Phil Spencer Declares 'Big Milestone' As Xbox Debuts Four Games On Nvidia GeForce Now

Gears 5 is an interesting starting pick given the franchise currently is MIA. Does make it seem that there's big Gears news in the showcase (perhaps the combination of a collection and Gears 6).

phil cares about everything but the xbox consoles.

@Kaloudz lol at the Beavis and Butthead comment! I think you're spot on

As others have stated, Cloud itself isn't really a 'platform' its more of an accessory, more of an 'addition' to the Gamer. You still need to 'own' these games to play on 'Physical' hardware but unlike Game Pass Cloud, its not 'limited' to just a 'small' selection of titles. Once those games are rotated out, you can NO LONGER play them via Cloud on Xbox and you can't (yet) cloud stream games you 'bought'.

This is basically still 'selling' those games and allowing the Consumer to choose who they prefer to use for adding that extra 'feature' to stream to 'ANY' device Games you OWN, Not a 'selection of games in a 'Library' you 'Borrow' for a period of time. Point is, you don't have to buy on Xbox/Xbox store, have to subscribe to MS/Xbox or even use 'Windows' based options - you buy on 'Steam Deck' (Linux based) and sign up to GeForce Now for example and stream to Android/iOS device.

All this does is make the CMA look even more 'out of touch' with technology and gaming. Counting EVERYONE on 'Ultimate' as a Cloud Gamer is WRONG too - the majority barely use Cloud. The 'tiny' Library of games available to 'stream' isn't the same as being able to stream ANY game you 'buy' - yes I maybe able to 'stream' CoD for a 'small monthly fee, but if that leaves Cloud, I still have to 'buy' it to keep playing and cannot 'stream' it anymore on 'Xbox', but on these services, you buy a game on PC, you can't stream it unless you sub to a service.

GeForce Now lets you stream games you OWN - an additional Sub service to allow you to take your Library anywhere, not 'rely' on a 'small' selection of titles that you may/may not want to play. Xbox Cloud is more like a 'Library' where you can 'borrow' and/or try a small (less than the total number of Game Pass games) selection of games anywhere but have 'no' choice in what games are in that 'selection'.

Until you can 'buy' games on Xbox that will automatically become available to 'Stream' anywhere because 'you' bought it, then Game Pass Cloud is not as 'Compelling' as those other services. Its also not stopping them from Competing, if anything, it gives them an Advantage to PC gamers who can buy from Steam, Epic etc and stream games anywhere- thus giving the Consumer total control over their Library of Streamable games...

@themightyant That's a bit like saying Nintendo doesn't Compete with MS/Sony because their Hardware is more of a Hand-held and so is in a 'different' market.

Yet all these are competing for Consumers Money and leisure time, all competing for 'Gamers' with their 'own' business model, own USPs etc. As I said above, Xbox Cloud is currently limited to a 'Small' selection of games Consumers have 'no choice' in, its letting you 'borrow' games and play them via Cloud for a limited time. GeForce Now and 'others' arte letting you Stream the Games you 'own'. Its adding 'consumer' choice. Buy on Epic/Steam, Sub with us and you can play these 'ANYWHERE'. Its letting you take 'your' digital Library anywhere, not 'borrow' a selection of games for a 'limited' time that could be 'unplayable' on cloud tomorrow.

Game Pass Cloud is a 'different' service, but not necessarily better/worse. It doesn't stop those 'other' services from Competing in a 'different' way to allow Consumers to play games on 'any' device, still competing for Gamers Time/Money. Cloud is just an 'added' feature.

Its more like PC gamers paying a Subscription to open up Cloud options on their own Library, much like Console gamers have to pay a Subscription to open up 'Online' options in their Games. Its not a 'Platform' in either case, its a supplementary 'feature' to add more 'reach' and/or more 'options' for the Gamer/Consumer to play 'games' anywhere - not 'just' on the Gaming Hardware you predominantly game on...

Xbox Cloud is at best for the very budget limited or very casual gamer - someone who is 'happy' with only about 250 games being available, don't care if the game they were playing is no longer available because its replaced by something else, can't afford to be 'picky/choosy' and for just $10 a month, its more than 'adequate' for them.

