Tag Archives: Tencent

Choices and power

It is something that has been bugging me all day and part of last night. It was set in motion by a story I am working on and it reflected on my IP. You see I had hoped that Amazon or Google had bought my IP, it benefits them the most (amazon more than Google). But in this day and age there are two new players in town Netflix and Tencent. They are not on anyones radar before 2023 (second half) but that does not mean I need to ignore two potential players for my IP. Consider that my IP will allow a minimum of 50 million consoles (or subscriptions). Consider the following list

Playstation 4 – 117 million
Nintendo Switch – 107 million
Playstation 5 – 20 million
Google Stadia – 3 million
Amazon Luna – Unknown

I have no real reliable information on how the Amazon Luna is doing and Microsoft is not a consideration. Now we get Tencent and Netflix and one of them gets an option to surpass the others and end up behind Nintendo and Sony in the number three spot, the setting is a sale that is the starting setting and will get them well above 50 million subscriptions, optionally around 75 million, and that mind you is merely the beginning. They could temporarily be the number one but Sony is hardcore focussed on this market and they do have the goods. So am I empowered to set one in a fighting position and become one of the top 3 game solutions? Or is the power derived from the additional choices that entered the field? 

More important Tencent and China get the option to run and rule one more field, it would be empowering to Tencent. Yet Netflix has reasons too and they have the setting to optionally alter their subscription approach two new players added to the ones I was willing to sell to (Amazon and Google). There is the option of Elon Musk and he is considered by me as a wild card. He is not in these fields but he has the Midas touch and when he sees options he seemingly grabs them. The odd satisfaction of all the Elon Musk haters entering a new market and becoming a top three player is oddly satisfying. So I went from two consideration now to 6 considerations and I feel decently well, because that is merely one side to the first IP bundle and the other two are still available, the second is ruled by the 5G solution and that will take off in 2-3 years when 5G is fully deployed, all ahead of the largest boom I am ever to likely see in my lifetime. 

To be honest I had some sights on Netflix, but Tencent is new, until recently and until some patents came past my desk I was in the dark on the setting of Tencent, but here they are a contender for streaming information and with 50 million plus, they are looking at up to half a billion a month, not something anyone can afford to sneer at, not in these times. But the larger settings are still out of the equation, the Augmented reality solutions I came up with (see previous articles), there we have a stage where marketing could rule a new part of well over 100,000 malls on a global scale and from there I can only speculate where this goes. A stage that could benefit places like Monaco, Riyadh and Dubai in all kinds of ways. But I get ahead of myself. Is all this power through choices, or choices that come from power? You see they are not the same coin, they aren’t even the same currency. The implied word ‘choice’ has several sides and they aren’t restricted to coins, they are also part of technology and enablement. All different settings for the same word and only the shallow will see them as one and the same. Power is more restrictive but also more out there and eagerly seen by everyone for all the wrong reasons, it is an enabler but only to some degree and it reflects on the chosen partner in this on how they want to continue with the offered choice and they pretty much see power as a monetary enabler, which is their choice, but it is the second tier and the third tier that will enable them to a much larger degree. That is the long game and that is where I have been focussing on, the long game, only the greedy reflect on the next quarter and their bonus.

But that is merely my (limited) point of view.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

Realisation

This happens, at times we realise something AFTER the fact and for some reason not before. The BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62158936) ‘Netflix and Microsoft team up for cheaper plan with adverts’, apart from the setting that they decided to trust Microsoft on this, the setting of movies or TV series with advertisements is called TV, The Dutch have channels one, two and three. The Brits have the same but they call it BBC One, Two and oh, four is ITV. And so every nation has its own version of TV, so why would we want Netflix when we can get the others for free? It comes with “It lost 200,000 subscribers between January and March, compared to the 2.5 million analysts had been expecting the firm to add in the period. Netflix also now expects to lose a further two million subscribers between April and June.” And this is a surprise? How? The covid era ended, people are expected to be back in the offices and do actual work. And those who decided to quit their jobs to be at home for whatever reason will soon be in a space where they CANNOT afford Netflix. Instead of offering an 8 hour segment (when they aren’t working) for less, and as such create 3-6 timezones to capture the bandwidth pressures, they decided to compete with local TV stations at a price, whilst local TV is free. I reckon (and that I merely my view) that the people will stop subscription TV, especially as some favourite series are spread over several providers. And these people will return to Channel 7, Channel 9, ITV, RTL+, Sjuan, TMC, TFX and the list goes on for a while. I reckon that they will not be too happy with Netflix and they will demand local based sanctions against Netflix. In addition, some will demand that the bandwidth usage of Netflix users will be capped or even surcharged to avoid congestion on several levels. It is not whether it happens, it will soon be on WHEN it happens. Especially when the Amazon and Google group could stick it to Microsoft, they will be enthusiastically motivated to do just that. 

