do.
  • To be honest the majority of people (and no I'm not going to scrounge through months of articles to find names) are decidedly hush about it lately. But then again, Sony hasn't released an exclusive game in a little while so there has been no reason for people to get uppity. Also... https://xboxgamertag.com/search/Sin-Ogaris/ But yeah, you're right, I've only played "1-2 MS games via steam".
  • From the numbers, I still think most exclusives are lesser important.
    Infra, synergy between services and devices, business stragetic and the ability to grab more FIFA, COD, GTA, BF, Witcher typpa gamer, get'em invest time and money building their game lib and saves, and bind'em to the ecosystem are the key towards long term revenue. Examples? AppStore, PlayStore, Steam user against Epic and other game stores and some devs. Having more studios and games are not the key to win this game streaming race.
    YT integration is smart, but the weak spot of Stadia is the lack of local solution. Stream gaming won't be abailable on a flight, on a train, behind thick walls or in a basement of some coffee or restaurant.
    Xbox runs game natively and it has cross-gen-play/save, then XPA / xvc for PC and on top of that, you have xCloud for low specs/arm64 notebooks or phones, for conveniences, for gaming on the go.
    How do you justify your purchase? Gamepad gaming on the go attracts eyes, which equals to free ads.
    If one's playing FIFA, Red Dead online,, Guagamelee2, some brawl games or Anthem in the coffee or school, they will ask if their friends wants to join.
  • "From the numbers"
    What numbers? We are talking about console choice or in this case which service to use. People won't choose one over another based on what's common but based on the differences. In this case games. People buy consoles to play games. Console history shows that consoles with bigger library sells the most every generation.
  • I've seen one guy on this thread talk about the importance of exclusives, but talked about it a lot. Don't confuse a few loud voices with lots of people.
  • Well, there is this one guy, but I've seen many of these people hype an exclusive if it's made by MS/XB or when MS announce acquisition of new studios.
  • If people enjoy the openness of PC these announcements should be worrying. At best we will have a concole like war where you need multiple services to play the games you want. At worse you have a netflix like battle where one month you can play ubisoft games then the next month you cant because ubisoft went to another service or decided to make their own for $5 a month. I would be surprised if I buy the game from steam/gog and then can play it on xcloud or stadia. I am pretty sure its a “buy it on stadia” or “included for 2 years in xcloud” kind of thing.
  • Xbox Anywhere is going to be great!
  • Depending on how they structure it, yes it will/could be. It needs to be part of Gold or Game Pass.
  • I still care little about exclusive games, no matter if Xbox has more than PS or Google in the future. I have great feelings about this service, I just hope they pan out. I will wait on seeing the end product (or hopefully a beta) to give opinions on the outcome and strengths/weaknesses of a service. I suggest everyone else do as well.
  • Apparently according to Sony fanboys all MS fans specifically on this site only care about exclusives now all of a sudden.
  • If Game Pass is required to get Project xCloud (and it allows me to play even the games I own which are not offered on Game Pass), I'll be subscribing asap. If Game Pass is not required for Project xCloud and I can play all of my games on it, I'll skip Game Pass but definitely get Project xCloud.
  • Unfortunately until we either get faster broadband where I live, or better caps on mobile internet, game streaming just isn't feasible for me, which is a real shame because I travel a lot and to be able to play my Xbox collection on the road would be a godsend.
  • And I hope Microsoft does not abandon India just as Sony did with Playstation now. I know Microsoft has good infrastructure in India.