Game Pass PC/Xbox are supplemental Libraries bringing a selection of Games (new & old) to Consumers to try before they buy, enjoy whilst they 'can' but again, not 'owned' by you so you have 'no' control over access and certainly not which ones you can play via Cloud. Its literally like being a 'member' of your local Library in order to Supplement your 'OWN' book library at home - read books you didn't want/need to buy - at least until the Library rotates those 'books' out so you have no choice but to 'buy' to be able to read at your leisure anytime/anywhere...

Google Stadia was a 'closed' system and not really as open as the PC market place. You had to Subscribe because it was ALL cloud based - not an 'optional' feature you could use to take your games anywhere, but could still play 'Locally' on the Hardware if/when internet is slow or you want the 'best' gaming experience with lowest Lag/Latency and NO PQ Compression. GeForce Now may be doing something Similar, but its 'optional' IF you want to play the PC games you own on ANY device instead of 'just' the PC you game on so if you are not at home, you can still play 'your' games.

Playing chess again aren't you

Cloud gaming is at best a speculative market at this point. The far and away "leader" offers cloud gaming only as a small add on to a larger package that is not primarily used for cloud streaming. I believe data would show that cloud gaming is a very small portion of gamepass usage time. An even smaller number cloud game with gamepass without owning an xbox console or gaming pc. Sony also offers cloud streaming but only as the same small perk to a subscription that is primarily used for non cloud gaming activity.

Even Nvidia GeForce now, I would argue that the true market is Steam, epic,gog, windows market, etc where they actually purchased the game they want to stream.

I believe that if/when cloud gaming does become a legitimate market, it will be the same major players as the normal videogame market. Steam/sony/xbox/etc. It will likely always be a perk to their actual storefront or service. I don't really see xbox as having that big of an advantage even in the hypothetical scenario of having COD exclusive.

It's more likely that cloud gaming remains niche and TVs, laptops, tablets, phones come standard with the kinds of chipsets and storage that the systems like steam deck, switch, or Asus rog ally use to natively run games from their own or other store fronts.

The whole cloud argument is the CMAs version of the FTCs "high end home console" that was used to exclude Nintendo,pc, and mobile from their claim of harm.

Who cares about cloud gaming we just want the games phil not interested in cloud or more cbox control pads I don't think he really gets it at all

@Kaloudz You leave Beavis and Butt-Head out of this, they were misguided teens.

@themightyant The 'ONLY' difference is that MS makes their OWN games here so they can CHOOSE to put their games into a 'small' Library as and when they want as part of that Subscription service. If their 'Cloud' service expands into a 'Similar' service as well as a 'small' selection of games you 'borrow', Still 'subsidised by SALES of their games on Steam or any OTHER Platform that sells the 'game' and has a 'Sub service' to Stream games you own too - but that's with THEIR OWN IP's.

Sony could start up their own Cloud based competitor tomorrow with their OWN games in their Day/Date, and a way to buy to play on Cloud via Subscription with their OWN IP's too - nothing at all stopping them Competing with the EXACT same format and 'potential' to expand to inc Streaming of Games owned - compete on Price and offer Sony Pictures TV/Movie streaming content on top of 'just' Games.

EA or Ubisoft 'could' expand EA Access/Ubisoft+ to Cloud stream their Games - ALL their games from their 'history' and future to compete too if they believe the Cloud is the 'best' Distribution model for them, or 'expect' to SELL their games before ANYONE can Play them, whether on a Specific Platform or 'Cloud' based option.

I really don't think its 'unreasonable' to expect anyone to sell their OWN products and/or decide to offer them in a Sub Service model. MS can still never offer Zelda or Uncharted, Mario or Horizon etc etc on their 'cloud' service so both Nintendo and Sony can use those 'IP's' to get you in and/or compete with in the Cloud.

GeForce Now Competes with Xbox Cloud - its a Sub service that lets you play your games anywhere and with 'better' visual and performance metrics too. Its going to appeal to 'more' gamers who want to play 'their' games on Cloud, not the selection MS decides you can play...

Game Pass may have 510 games right now, but of those, at least half if not more are not available to play on Cloud at all - they are 'download to hardware' only and as you can only play around 250 games on cloud, those that MS decides it wants you to play on Cloud, its extremely 'limited' in appeal to Gamers who want to play their games in the Cloud. Its a 'bonus' supplemental feature to Game Pass as a way to play a 'few games' on the go, but you can't play every game or even every 'Game Pass' game either without Hardware...