Do I care?
Not really, I sometimes get a month subscription to load up on missed things and I have to as we all have budgets. I reckon that the UK is facing a much harder time. When they get to decide on two of the items (Food, Rent and heating) Netflix will be the first to go, and after that cheaper internet deals. The cost of living bites everywhere and Netflix should have seen this coming. I think they did not, because in all my dealings with Americans, they always avoided any discussion on market saturation, it was always the fault of the bad salesperson. This time around there is no escaping it, and I saw this setting in 2020 when I was clear about saturation, and they were all in the stage of ‘We never heard that’ but the stage was clear and Covid ended as such the good times were gone and now Netflix with their desperate act decided to rely on Microsoft. Whether these two are in bed because of the Netflix game streaming is unknown to me, but it would not surprise me. And that too will backfire on them when Tencent comes out to play. Tencent could muscle in on both Amazon Luna and Google Stadia as well if these two did not adjust their way of thinking. 

These players are all realising that there is one population and they can no longer afford EVERYTHING. These people have to make choices, some of them hard and depending on what TV brings instead of Netflix comes with $10 a month savings, for a lot of people it will be a simple choice. It is this realisation that governs the global population. If EU inflation is up by 8.6% (last month), how long until people have to select what food they can afford? This is not out of consideration at present, the UK seems to be going back to the daily fish and chips. In the Netherlands some vegetables went up between 29% and 34%, that is HUGE! It is in this setting that Netflix makes a move the way they did and at some point people will realise that they get the same by watching TV, which does not cost them $10 a month, and that was the only reason keeping them on Netflix. Realisation is a dangerous and ugly thing. Yes, we can continue to watch Netflix, but how long until those prices go up? Which will drive a lot of people towards their normal local TV stations again, some already did. 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, movies

A gamer darkly

That is what we are at times, a dark player in a field of poppies trying to remember where we were in the first place. It is not some riddle, at times most of us (including me) are clueless on where we go, yet we know we need to get there. It drove Ubisoft to fame, and even now as Ubisoft becomes less and less relevant to the gamers of today players like Guerrilla take over with their Horizon games. What was the world of Mass Effect and Assassins Creed became the world of Elden ring, Horizon and the heroin Eloy. Tomorrow it seems to be a stage of the last Horizon part, Hogwarts Legacy and Gotham Knights. And it is important that we address ‘seems to be’. You see, I have heralded moves to the streamers and there is every indication That they did not listen and Tencent did. You see, even as some state “Chinese tech giant Tencent is apparently planning to launch its own handheld gaming console, going by a patent spotted recently. (2021)” I do not think that people have any idea what gamers are about to get. You see this looks like a handheld Switch lookalike, but it isn’t. 

