Head of Xbox Phil Spencer: 'We See Amazon and Google as Main Competitors Going Forward,' Not Nintendo and Sony - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 01 April 2020 / 5,347 Views
Head of Xbox Phil Spencer speaking with The Verge said going forward he sees Amazon and Google as its main competition for the future, and not Nintendo and Sony.
"When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward," said Spencer.
"That’s not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we’ve invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years."
Microsoft stopped reporting sales figures for the Xbox years ago and has since focused on reporting the number of Xbox Live Gold and Xbox Game Pass subscribers. Microsoft has also been running trials on its own streaming service, Project xCloud, which will fully launch later this year.
The company has been focused on releasing their video games on as many platforms as possible, by releasing all their first-party games on launch day on the Xbox One and Windows PC.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays and tutorials. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Ok. So we have three console makers and none are competing with each other.....ok then.
They certainly do compete, regardless of what any of them say. However, they do all appear to have different philosophies that lead to (somewhat) different target markets, at least in their plans for the next several years. So, they do seem to be less directly competitive than at any time in the past.
Technically Sony did aswell with buddy upping with Azure.
Google Stadia had 50 days without a new game release. I can somehow understand that Microsoft feels right to compete with them.
Sounds about right, except that I expect Sony (and possible Ninty at some point) will also compete in the streaming/subscription space. MS had trouble competing in the traditional console market, and they saw the changes coming. So, they decided to focus on competing in the new markets where they're well positioned, rather than the old market, where they're not.
Of course, they are still playing in the traditional console space. So, whether they admit it or not, they clearly do still see it as important to some degree.
I think Xcloud will only be the successful streaming service to be honest, that is based on content, Stadia has failed already, no idea why MS sees them as an competitor.
Stadia aside, Google will likely be active in gaming in one way or another.
...because Amazon's gaming service is practically non-existent, and Google just started? In other words Phil is saying "We're competing with companies that barely have a grasp in the video gaming market to feel like we're doing better!" ...that's how im reading it lol And if you're really not focusing on consoles anymore than why create/boast about making a high end powerful console?
They completely failed in the console market, and they are trying to spin things so they can have some bragging rights. Phil Spencer looked like a sensible choice when he took over Xbox, but honestly, I don't think he has what it takes to take the brand to the next level. Dozens of failed promises, proof of concepts, and studio acquisitions without any results (yet), do nothing for me, and it has a chance of ruining the brand to the point of no return. What happens when xCloud falters, or when game pass stops growing? What excuses will they come up with next?
@ hunter_alien: Completely agree. I dont think Phil has done anything significant to strengthen the Xbox brand. He needs to be replaced. @ Jranation: Obviously MS can build a consoles and I have nothing against that, but if your building a product similar to other companies than those companies are your competitors. Phil just sounds like he's in denial now.
Where does he say they aren’t focusing on consoles? How else are they supposed to get people into all of these games lol.
And yeah Amazon doesn’t have their gaming stuff going yet but you don’t become a huge company like MS by focusing solely on the present.
Interesting statement. I guess MS will fully become a service provider rather than a classic platform.
I sense a lot of spin coming.
Explains why MS is fine with letting Sony run their Playstation stuff on Azure.
I think they'd be happy for Sony to use Azure whether they're a competitor or not. In that instance, MS wins even if XB loses.
He is saying that because he knows he can`t outsell both but can try against the Stadia kkkk
He says that because his goal is to make more money than both. Not worry about a nickle in a pond buisness model that Nintendo and Sony struggle getting out of.
I'm pretty sure you struggle even more to make a correct post regarding market, sales and etc on VGC.
Sony and Nintendo are certainly struggling on their consoles business model kkk. PS+ alone have more revenue and profit than MS gaming division probably.
@Don are we even talking about the same thing? Iv been saying for many years what Phil just said now in this article. So yes it seems i am right and Phil just nailed it for me.
Also is Nintendo and Xbox struggling? Isnt the best the best selling console currently? Please enlighten me.
This made my day... Just hilarious XD
So basically after taking 3 consecutive Loses to Sony (2 against Nintendo), they want to distance themselves from that race at least in the media, to enter another race where they will likely keep taking Ls. As long as Microsoft keeps making hardware they are in direct competition with Sony and Nintendo..
I see them handily beating Stadia.
Token victory against Stadia.
What do you determine losses? The company that makes the least amount of money? Because last gen i wouldn't say they lost.
Well the stadia defeated itself lol Loses as in losing every sales race in 3 generations. There was an upward trajectory at least during their first two gens, but everything came crashing down with the X1.
The X1 did exactly what the PS3 did at launch and tripped and lost a whole bunch of market share. All companies have slipped up even Nintendo. Xbox only slipped up once same as Sony so i still dont get your point.
Sony slipped early in the PS3 gen...the proceeded to overtake the 360 in sales...Xbox 1 slipped early this gen....the proceeded to lose market share to Sony and eventually even Nintendo, though they had a 4 year head start. It is not the same situation at all. I will give you Nintendo, the Wii U was a disaster.