As I said, its a supplemental 'service' and in reality, how many people do you see really playing 'CoD' on Cloud with the 'extra' lag/latency as well as a hit to the image quality you'd suffer - even compared to playing on a Series S. It may also not offer 120hz modes either that 'hardware' offers - so GPU, whilst it may offer Cloud, is not every person Subscribed likely to play on Cloud.

As you are aware, MS is open to Sony and their 'Subscription' service too - the same 'agreements' and same freedoms should apply here too - just like with other now owned by Xbox games and PS+ in recent months.

The whole Cloud argument from the CMA is completely flawed and really doesn't 'prevent' competition, its actually promoting Competition because its an 'open' market. There is nothing stopping ANYONE from setting up their OWN streaming service, - if you don't have 'IP's' of your own, then you need a way to get IP's into that service - MS makes games (so does Sony, EA etc) or at least get 'Publishers' to sell the game on that service to get 'revenue' from the consumer and let them stream it Licence free through another's sub streaming service without having to sub to Game Pass ONLY to play on Cloud. MS is 'open' to let others offer Cloud because it 'helps' grow Cloud, helps promote Cloud Gaming and make it 'more' accessible to 'more' gamers. They want 'Sony' to Compete, they want great games available to 'more' people in 'more' ways. They also believe that if they own a game, a customer should have 'access' to it forever - even if that's only on PC's and/or cloud services because Consoles are replaced by 'streaming'! So digital Libraries with Steam should be playable on Cloud too so we support ANY service that is willing to let gamers play the games they own 'anywhere' to especially ours...

Games can run on ANY OS, ANY servers - whether Azure, Google, Amazon or building their own to Connect to the Internet and stream data, let them play 'anywhere' the internet is available. MS doesn't control or prevent anyone from 'competing' now or long term with this Purchase...

@Grumblevolcano Gears 5 is literally the best thing they have to offer from a straight visual perspective and performance perspective on PC. If you was going to jump to a new platform put your best foot forward which is Gears 5.

@themightyant "That isn't direct competition for Microsoft's cloud subscription model (Game Pass) where you get all the games included for just £10.99 per month."

Well, YES and NO. You're right in that in order to play these games on other cloud services you must first own a copy of the game, thereby still giving money to Microsoft/Xbox in the process. That said, every person playing these games through GeForce Now or another (non Xbox Cloud Gaming) Cloud service is a person that is likely not playing it through XCloud.

In order for them to play it through GeForce Now or other, they still have to pay those cloud service providers. Therefore while Microsoft is getting the biggest cut of the cheque here, they're still giving rival cloud services publicity, a potential increase in subscriber count AND a potential increase in profit for them.

So Microsoft benefits, as do these cloud services. Seems everyone wins in this scenario, but if I'm wrong I'd love for someone to correct me in the comments. I'm not fully aware of how these cloud services operate so I may have misunderstood some of the finer details...

@themightyant "You have to buy and own those Microsoft games separately and then ALSO pay a cloud subscription fee (£7.49 - £14.99 per month). It's far closer to the failed Stadia model except built on libraries where you might already own games (Steam, Epic etc.)"

You do know GeForce Now offers a free tier. There is no you ALSO have to pay a Cloud subscription. You can pay a fee if you want to play on 3080+ rigs, but a fee is not need if you just want to use GeForce Now. This is why GeForce Now won a massive victory over Stadia once they started adding F2P games like Fortnite and Dauntless

@themightyant Exactly, plus the CMA stated Microsoft are still dictating the terms of these 10 year contracts, so they are in full control of what games are released and when. The EU stated the merger will damage cloud gaming competition, thus forcing Microsoft to give free licensing, that wasn't Microsoft's idea.
You have to buy games on the Nvidia streaming service as you say, they offer the odd free game but they are generally very old titles.
All MS are doing is meeting their terms of the contract and trying to woo regulators. But they haven't changed anything that the CMA has issues with.

@themightyant Good information there. I didn't know that cloud gaming was growing so fast.

@themightyant But even with those 'IP's', MS won't own the vast majority of Gaming IP's to monopolise Cloud. They may well have 'history' - something MS 'lacks' in gaming compared to others, but Sony has more IP's they can 'bring' to Cloud to Compete.