Jumping to the past
In 1989 Astral Software launched Archipelago. The game was decent enough, the graphics were not the greatest but with 1000 levels there was enough fun for everyone and in the end there was. Some called it ““one of the most original games I’ve seen, both in gameplay and in original concept”, with an “odd and eerie setting that works despite an eminently forgettable scenario”” Now consider that this was a game that was less than 1MB. Now reset that game with todays graphics, make it an offline game and when you consider that this was originally a 92% game, consider that this game (and well over a dozen others) could end up being 88%+ games. Now all the other streamers have a problem. They relied on ‘has-been’ Ubisoft to cater to their needs. A player that could not keep its eyes on the price and with what we were given this week

We now have two streamers that need to adjust image, adjust course on their streamers, or they will be surpassed by Tencent. Another field here China ends up getting the mustard (my 50 million console idea is still safe, I checked). And now that the facts are slowly seeping, I wonder what Netflix will do. Microsoft is not a player in this (merely a marketing idea), and if Tencent makes at least two steps in the direction I expect, before the end of this year Google Stadia will be a forgone lost solution to a direction gamers are not interested in, that leaves the Amazon Luna, it has options, but Tencent is seemingly directed into a field to capture the heart of gamers, something the others needed to have done long ago.

Even as Google is seemingly using the media to give us quotes like “After debuting to middling reviews, it had to suffer through a slowly growing library, a limited user base and the shuttering of its first-party studios. But Stadia is still alive and kicking, and Google intends to prove it next week.” They are in more trouble than they think, they relied on Ubisoft to solve their issue, but Ubisoft only tries to solve its own issues and now the earlier article makes more sense. Techspot gives us “In a nutshell: Ubisoft will decommission the servers of 15 games in the next two months, including some of the most popular entries in the Assassin’s Creed franchise. Most of these titles are about a decade old, so there are likely not that many people still playing the multiplayer components. However, users also won’t be able to download DLCs they previously bought for these games.” Gamers hate to loose parts, including DLC’s, and for the “so there are likely not that many people still playing the multiplayer components” could be translated into a stage where the 2-3 games per server idea was cast aside. Now, in many cases I do not care about the online parts, but Ubisoft made it part of the game (to embrace people), and now when revenue is king players are pushed out. Gamers will see this as a betrayal. In a time when Tencent is looking for gamers to push its IP forward, Ubisoft plays right into their hands and if they considered what I put online, gamers will get dozens of golden oldies. They will feel catered to and that seals the fate of Ubisoft and optionally Google too. They decided not to develop games and now that decision will bite them. 

We now get a new pool and the streamers (seemingly) are Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Netflix and Tencent. They will vie for a slice of the entire pie that includes Sony and Nintendo. These two will see the impact, but will not lose players, if anything these players will have a streamer on the side and that is where Tencent becomes really visible, over time they could get a much bigger slice of the $200,000,000,000 that is stated to be the pie of next year. Yes, we know that a lot of it will go to mobile games and that is exactly where Tencent will see the profit, catering to gamers, catering to online players, mobile gamers and their console can store it all, they played a beautiful hand. I personally hope that Amazon gets the push it needs, I do not care either way whether Tencent gets it, as long as Microsoft does not. There should not be any award for stupidity, should there be?

A stage I emphasised over two years ago and it is coming to fruition in the next 12 months. Although to be honest, I merely saw Microsoft as the loser and I did not see Tencent coming two years ago, now they are a much larger concern to the other players. But perhaps the Tencent console will be seen as spy equipment by the CIA, they still haven’t presented any real evidence on Huawei, so why should we expect to see any on Tencent?

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Politics, Science

Too cheap?

It is not a statement, it is a question. I started to ask myself this when I had a deeper conversation with one of the people I actually trust. I have mentioned it here before that I have certain IP for sale. The parties are Google, Amazon, Huawei (Tencent) and I added Elon Musk (that man can turn good ideas to gold). The initial stage was that thee was an idea that allowed Google (Stadia) and Amazon (Luna) to sell in excess of 50,000,000 consoles. Yet it was a low estimate. I believe it to be well in excess of 75,000,000 consoles. In the mean time Netflix has entered the field and even as they have nothing to really bring to the table, it seems that these three are not to serious about their streamers, but somehow Tencent seemingly is? And that started the exploration conversation that my idea was too cheap. Was it? You see the second pay cycle gets me 10% of the IP and sales value, so the second payment would be massive and the first one left me without worries, so why ask for more? I am not a teenager with the dream to have lusty gorgeous 20 year old ladies doing a balancing act on mr John Thomas every day, well not anymore that was decades ago. 