Sales don't determine success, profit does. PS3 lost more money than any other console on the market last gen and the XB1 is not a money losing machine this gen even though it has sold a lot less than the 360 did. All companies have stuffed up majority at least once and the XB1 being the Xboxes worst isn't true or near as bad as what Sony or Nintendo have done. In fact the XB1 is more successful than the OG Xbox because the OG Xbox didn't make as much profit compared to its successors.
So it's official now, Console Wars are dead.
In the words of the Arbiter "were is it so easy"
At least with amazon and google, MS have a chance to win.
He can say they aren't competing but he's just wrong. If Sony and Nintendo disappeared and no longer provided gameshardware Xbox would be looking at over 110m users coming into their ecosystem. That's called competition.
"That's not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we've invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years.".................... I know PS employee's as well as management were surprised and upset to find out they have partnered and are paying to use MS Azure, but just wait until someone actually tells Phil...
Sometimes I feel like people at video game companies purposely say weird things to stir up the comments section.
Sony will use MS Azure, I can imagine they would be ok if Sony keeps their streaming to their consoles and that's it. MS wants the phone streaming marketshare, which Sony and especially Nintendo have no infrastructure.
Pretty clear that VGC users are better at spinning comments than Phil now.
It's what they should've been focusing on in the first place
He's right. I believe the future is streaming and a "Netflix" style gaming service. Only those 3 companies have the infrastructure. Nintendo has carved their own niche and is expanding in other fields, Sony kinda painted themselves into a corner. I know that gaming still favors high powered local machines... but that is a dead end road. I have to assume that dedicated consoles will eventually only serve countries with outdated infrastructure. Look at Tec Toy and Brazil. But the eventuality is just how all other media has become. On demand, ubiquitous, with various hardware delivering services.
I understand the purists. I grew up on consoles starting with the ColecoVision. Things are changing fast and if you can't see it then you will eventually and soon enough.
Makes sense, Xbox is moving towards live services so Amazon and Google are the ones they should keep an eye on. Sony and Nintendo are more about single player experiences. I'd say they are no longer direct competitors, but they are still competing, as long as Microsoft wishes to sell consoles, that is.
I guess it makes sense coming from the mouth of someone that said X1X didn't compete with any console because it was very strong while PS4Pro was competing with X1S. This guy is delusional.
So we can expect Halo on Switch and Playstation in near future or God of War on Xbox ???
Battle of the services not consoles. Aslong as PSN exists, dont expect Halo on PS.
I have no desire for Halo on PS.
Cant believe gamers still believe its about console sales, iv been saying for many years now and it didn't take a CEO of a major corporation to tell me. Guess gamers need something to hang there hat on. Obvious is obvious.
Oh please. What in the name of fuck should we care about if not the games, and lets face it, right now you get those on the ye'old PC's and consoles my friend. But hey Azzanation, you know what you are talking about, right? I mean it's not like every single one of your predictions this past generation was a complete failure ;-) Get off your fucking high horse, you are not a visionary, and never was.
@hunter_alien You must hate it when I am always right, not once have you proved me wrong and never will. Start getting use to it. Not a fan of your language either.
Meh, could not give a damn if you are a fan or not, I speak my mind as I wish, as this is a public forum. And your prediction history speaks louder than your made up fantasy. But hey, good luck mate, as lets not forget, even a broken clock manages to tell the correct time now and then :-)
Yet here you are, telling me im wrong yet you are in an article where a CEO is telling us exactly what iv been saying for years. Again my prediction is correct, so your point means nothing here. My prediction history is doing quite well, again it was never rocket science. Agree or disagree i could care less. The article here is the fact.
Well, there is no denying what Phil is saying. The question never was about that. The question was how successful his vision is and how far will he go to actually deliver it. If last generation is anything to go by, it wont be a fully realized dream. But we are going in circles here. Time will tell, how well he will deliver on his promise and how receptive gamers will be to it.
Was never rocket science with the direction of there infrastructures. This is only a matter of time. It was never about selling more consoles, was always about gaining more subscribers.
I don't agree that "it was never" about selling more consoles. But, it certainly is more important to sell subscriptions than consoles now.
That's unfortunate. Microsoft Xbox is doing ok(ish) competing against Nintendo and Sony. They are doing really badly competing against Amazon and Google. I'm pretty sure that both Amazon and Google sell more games than Microsoft...
Or what metric are they using? Azure vs AWS vs Google Cloud - that's not part of your group, Phil...
"Amazon and Google sell more games than Microsoft"... Wut? I agree with the rest of your post, but that makes zero sense.
"Focusing on a different avenue of gaming" sounds like Microsoft throwing in the towel in the console market and hoping they'll fare better in cloud gaming.
The (apparent) failure, or at least very bad launch of Stadia serves as a good lesson in just how tough the gaming business is. We often focus on the stupid moves that Sony, MS, and Ninty make. But, these companies have managed to succeed in a business that has tripped up tech giants and big consumer electronics companies many times.
Essay Pro