EA has some of the Biggest IP's too - Fifa, Battlefield, Mass Effect, Madden etc. Nintendo has Zelda, Mario, Pokemon etc too and all of these 'Publishers' have IP's to compete with Game Pass.

As I said, if Sony wanted to build PS5 APU's into servers and bring 'Playstation' to the Cloud, they can Compete with Xbox - games like Spider-Man, Destiny, Wolverine, MLB, Uncharted, Last of Us, God of War, Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima, Returnal etc etc - Award Winning games and also some of the biggest IP's to pull in customers who want to play 'Playstation' via the Cloud.

MS can only control the Games/Studio's they own and with so many other Publishers, Studio's and game IP's out there, MS can never monopolise Gaming/Cloud. Sony would probably jump to #1 if they started a Cloud service with their 'history', their IP's and their fanbase.

Whatever you seem to keep arguing - the fact is that MS can't control Sony or Prevent them from Competing in Cloud with their OWN Unique IP's or stop ANY company from Competing in Cloud. You still haven't answered why 'those' games in particular can somehow 'monopolise' Cloud, yet won't on Hardware because its already been ascertained that Sony have a Strong list of 'exclusives' that will pull people in to Playstation to 'compete'.

Netflix, even with its massive lead and wealth of content, couldn't prevent Disney+ from Competing. Why? because the Cloud is an OPEN market and if you have 'content' you own/control, you can use that to pull people into your Service. If the ONLY way to play Spider-Man, Uncharted, LoU etc is via PS+ Cloud, you'll subscribe to PS+ to play and that will compete with Game Pass and the games in that service. MS is never likely to have GTA, Fifa, Spider-Man, Zelda, Mario or any of the OTHER massive games they don't OWN - therefore the 'owners' can use those to Compete for Consumers...

No matter my thoughts on this, I'm just pretty concerned how it will affect me personally, as an Xbox user in the UK who likes COD, bottom line is I want to know if this ends up with COD being removed from Xbox in the UK, or if I end up paying more for Game Pass but have less games on it like other regions get, if the service gets a price increase.
So long as COD remains available in some form or another that's fine. Oh and Diablo too.

@BAMozzy Your not using that argument are you? PS has more games to entice people onto cloud? Even after Sony proved that COD makes them more money then all their exclusives combined practically. COD is several times larger then Sonys IP is.

@S1ayeR74 CoD is churned out annually and available on More Hardware to make more Money - especially with loot boxes, MTX and Season Passes.

Spider-Man is a much bigger IP across ALL media, makes a LOT more money and much more likely to bring new' gamers in to Playstation. Kids will grow up recognising Spider-Man and associating it with Playstation so will still pull people into 'Playstation' to play - along with ALL their other Exclusive IP's they can put in their Service. Couple that with their Sony Pictures TV/Movie IP's they could ALSO use to bring people into their 'Sony' Cloud Service (Games, Movies, TV content) and they could become 'bigger' than Game Pass - especially as Sony and Playstation have a massive Fanbase they could attract in.

MS can't offer Sony, Nintendo or ANY other Publishers games into Game Pass - all they can do is put their OWN games into Cloud to encourage gamers to sign up to their Service. Sony can start their own with their OWN IP's and 'Compete' - its not just their IP's, but there partnership with SE for example could allow them to offer Final Fantasy 'exclusively' on Cloud too to 'compete'.

The Money argument is completely flawed as ABK have a very different business model for CoD than Sony does for Spider-Man and, its not as if MS isn't willing to offer CoD to Sony too so they can 'keep' selling, keep making their 30% cut for absolutely 'nothing' and even willing to let them have CoD on their service too. ABK want to push out 'new' games every year so consumers have to 'start again', and therefore have to buy new Seasonal content etc so makes as much money as possible - considering they 'lose' a sizeable chunk of 'their' money to the 'Platform' holder/retailers.

But the point still stands that Sony have 'more' IP's including many of the Game of the Year Award winning titles and those games will never be on Game Pass and Gamers will still want to play these. In a 'hypothetical' cloud ONLY world, Sony has more IP's and a bigger 'fanbase' too so would likely be #1 in cloud services too - its not as if Consumers can ONLY sub to Game Pass or PS+, just like you don't have to choose Netflix or Disney+ - Consumers will go where the Content they want to play is and MS can't control all the content - can't even control the 'majority' of IP's. Fifa, Madden, Need for Speed, Assassins Creed, Far Cry, GTA, Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Destiny, Sonic, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, MGS, Silent Hill, Battlefield, Star Wars, Borderlands, the Witcher etc etc etc etc - and that's without Sony's IP's.