I now look towards a relaxed retirement and whatever comes with that. As such I created three IP bundles which (after some serious travel) received the automated release date on September 30th on 4Chan. An encrypted solution that was innovative and something a player like the NSA could not counter on 4Chan, not with that amount of images. As such no computer I touch will ever go near it, I merely have to wait for a clever person to figure it out and once released it all becomes public domain, a stage no one can counter, no one can make claims at present as they played their own silly games. A stage where ONE title puts the streamers on par with the larger consoles, straight in a temporary second place and that is on my numbers. If the numbers increase (which has a decent chance of happening) that console will stay in second place with an option to get pole position.  A stage Sony NEVER faced before, and this is not against Sony, I love my Playstation (yes, I need help). 

So here I was trying to convince my friend the simple setting that enough is enough. Why go greed driven for numbers that are too weird to my universe? And of course that station is rejected because if everyone else is greed driven, I have to be greed driven too. Yet when greed overwhelms you, you forget the sight of things. I created 8 parts of IP, I got there by looking around, not by looking after greed and that was merely the starting stage. I understood but never accepted ‘Greed is good’ (Wall Street, the movie), although that sentiment lives strongly on Wall Street as well. Yet in my setting what have they missed so far? Over the last year I have shown all kinds of IP (some open and public), but these ideas should have been in the hands of BigTech. At least one of them at least a decade, but greed is limiting their view and I am showing others this again and again. Yet, for some reason they are not catching on. So whilst they slap each other on the back billions elude them. There is now a chance that the third IP bundle is gaining mass and therefor value, I still thought that 2.6 billion was a little high, and there are risks that I cannot foresee, but looking deeper some might state that my estimate is too low. Is it? If I end up with 5% of 2 billion I will not complain, but the IP is now estimated at 2.6 billion and will optionally be higher. So is the estimate too cheap, am I delusionally too cheap or is the truth of the matter somewhere else. The issue almost came to blow as I looked at the Twitter issues (yesterday) where some are ignoring what is out in the open, what else are they missing? It becomes a much larger station when players like Forbes give us ‘Local News Losing Billions In Revenue Each Year From Digital Media Giants’ (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2021/05/17/local-news-losing-billions-in-revenue-each-year-from-digital-media/) where we see “Local TV news continues to be a trustworthy and primary source to millions of viewers. This connection with the community and trust has been important, never more so than during the pandemic when local TV news reported strong ratings growth (although with the economic slowdown ad revenue was sluggish).” It is the added “A recent research analysis from BIA Advisory Services and commissioned by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), entitled Economic Impact of Big Tech Platforms on the Viability of Local Broadcast News, reported that local TV newscasts lose an estimated $1.873 billion each year from Google Search and Facebook News Feeds.” It gave me the the following parts.

  1. What is local news? Honestly, the news tends to be Fox, CNN, BBC and a few others and they are global. More important they ALL trivialised the Twitter numbers.
  2. This gets us to number two. Trustworthy is merely an 11 letter word that has less and less value in media and in filtered information (news that is approved by media shareholders and stakeholders). 
  3. So who places news on Facebook? I placed images from several sources, they are not news items, they are deceptively placed forms of advertisers placed BY the media themselves. 

A setting that goes on and on, so what numbers if Forbes bitching about and more important. When we look at some research instigated by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) I feel certain that I will find a whole range of issues. Painting the street in the colour of preference has consequences, yet Forbes is not too hassled on that are they?

As such where we are given “Whereas, ad dollars for local television are projected to be flat in the years ahead, digital media are forecast for year-over-year percent double-digit gains in ad spend.” It was a greed driven setting where local advertise systems ruined the market on greed, and when Google launched a true fair system the people en mass moved there. After decades to be given a real number was overwhelmingly interesting to advertisers, and now they all cry foul, all destroyed by their own greed and the Twitter setting merely echoes that. So why would I join those losers? I might not end with anything, it might just become public domain, but if I won’t get it, the greed driven will not either and when it comes out in months and they all come with “I could have gotten you soooo much” I can reply, so why didn’t you? It is the defeating move to the greed driven, to see them end with nothing, the sweetest victory of all. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science, Stories