The ONLY thing stopping Sony or 'others' from competing is the fact that its such a 'tiny' market right now and most gamers 'prefer' to game on Hardware. I honestly can't see people playing 'CoD' on Cloud unless its their ONLY option at that time. Its likely 'limited' to 1080p (or 720p on Mobile networks) and 60fps -no '4k' or 120fps modes - and with Compression Artefacts as well as increased lag/latency, they'll be at a 'disadvantage' so I doubt people will use 'Cloud' unless its the 'ONLY' option to 'supplement' their Hardware option, let them play when away from the Sofa/Desk.

Cloud 'competes' with Hardware too - its not 'Cloud' or 'Hardware'. Its still competing for your time/money and if you are playing on Cloud 'or' Hardware, you can't be on 'both' together. Its much more likely that you'll game on Hardware and use 'Cloud' when you are away from your 'primary' gaming Platform. Its NOT a separate thing. Its at best a Supplement to Hardware gaming, at worst, its probably the 'entry' point to 'premium' gaming for those who can't afford even a Series S to play games so wouldn't be 'buying' $70+ games anyway...

@themightyant Again, that doesn't stop OTHERS from Competing 'now' or in 10yrs time. They still have their OWN unique Content they can offer their Customers to bring them in to their Service - if you want to play 'Sony's' games via the Cloud, then you'll need Sony to offer Cloud and they don't have to use MS Infrastructure to deliver that either - they can build their own, can use Google or Amazon servers - whatever they want to do. The CMA are not meant to stop/stifle 'growth', they are there to protect Competition and stop any Company from being a Monopoly. As this doesn't prevent Competition or give MS control over the vast majority of IPs/Studios or even Game Releases every year, they can't prevent those Publishers from 'competing' for Consumers Time and/or Money...

The reason I bring up Sony or 'Monopoly' is because that this deal doesn't prevent Sony from 'competing' and being able to 'compete' in Cloud services and as MS can't offer 'EVERY' or even the 'Majority' of games in their service, it gives them 'room' to compete with their OWN unique content. MS doesn't control the Internet and/or what servers you can 'connect' to. Therefore, ANY company can 'compete' with MS.

You keep going on as if MS are 'Netflix' who was able to build up 200m+ subscribers and what chance has ANYONE got to compete against that - Disney+ found a way, as does all the OTHER streaming content services...

Being first doesn't guarantee domination, monopoly and/or prevention of 'Competition' - it often paves the way for Competing services who perhaps hadn't considered streaming as a 'viable' Market but as Consumers 'choose' to use Streaming more and more, they change their 'business' model to facilitate this 'new' open market.

Why 'stop' MS acquiring IP's to Compete with the number of IP's Sony has - after this deal goes through, Sony still owns more IPs, own more 'exclusive' software they can use to 'compete' for Subscriptions against Microsofts 'Subscription' services. Just because you can't play PS4/5 games on Cloud doesn't mean they 'couldn't' in the future - it doesn't suit Sony right now who are very Sales based - they would rather force you to buy Hardware, buy games etc than offer their games to 'stream' for a 'small' monthly fee - but that doesn't mean they can't or won't at some point IF consumers decide that 'Cloud' is the future...

Its the CMA's 'mistake', hence the ONLY one out of about 35-40 regions to 'block'. Everyone else knows that Cloud is an 'open' market and therefore MS cannot 'block, prevent or make it difficult for ANY company to start a 'Competing' Cloud service and Compete with their OWN Unique Software. Maybe you will need 10 different Sub services to play ALL the games you want on Cloud, or just a PC to play the vast majority on Local Hardware and a 'single' Sub service to play games you own on Cloud...

Posturing for the Activision deal. This would not be a thing without that going one.

@BAMozzy “CoD is churned out annually and available on More Hardware to make more Money - especially with loot boxes, MTX and Season Passes.
Spider-Man is a much bigger IP across ALL media, makes a LOT more money and much more likely to bring new' gamers in to Playstation.”

You cannot include Spider Man films in your argument about a game, because in terms of revenue for games COD totally dominates Spider Man, Sony themselves have officially stated this in their argument, you have this false mindset that Sony exclusives are bigger then any other game, that’s totally wrong and ignores facts, most players play COD, Fortnite, Minecraft and FIFA. They have a PlayStation because their mates got one. The sales figures of Sonys exclusives prove that.

The majority of gamers don’t even know what the game of the year awards are, you are attempting to use a small minority as the default for the mass majority, it’s a complete lie to do so and is false, you seem to be deluded by this?

Cloud gaming has tripled in the last year in the U.K. alone, it won’t be a small market for much longer, Microsoft wouldn’t be investing money into it if it wasn’t intending to grow it.

@S1ayeR74 The point is that Spider-Man is a 'bigger' IP and therefore will attract 'more' people in to Playstation because Playstation has 'Spider-Man' - an award winning Game based on that IP, an IP they grew up with, had the comics, the merchandise etc and the Spider-Man logo is much bigger 'Globally' to appeal to far more people than 'CoD' does 'Globally'

New Gamers aren't the 18+ that can now 'buy' their own Hardware and Choose what games 'they' want - new gamers are the 'kids' who get bought their 'first' Console, bought games to play so games like Spider-Man will bring them in and maybe when they are 'old' enough, will get into CoD - after all, MS ownership won't keep that away from Playstation consoles.

Whether those Gamers are 'aware' of Game of the Year awards, the fact that Sony has 'more' Exclusives, and will still get the likes of CoD, Fifa, Minecraft and Fortnite regardless of whether MS 'owns' ABK or not takes those games out of consideration. It still comes down to quantity and quality of the games you can't play elsewhere. They would recognise Spider-Man and at least of heard of Wolverine, Last of Us, Uncharted etc and games like Final Fantasy, Street Fighter etc too.

You are FORGETTING that CoD isn't 'leaving' Playstation - it, like Minecraft is going to be available EVERYWHERE - inc Nintendo Hardware so its NOT an Exclusive to Xbox Hardware. Sony can still SELL the game too, but MS can never offer Spider-Man, Wolverine etc...

Whether Cloud gaming does triple every year or NOT that is not the point - the point is it doesn't prevent Sony, with their OWN IP's from 'Competing' in the Cloud Market with their OWN numerous 'big' IP's and no-doubt would still have 'deals' to bring Final Fantasy and whatever other '3rd' Party content to their Service to COMPETE. EA can Compete with Fifa, Apex, Mass Effect etc too if they believe Cloud is the Future.

MS Cloud can't prevent OTHERS from Competing - even if they do have a decent Headstart. Netflix had a MASSIVE headstart, 200m+ Subscribers globally, but that didn't stop Disney from being able to Compete.

Its clear you are a SONY fanboy so of course you are 'upset' that MS will actually be 'more' competitive and have 'great' games to Compete with ALL the great Games they (and Nintendo - lets not forget Zelda, Mario, Pokemon etc - massive Gaming IP's too). These are the reasons that Sony and Nintendo have 'dominated' Hardware - not games like CoD, Fifa etc because they are 'playable' everywhere. Those IP's are what Sony/Nintendo (or ANY Game Publisher with their IP's) can Compete with - MS can't just put Fifa or Zelda or Spider-Man or Final Fantasy etc etc into 'their' Cloud so those Games can be used by their 'owners' to Compete for Consumers on Hardware or Cloud services...

Therefore, the CMA is completely mistaken and why the 'rest of the world' (currently about 35-40 other regions) have Passed this deal - inc the EU. ALL have determined that Sony can still 'compete' in the Hardware sector - even if CoD was removed from Playstation as they still have their OWN USP's to 'compete'.

The key here is Competition - the fact that they ALL have USPs means that they 'Compete'. The point is that if gamers want to play Spider-Man, Wolverine, Horizon, God of War, R&C, Bloodborne, Demon Souls, Final Fantasy etc etc etc they will buy a Playstation, buy a Cloud Subscription to Playstation etc to play 'those' games - regarded as the 'Best' in the business, often Sony the 'best' Publisher. This 'deal' only makes MS 'more' competitive against the 'dominant' Sony and ALL their IP's they OWN too and is not 'anti-competitive' as its not 'preventing' ANY Publisher from Competing in Cloud if they believe that is the 'future' of Gaming..