The edge of what could be

I thought about this and it intersects with stories over the last week. You see there is a change coming, but one that is openly ignored by some people. Not by the normal people. They ignore it all and so they should. But some want their life to continue as it is, to hang on to easy revenues a little longer at the expense of everything else. There is no real good here. The mistake was made by Sony in 2011 and again when the PS4pro came and now with the PS5 they still make the same mistake. I am uncertain whether Sony can (at present) correct for that mistake. They had the option to gain a huge advantage in 2012, but they decided to play the appeasement game with Facebook, now the game changes. Nintendo was not up to speed for a few understandable reasons and Microsoft only cares for self at the expense of others, so they would never go there. Now in the new setting the streamers are about to get to the same setting. I designed a few parts of it, I set the stage in my first IP bundle and it could apply to Amazon and Google in near equal matters. But that is one setting, the stage could now benefit Netflix in more than one way. Yet who does it fit better? I cannot say, yes a few items fit Amazon better and the idea of the Luna charging ahead sounds good, but the Google Stadia could face the same benefits and none of these parts are part of the additional 50 million consoles. There is the other shoe. I cannot tell how fair it would fit Netflix, but under similar settings all three could compete for that. But it is not about that part. It is about the other parts. 

You see as the game of gaming changes, the makers could adhere to the system, or they can adhere to the gamers and users. It is the second side that will push them forward. The system is clinging to the group of an ageing population, but when that falls away the game itself will be pushed into a new realm. Those not ready will fall behind really fast. In that new stage we have Amazon, Google, Netflix, Sony, Nintendo and Tencent. Yes, we see the claims that Tencent is not coming along, but a stage where hundreds of billions is part of the game and that is not including gambling is not a stage anyone ignores, no matter what they say. Whether it is merely Tencent, or a union with Huawei will be sought is not something I am aware off. But there is no way that Tencent will not be part of this. The part I cannot tell is how far along they will go. Will they be a console, a streamer, or a hybrid facilitating both? You see, I do not know any industrial willing to let go of a slice of $275,000,000,000. As such Tencent is a player, I feel certain of that. 

So where will it all go? There are several indictors that marketing and granularity will change. Meta is one factor, 5G is the other factor and it will all come to blows as Neom is completed. Neom will be the first step to clearly show the changes to marketing, advertisements and a few other matters. I saw this coming and as such I created the 5G IP I have. When the other parts are completed the companies that are still clearly in the dark will wake up and a rush will come. All racing for the same destination and not all will make it and now there are two sides that come to blow. Three if you reconsider the stage. In the first stage there is Meta, meta will be ready and adhering to whatever stage is played, it will be that flexible and I am not certain how or where it will go. Only the inner insiders of Meta know this. The second stage is seen by gamers and more importantly the streamers. The streamers are important fr a few reasons. They can become new clusters. Clusters where gamers and users are in charge, they will decide what they are exposed to and even as some will try to dissuade the consoles and streamers. The one successfully resisting will win that race. You see, the people have had enough and corporations are so used to the bully push that they will continue. Just to get their hands ‘in the game’ but that move will push them out of the game, there is no other solution for them and by the time they learn that lesson the hard way. The users and gamers will have had enough. They will of course cry like Chihuahua’s, making all kind of claims but at the end of the aged population they will be denied access, the people will have had enough. And on the third side is the explosion of marketing and advertising. Neom city might show the way, but they are not alone and that signal will show that there is a larger change coming it will evolve nearly everywhere, but mostly in metropolitan areas. And until recently I never considered that my IP would cover two of the three sides of that evolution. Which is also a larger weird part. Where will Amazon go, where will Google go and how far will Netflix get with their game streaming. All sides that give rise to questions, ones that I cannot answer yet, but I feel it is a temporary setting for me and after that I will consider whether I make it new IP, or make it public domain. In one part I like the public domain side, I have enough IP to last me a lifetime, some of the IP become public domain on June 30th if I do not reset the clock and I will watch from a distance how stupid industrials make claims and demand a seat on some negotiating table they have no business being at. They squandered it in greed and in the belief of their own ego, as such they should be allowed to die (go bankrupt) for that shortsightedness. A stage that has some repetition and a stage that is coming for a few too many of them, especially when they are no longer of what comes next. Yet it also is cause for worry. When these people are denied ‘their’ seat near edge of what could be they tend to become bullish, childish and they will resort to be the selfish people they always were, just a little bit more out in the open now, and still those around them will not act. This is why I like my public domain routine. It leaves the IP FOR EVERYONE and they can do nothing, well almost nothing. The only strength on my side is that I have is the willingness to lose it all, to make it public. 

It is the only thing I can do to protect the realm of gaming, when a company cannot own it, the larger base of players win, that has always been the case. The problem is that not everyone can see that. I do not blame them, I for one did not see it for a long time. I was never one for ‘free games’ and it all should be free or hacked. I believe that game makers are entitled their revenue and their profit. I never opposed that, but in the 80’s and 90’s games were more than entertainment it was a stage where the gamer was enabled. I feel that around 2005-2010 the gamer became a point of exploitation for the system and any digital revenue. I opposed that, there is no clear guilty party. Ubisoft might have some sides, but their need was revenue. I do not consider them guilty. Sony and Nintendo to some degree too. They are all guilty of adhering to a changing stage, but that does not make them guilty. There was a second layer, or at least it was my believe that the second layer was some mash of elements that pushed for a larger layer of exploitation. This continued until now, yet there is a new horizon, the streamers and there they have less power and when the power is pushed onto the gamers and users their options vanish,  that is my belief. There is a lot more and streamers can bring it to the front, the consoles had that option but they decided not to do that, for whatever reason they did not do this.

And now the edge of what could be changes, it alters in a way I cannot tell at present. Yet I still believe that the streamers will be at the core of gaming in the future. I will still play on a playstation as well at whatever number they are when that happens. Yet when I see what could be there is no chance that there will not be a streaming system next to it, as is most likely the Nintendo. Where gaming goes I cannot tell beyond a certain point. That is how things tend to be. I  reckon that it started when I created the foundation of what could have been The Elder Scrolls: Restoration in 2013. Over the years I upped the stage and set it to a much larger foundation. Then it fell away as Microsoft bought the place. So these ideas are now getting incorporated in another game, because the ideas were sound, they were merely precise. As a storyteller I can reshape them to fit another game with reasonable ease. Will these stories be part of the next edge of gaming? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. At times I wonder if pushing the edge of gaming is a good idea. But the edge of gaming was pushed by the CBM 64 (Loderunner), Atari ST (Dungeon Master), CBM Amiga (Dune 2), N64 (Goldeneye), PS1 (TombRaider), PS2 (Kingdom Hearts), Xbox360 (Mass Effect), PS3 (The last of Us), PS4 (God of War) and PS5 (TBA), now it is time for the streamers to do more than be the next copy of a game we see everywhere, now they can shape the edge of gaming that is not here yet. Only under these circumstances will gaming continue, evolve and inspire. Consider the old games and see where the new systems could take us. That is where we will be able to see the edge of what might be.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Science

Set Streaming Solution

Yes there are a few ways of doing this, but can we tell that anyone is right and the other one is wrong? That is actually a serious question, to go further, it is a lot more serious than anyone realises at present. You see Google and Amazon are taking different roads. 

Google
In February 2022 Will Nelson reported ‘Google Stadia focus reportedly shifted to licensing the streaming tech’ and of course there are interested parties there. And we were given “After launching in late 2019 the Google game streaming platform was met with some criticism regarding the quality of its streams, latency, and connection issues. After a slow roll out of major titles and news that the internal Stadia development studios would be shut down, all was looking lost for the game streaming platform.” This makes sense, but it is not a given, in addition we saw news that gamers had access to 50 games, whilst some sources claim that there are 200 games at present. The last one does not make sense to me. It does technically. There are all kinds of resource issues with streaming games and for the most they could be temporary, or merely in play until a full width of gamers is seen, it is better to open the tap a little further later on than finding out that the basement is now a swimming pool. All this makes sense to me, yet the gamers tend to lack patience. If you doubt that, ask Hello Games (No Man’s Sky) and CD Project Red (Cyberpunk 2077), they’ll tell you a few stories. But Google seems to go a path. 

Amazon
Amazon has another path, a more traditional gaming path with a reported number of games that surpass 80, a 60% limit above Google. For gamers this matters, and we need to realise that even as Amazon has a few other options to differentiate itself from Google, the question is will they? Then there is the number of games and kids will see two systems that can do pretty much the same, one has 50 games the other one 80. Which one do you think they chose? So yes Amazon has an advantage for now, but they have by their traditional approach a second one.

See the image, a gamer has to go from A to C, we assume that they will go via B, but Google shows us that they can get there via D as well. Now we get the tricky part. By focussing on licensing Google decided a path, in this we would assume that Amazon is more likely to be the success and I feel that this is correct. And here is where we need to realise that Amazon being a success, does not mean, or imply that the Google path will be a failure. Both can succeed and here we see the larger stage. Some designers will adhere to becoming a licensed technology owner, to set a larger path for THEIR game. This could be good, but for every version of Doom, we also see versions of Apex and Destiny, we see Battlefield 2042 and that list goes on a little longer, so how many failures will the Google Stadia house until it drowns the brand? I honestly do not know, but if you know gamers, you know what a fickle lot of hormones they can be and that is before we consider the new player Netflix, or whatever Tencent launches (I do not believe for one second that business decisions was a reason to stop), and with $200,000,000,000 on the line, Tencent remains a factor (for now). 

And all that whilst I gave articles where we see that the Amazon Luna has a lot more options and that is not including the 50,000,000 console solution (I gave hints in earlier articles). In all this I will see Netflix as an optional new player and I have written off Microsoft, they lost too much and they lost credibility with the gamers, it will take them years to overcome that and at that point Amazon will be the most likely new top 3 player in games town. Google is not disregarded, but with the path they chose, they are less likely to succeed, and that success will depend on the first half dozen AAA titles, if they remain absent, Google will no longer be a gamer or a player, but that cannot be decided now, it will take until December 2023 until we see that finalisation. There is a side in me wanting to tell others that Google is on the wrong path, but that is incorrect, the larger stage is that none of the others have decided to tae the path A,D,C, and that does not make it wrong. Even as I show it with a square, there is no clear information on the paths taken and whether one path is equal, longer, or shorter. Time will decide that and in that we will need to wait, but in case of marketing hypes, I will side with Amazon. Not because they are better, these two systems are a lot more on par than either is willing to admit to (that is how I personally see it), I saw several enhancements to the system that both can do, but with a licensing path Google is less likely to go there, then there are a few other paths and without development Google will also not go there. So Amazon has an advantage, will they take it? I cannot tell, I doubt anyone can tell for sure. But as I calculated it around 2 years ago, that market is close to $600,000,000 at nominal and that is a mere 0.3%, but with such numbers, do you know anyone ignoring such optional revenue? Especially when the system out now could run that solution? It is a mere thought that drives the solution, I wonder what is required to hold such greed to account.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT

Abbreviations

We all see them, we all use them and we all think we use the same ones. Yet when we take a look at ‘Games as a Service (GaaS) Market to See Huge Growth by 2028 | Netflix, Microsoft, Sony’ (at https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/games-as-a-service-gaas-market-to-see-huge-growth-by-2028-netflix-microsoft-sony) we see a decent story and it all seems to fit, yet when we see the list “The study includes market share analysis and profiles of players such as Blizzard Entertainment, RIOT, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, Tencent, Activision Blizzard, Sega, Electronic Arts & Ubisoft” with the optional ‘attached sample PDF’ did you think you were getting the goods, or did you think you were catered to with “If you are a Games as a Service (GaaS) manufacturer” and at every turn you are seeing the mention of ‘digital journal’. So what gives? Well in the first instance this Games as a Service ploy is that, a ploy (for now) and it sets the largest upheave long before 2028. The largest settings will come to blow in 2024/2025. And the entire station of market share sets a longer approach. You see, there is still no way to see where Netflix is going at present. Their ‘stated’ indications are nice, but when you also hear sounds like “Research firm Ampere isn’t convinced that subscription services like Game Pass are taking over gaming.” We need to realise we are hearing merely one voice, and I get it, but it is the setting of what some call ‘dog eat dog’ that matters. Microsoft, Ubisoft, Netflix and EA will head for a fight, a fight for population and subscribers. Some have advantages, some have potential overzealous fans and some have merely hope. The issue is that these players will fight EACH OTHER for market share. And yes some of the mentioned players are all Microsoft, but that does not make Microsoft the larger player, it makes for a splintered one and in the end they all fight for ones self. Sony and Tencent have their own worries. They are both a lot stronger, but there is a station that polarisation will happen by 2025 and these two will have the numbers and the share. The second issue is not merely the setting here.

Consider the following names Games as a Service, Games as a System, Software as a Service, Systems as a Service, and all this before we consider Function as a Service (FaaS), Container as a Service (CaaS), and Platform as a Service (PaaS) and it is more than some ‘hyped’ and quick mention of names towards a category. The larger stage becomes when the players start mixing the terms to get the audience to ‘flip’ in space to be part of such a community. It sounds nice, but it is not, it merely makes the water muddy. Tencent and Sony are not part of this because they have a setup, they have the setup, the hardware and the population, more important they are not in each others way. You see Ubisoft is on its way out, that much has been visible for almost two years. When Ubisoft did not deliver on quality they were going for their GamePass approach and they are coming up short, now that they are all over Google Stadia, Amazon Luna and the consoles they are merely running a steeplechase of patch after patch and they are coming up short per game and per system and it is taking it toll. To get ahead of the game they need near flawless games. Three at the least and they need them before 2023 and that is not in the cards, so they are merely one bad release away from death. EA has its own following and it is a decent following, but their games have issues, larger issues, not deadly ones, but serious ones. The problems for EA is to manage service levels to a higher standard and they seem to come up short (for now), their largest issue is clear communication and to FOCUS on games, one at a time to make them all better, more stable and less ‘issue prone’ that part is hard but doable. If their board does not fold under pressure from the other dogs they could be in a good place by 2024. By that time EA and Microsoft will be contemplating what to do with Ubisoft, because it is too far behind. At that same time Tencent and Sony will have the advantage and neither will have a clue where Nintendo will be, because if Games as a Service becomes a thing, Nintendo will be the quiet one gathering population with a strong system. Microsoft might want to trivialise them away but the rest will not. They lack the larger station that Sony and Tencent has, but Nintendo is creeping up on them and this article has no mention of Nintendo, do they? Yet by 2025 Nintendo will be a powerhouse and Netflix is nowhere near ready to take on the large three players. Microsoft is about buying whatever is out there, but from the 90’s onwards that approach has been devastating on all who attempted it. Yes, it makes for headlines but it lacks results and that is what we have been seeing for a little too long with Microsoft. It cannot maintain its posture in the current setting and when it starts its GamePass as collateral for population, we are more than likely get to see the downturn of it all and it does reflect my position of ‘dog eat dog’.

And these are the players vying for the attention of the gamers, all whilst they cannot decide who is the better provider or what gamers actually want and there too the big three (Sony, Tencent and Nintendo) will have the advantage. The problem I see is that a lot of this will be decided long before 2028 and in all this Amazon is not mentioned either. They too have a stake and could become on of the big four leaving Microsoft in fifth place at best and that is if everything goes their way, which so far has not be the case. And whilst most of them are hiding behind abbreviations the big four (Tencent, Sony, Nintendo and Amazon) will grow its population and cater to the one element that was central in all this, the gamer, not the process.

That is my issue with this article, that was my issue with some of the players. They stopped catering to the GAMER and started to cater to the image of SELF. I will let you make up your mind. There is time, this does not need to polarise in any one brain for at least a year. The largest game in all this are the players and the game they play, not the games they produce that too is an advantage the big three have over the other players at present. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT