Support NeoGAF

[DeepEnigma]

Are you arguing that Microsoft didn't?

Why is this even an argument, it's the only definition that makes any sense when talking about COD

A car is a car.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

We should chart the rollercoaster of emotions based on platform preference from page 1 to 1,000, we're getting there alright. Get on it ChatGPT + DALL·E 2, I want an infographic of all our combined salt and pepper.

I always expected the current sway to approval of the deal (whether by regulators or contest after the fact), not across the line yet of course but generally there isn't a major reason to halt this deal in any market segment remaining e.g. cloud. A ton of big tech or media exist already or can enter their hats in the ring whenever they choose e.g. Sony could partner with Amazon/AWS instead of Azure. Google or Apple could push cloud. nVidia and other partners are sorted via contracts or MS/Xbox support. Tencent Cloud is already a thing. Stadia was a thing. Netflix gaming is building. One can very reasonably argue the framework and audience Apple has via App store and smartphones could easily convert into subs or streaming and even a console or new hardware platform if they choose, they're very well poised.

Also Microsoft's Azure isn't a monopoly as many post here. AWS is the current leader (has been for a long while) and Google are a major player too. Here are some references as food for thought -

Infrastructure:

#	Cloud Service Provider	Regions	Availability Zones
1	Amazon Web Services (AWS)	26	84
2	Microsoft Azure	60	116
3	Google Cloud Platform (GCP)	34	103
4	Alibaba Cloud	27	84
5	Oracle Cloud	38	46
6	IBM Cloud (Kyndryl)	11	29
7	Tencent Cloud	21	65
8	OVHcloud	13	33
9	DigitalOcean	8	14
10	Linode (Akamai)	11	11

Revenue:

Source

 

[feynoob]

We should chart the rollercoaster of emotions based on platform preference from page 1 to 1,000, we're getting there alright. Get on it ChatGPT + DALL·E 2, I want an infographic of all our combined salt and pepper.

I always expected the current sway to approval of the deal (whether by regulators or contest after the fact), not across the line yet of course but generally there isn't a major reason to halt this deal in any market segment remaining e.g. cloud. A ton of big tech or media exist already or can enter their hats in the ring whenever they choose e.g. Sony could partner with Amazon/AWS instead of Azure. Google or Apple could push cloud. nVidia and other partners are sorted via contracts or MS/Xbox support. Tencent Cloud is already a thing. Stadia was a thing. Netflix gaming is building. One can very reasonably argue the framework and audience Apple has via App store and smartphones could easily convert into subs or streaming and even a console or new hardware platform if they choose, they're very well poised.

Also Microsoft's Azure isn't a monopoly as many post here. AWS is the current leader (has been for a long while) and Google are a major player too. Here are some references as food for thought -

Infrastructure:

#	Cloud Service Provider	Regions	Availability Zones
1	Amazon Web Services (AWS)	26	84
2	Microsoft Azure	60	116
3	Google Cloud Platform (GCP)	34	103
4	Alibaba Cloud	27	84
5	Oracle Cloud	38	46
6	IBM Cloud (Kyndryl)	11	29
7	Tencent Cloud	21	65
8	OVHcloud	13	33
9	DigitalOcean	8	14
10	Linode (Akamai)	11	11

Revenue:

Source

Except amazon has little business in gaming.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Exactly. Why the hell would Sony even be the one to bring Nintendo up? Revisionist nonsense.

BTW.....everyone wave to @Hendrick's. He is on emoji duty.

All the Xbox fanboys in this thread think passive aggressive emojis on every post is clever. I think they coordinate in some special Discord server who's on emoji duty on any given day.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Except amazon has little business in gaming.

The idea of who has business in gaming is kind of hard to quantify in a world where Apple is actually the company which makes the most from gaming of any company despite doing nothing more than taking 30% of every App Store transaction.

Visualizing Apple’s Rise to the Top of the Gaming Business

In 2020, Apple generated an estimated $13.5 billion dollars in gaming revenue, despite the fact it doesn't make any games or gaming consoles.

www.visualcapitalist.com

 

[reinking]

All the Xbox fanboys in this thread think passive aggressive emojis on every post is clever. I think they coordinate in some special Discord server who's on emoji duty on any given day.

It seems I trigger some people at times because they keep telling me I did so with the emoji.

 

[feynoob]

The idea of who has business in gaming is kind of hard to quantify in a world where Apple is actually the company which makes the most from gaming of any company despite doing nothing more than taking 30% of every App Store transaction.

http://[URL]https://www.visualcapit...pples-rise-to-the-top-of-the-gaming-business/

[/URL]

Apple own a mobile platform for gaming. That is why they're huge in gaming.
It's like Sony without first party games.

Amazon here is like MS/Sony in mobile market. Their presence is very small. Without the content, they won't be able to compete.

Look at Google/stadia. Huge in mobile. Have a 11% in cloud market, yet failed badly in cloud gaming. All because they didn't have the content needed for cloud gaming.

 

[93xfan]

All the Xbox fanboys in this thread think passive aggressive emojis on every post is clever. I think they coordinate in some special Discord server who's on emoji duty on any given day.

It isn’t clever, but consider that in any positive or even semi positive xbox thread, we’ve been seeing the same thing.

Believe me, you all have it easy

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Apple own a mobile platform for gaming. That is why they're huge in gaming.
It's like Sony without first party games.

Amazon here is like MS/Sony in mobile market. Their presence is very small. Without the content, they won't be able to compete.

Look at Google/stadia. Huge in mobile. Have a 11% in cloud market, yet failed badly in cloud gaming. All because they didn't have the content needed for cloud gaming.

But that isn't a sign of cloud gaming anti-competitive behaviours or monopolistic practices, nor does it provide regulators any factual basis for proving claims of such through metrics historically or forecasted. It's a cold hard fact there are many cloud industry players, frameworks, potential entrants (with enormous funding or audiences), potential partners and no MS/ActiBliz roadblocks to competition; irrespective of MS acquiring ActiBliz.

Cloud gaming is just as valid on smartphone or a wireless TV stick or a console streaming or a Stadia-type device by a new entrant. It's fair play.

 

[feynoob]

But that isn't a sign of cloud gaming anti-competitive behaviours or monopolistic practices, nor does it provide regulators any factual basis for proving claims of such through metrics historically or forecasted. It's a cold hard fact there are many cloud industry players, frameworks, potential entrants (with enormous funding or audiences), potential partners and no MS/ActiBliz roadblocks to competition; irrespective of MS acquiring ActiBliz.

Cloud gaming is just as valid on smartphone or a wireless TV stick or a console streaming or a Stadia-type device by a new entrant. It's fair play.

The issue is that MS has Xbox. Without Xbox, no one would have cared about cloud, as activision alone isnt enough.

But when you have gamepass with xbox 1st party games, 3rd party games plus bethesda and activision all using xcloud, then there is a risk of anti-competitive actions.

MS had to allow nvidia to access their steam games as sign of cooperation with regulators.

 

[Dolomite]

She's compromised. HEAVILY compromised. Almost the textbook definition of a crooked politician.

That and she has no understanding of what she is speaking about.



Any PS owner who is aware of these proceedings that goes on to buy COD, when they can just play it for "free" in Game Pass, is quite literally, an idiotic paypig. And I mean that.

Microsoft is counting on them to offset any potential revenue losses of having a game like COD Day 1 in Game Pass. That's how such a strategy becomes feasible. So people on another platform buying the game are just enabling that strategy and are foolish enough to think their purchase in that situation stands for something honorable, when it's just helping the people on the service get that same content at a significantly lower cost.

Don't care big dog this shit is hilarious and if you can't find the irony, I'll laugh at you too

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

The issue is that MS has Xbox. Without Xbox, no one would have cared about cloud, as activision alone isnt enough.

But when you have gamepass with xbox 1st party games, 3rd party games plus bethesda and activision all using xcloud, then there is a risk of anti-competitive actions.

MS had to allow nvidia to access their steam games as sign of cooperation with regulators.

You seem to think games by Xbox + Bethesda + Activision are the only games in town for the cloud?

Sony can stream. Valve/Steam can stream. Nintendo can stream. Games like Hogwarts, Fortnite, GTA, Pokemon, FIFA/NBA, Destiny, Animal Crossing, Cyberpunk 2077, hell even Star Citizen levels of funding etc all exist. Next up we have publishers like Ubisoft, EA, Take Two or Bandai Namco/Capcom/Sega or Gamehouse existing outside your reply focus and can provide games for streaming to any partner or platform or device. When you discuss the wider devices cloud streaming is suited for beyond consoles we see content from Apple, Google, Netflix etc. Some roughed out numbers here, out of $200B last year in gaming only $40B was from the US. In terms of the future we're not even talking about new Fortnite games emerging or publishers like Sony and new GaaS investments or studios that go so big they're becoming publishers or indie publishing houses like Team 17, Devolver Digital, TinyBuild and many others.

We can also enter into new ideas behind say ID@Xbox or ID@Azure programs to enable indies, start ups and smaller devs to cloud publish their creations. Valve/Steam/Steamworks have similar programs that can extend to cloud.

It seems you have a pretty narrow field of vision to make your argument. Industry players, new or existing, are not blocked from cloud by MS infrastructure or content pre or post their latest big acquisitions.

 

[feynoob]

You seem to think games by Xbox + Bethesda + Activision are the only games in town for the cloud?

Sony can stream. Valve/Steam can stream. Nintendo can stream. Games like Hogwarts, Fortnite, GTA, Pokemon, FIFA/NBA, Destiny, Animal Crossing, Cyberpunk 2077, hell even Star Citizen levels of funding etc all exist. Next up we have publishers like Ubisoft, EA, Take Two or Bandai Namco/Capcom/Sega or Gamehouse existing outside your reply focus and can provide games for streaming to any partner or platform or device. When you discuss the wider devices cloud streaming is suited for beyond consoles we see content from Apple, Google, Netflix etc. Some roughed out numbers here, out of $200B last year in gaming only $40B was from the US. In terms of the future we're not even talking about new Fortnite games emerging or publishers like Sony and new GaaS investments or studios that go so big they're becoming publishers or indie publishing houses like Team 17, Devolver Digital, TinyBuild and many others.

We can also enter into new ideas behind say ID@Xbox or ID@Azure programs to enable indies, start ups and smaller devs to cloud publish their creations. Valve/Steam/Steamworks have similar programs that can extend to cloud.

It seems you have a pretty narrow field of vision to make your argument. Industry players, new or existing, are not blocked from cloud by MS infrastructure or content pre or post their latest big acquisitions.

Sony doesnt have infrastructure, valve doesnt have it, those other cloud providers dont have the vast amout of content that MS has. They can rent them, but it will be limited due to their budget.

Xbox platforms with MS infrastructure is hard to compete with. MS can make a requirement or pay devs to put their games on xcloud. cloud providers dont have that power.

 

[quest]

Sony doesnt have infrastructure, valve doesnt have it, those other cloud providers dont have the vast amout of content that MS has. They can rent them, but it will be limited due to their budget.

Xbox platforms with MS infrastructure is hard to compete with. MS can make a requirement or pay devs to put their games on xcloud. cloud providers dont have that power.

Building, expanding, maintaining that infrastructure isn't cheap. Its more cost effective to rent space. Its like cell plans in America. Mint mobile didn't spend billions on radio towers and equipment but under cut the ones who did by renting with lower overhead.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Sony doesnt have infrastructure, valve doesnt have it, those other cloud providers dont have the vast amout of content that MS has. They can rent them, but it will be limited due to their budget.

Xbox platforms with MS infrastructure is hard to compete with. MS can make a requirement or pay devs to put their games on xcloud. cloud providers dont have that power.

You do realise Apple own datacentres in many US states and other countries such as Denmark, China and more? They also recently announced over $400 Billion for datacentre and chip manufacturing investment over the next 4 years. Apple also have a ton of mobile gaming content, audience and one of the world's biggest gaming revenues and app stores. Arguably they already have everything needed and a far larger market share than MS/Xbox, you just choose to razor focus on console for some reason.

Steam cloud is a thing mate and uses a "best of breed" approach with content and services coming from a mix of self-hosted, AWS, Azure, CDNs etc. It's not reliant on one cloud provider so you're mistaken there.

Google is a thing. The technology marriage even suits Sony's FreeBSD/Orbit OS far more than Azure does. Apparently Sony don't like Google so much, see below.

Did you forget Sony bought Gaikai, and since 2019/20 I think it was, partner with Azure as well? Sony don't seem to take issue with cloud infrastructure and Azure.

Did you forget nVidia's GeForce Now uses AWS already and had a pretty sizeable market push for adding games content not long ago? Not to mention MS just signed them by contract for cloud gaming content.

How about the fact regulators look at the ability for competition to enter the market? Any gaming company, publisher or dev could partner with AWS or Google or Azure.

Indeed.

 

[feynoob]

You do realise Apple own datacentres in many US states and other countries such as Denmark, China and more? They also recently announced over $400 Billion for datacentre and chip manufacturing investment over the next 4 years. Apple also have a ton of mobile gaming content, audience and one of the world's biggest gaming revenues and app stores. Arguably they already have everything needed and a far larger market share than MS/Xbox, you just choose to razor focus on console for some reason.

Steam cloud is a thing mate and uses a "best of breed" approach with content and services coming from a mix of self-hosted, AWS, Azure, CDNs etc. It's not reliant on one cloud provider so you're mistaken there.

Google is a thing. The technology marriage even suits Sony's FreeBSD/Orbit OS far more than Azure does. Apparently Sony don't like Google so much, see below.

Did you forget Sony bought Gaikai, and since 2019/20 I think it was, partner with Azure as well? Sony don't seem to take issue with cloud infrastructure and Azure.

Did you forget nVidia's GeForce Now uses AWS already and had a pretty sizeable market push for adding games content not long ago? Not to mention MS just signed them by contract for cloud gaming content.

How about the fact regulators look at the ability for competition to enter the market? Any gaming company, publisher or dev could partner with AWS or Google or Azure.

Indeed.

I will simply leave these list of games, since you wont understand anything.

https://www.xbox.com/en-us/play/gallery/all-games

You know xcloud so I dont need to say more about it. Same with MS infrastructure.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

I will simply leave these list of games, since you wont understand anything.

https://www.xbox.com/en-us/play/gallery/all-games

You know xcloud so I dont need to say more about it. Same with MS infrastructure.

Pretty odd reply there. Should I reply with a list of Apple or Sony or Steam games? I understand there are other cloud providers and game content providers already in the market and poised to enter the market. If you don't understand that I guess it's on you and I'm happy regulators are the ones making the rulings.

 

[feynoob]

Pretty odd reply there. Should I reply with a list of Apple or Sony or Steam games? I understand there are other cloud providers and game content providers already in the market and poised to enter the market. If you don't understand that I guess it's on you and I'm happy regulators are the ones making the rulings.

Because Sony PSnow is limited to their hardware and PC.
MS on other hand has xcloud on browser, PC, consoles, Mobile and TV. They are also expanding their service to many countries.

They own Azure, which means they get premium service and bankrolling their service (Xcloud prints no money).

3rd party can rent those data centers, but they wont gain the best features like Azure (Xcloud) and Amazon(Luna). Those companies will prioritize their service.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Because Sony PSnow is limited to their hardware and PC.
MS on other hand has xcloud on browser, PC, consoles, Mobile and TV. They are also expanding their service to many countries.

They own Azure, which means they get premium service and bankrolling their service (Xcloud prints no money).

3rd party can rent those data centers, but they wont gain the best features like Azure (Xcloud) and Amazon(Luna). Those companies will prioritize their service.

how expensive is to run these data centers?

 

[feynoob]

how expensive is to run these data centers?

Alot.

Spoiler: Dont know how this translates to cloud gaming.

So? How much does Microsoft Azure cost?
Reminder: For the calculation, we are giving servers a 5-year lifetime and an on-premise minimum guaranteed uptime of 99.9% with the following configuration: 14 vCPUs and 72GB of RAM with 1024GB of disk storage.

On-premise Total Cost
Refresh cycle first year	$ 76,267.16
Following years:	$ 16,487.30
Average monthly cost:	$ 2,797.27

Cloud Total Cost (monthly)
Cloud Servers:	$ 1,421.75
Average monthly savings in $:	$ 1,375.52
Average monthly savings in %:	49 %

Results: The described on-premises configuration would cost your business $235K over 7 years. In comparison, the cost for a cloud deployment with the same configuration would cost $119K. This represents an average monthly saving of 49%.
Notes: These results are not taking into account the direct cost of a system administrator in-house for your on-premise deployment adding approximately $85,000 per year (depending on your location) to your overall cost.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Alot.

Spoiler: Dont know how this translates to cloud gaming.

So? How much does Microsoft Azure cost?
Reminder: For the calculation, we are giving servers a 5-year lifetime and an on-premise minimum guaranteed uptime of 99.9% with the following configuration: 14 vCPUs and 72GB of RAM with 1024GB of disk storage.

On-premise Total Cost
Refresh cycle first year	$ 76,267.16
Following years:	$ 16,487.30
Average monthly cost:	$ 2,797.27

Cloud Total Cost (monthly)
Cloud Servers:	$ 1,421.75
Average monthly savings in $:	$ 1,375.52
Average monthly savings in %:	49 %

Results: The described on-premises configuration would cost your business $235K over 7 years. In comparison, the cost for a cloud deployment with the same configuration would cost $119K. This represents an average monthly saving of 49%.
Notes: These results are not taking into account the direct cost of a system administrator in-house for your on-premise deployment adding approximately $85,000 per year (depending on your location) to your overall cost.

those numbers seems very low.

 

[feynoob]

those numbers seems very low.

It will be alot, when you have customers that range in millions.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Because Sony PSnow is limited to their hardware and PC.
MS on other hand has xcloud on browser, PC, consoles, Mobile and TV. They are also expanding their service to many countries.

They own Azure, which means they get premium service and bankrolling their service (Xcloud prints no money).

3rd party can rent those data centers, but they wont gain the best features like Azure (Xcloud) and Amazon(Luna). Those companies will prioritize their service.

Ah, so you just have Sony focus again like I have pointed out repeatedly, we are talking about cloud overall. Even limiting to just that you're still incorrect. Sony purchased Gaikai for $400Million, have a ton of content (exclusive even) and still chose Azure over AWS or Google.

Your point is irrelevant and misguided.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

It will be alot, when you have customers that range in millions.

i found this:

According to a report by the U.S. Department of Energy, the average annual electricity cost for a data center is around $2.8 million, and the total cost of operating a data center can range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars per year.


if this is the case. sony fucked up focusing on CoD

 

[Rac3r]

Don't care big dog this shit is hilarious and if you can't find the irony, I'll laugh at you too

It's hilarious that you're eating up the bullshit of a paid politician.

 

[feynoob]

Ah, so you just have Sony focus again like I have pointed out repeatedly, we are talking about cloud overall. Even limiting to just that you're still incorrect. Sony purchased Gaikai for $400Million, have a ton of content (exclusive even) and still chose Azure over AWS or Google.

Your point is irrelevant and misguided.

What did that give them?
3m psnow users, which mostly are on PS.

My point is stands. 20m and higher is going to have a lot of cost outside of the content requirements, something Sony would have to calculate with price cost of their service.

MS can simply eat those cost, which is why patforms like Sony who have the content can't afford those prices. And those who can afford those costs don't have the content.

That is the reason MS has huge advantage in this sector.

Again for a simple term. Content (Sony and MS have the content) + cloud service cost (Amazon and MS have their own service)= overall cost and library of the service.

Keep in mind, MS doesn't make money from xcloud. So those 10m userbase who are using xcloud is being bankrolled by MS.

 

[Sony]

Because Sony PSnow is limited to their hardware and PC.
MS on other hand has xcloud on browser, PC, consoles, Mobile and TV. They are also expanding their service to many countries.

They own Azure, which means they get premium service and bankrolling their service (Xcloud prints no money).

3rd party can rent those data centers, but they wont gain the best features like Azure (Xcloud) and Amazon(Luna). Those companies will prioritize their service.

How is Sony being limited to their hardware not the same as Xbox being limited to their hardware? The xCloud machines are all Xbox Series X's, not Pc's.
What Xbox does better is their network infrastructure, but that had been the case since the dawn on online gaming.
In broader sense, Sony and Microsoft signed a partnership in 2019 for further development of cloud tech.

Sony also makes the Bravia line of TV's and Xperia phones, which gives them mover advantage over Microsoft on Android and TV. They could bundle their PSNow on those devises.

Sony made strategic acquisitions as investment in cloud gaming. The difference is that Microsoft seems to be more serious/vocal with it while with Sony it's just there and supports it.

So I'm not sure what we're arguing here.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

What did that give them?
3m psnow users, which mostly are on PS.

My point is stands. 20m and higher is going to have a lot of cost outside of the content requirements, something Sony would have to calculate with price cost of their service.

MS can simply eat those cost, which is why patforms like Sony who have the content can't afford those prices. And those who can afford those costs don't have the content.

That is the reason MS has huge advantage in this sector.

Again for a simple term. Content (Sony and MS have the content) + cloud service cost (Amazon and MS have their own service)= overall cost and library of the service.

Keep in mind, MS doesn't make money from xcloud. So those 10m userbase who are using xcloud is being bankrolled by MS.

Business advantage isn't anticompetitive. You're also conveniently ignoring Apple for infrastructure, content and already massive in gaming. Your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

so, the cloud discussion can drag these regulator's final approval?

if Apple and Amazon get "Play Station" (aka argue MS's acquisition could threat their ability to compete) can they become a pain in MS's ass?

 

[adamsapple]

so, the cloud discussion can drag these regulator's final approval?

if Apple and Amazon get "Play Station" (aka argue MS's acquisition could threat their ability to compete) can they become a pain in MS's ass?

The EU's messaging already indicated that their Cloud concern has mostly been addressed. CMA was primarily focused on CoD, and that seems to have been resolved to them as well.

FTC is just biding time and I don't think they care about either CoD or cloud one way or the other, they're trying to set a precedent here. I don't think the cloud thing matters to any of the big 3 that much anymore.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

so, the cloud discussion can drag these regulator's final approval?

if Apple and Amazon get "Play Station" (aka argue MS's acquisition could threat their ability to compete) can they become a pain in MS's ass?

It's due for regulatory reviews and in process, as it should be. Personally I doubt any viable case can be made, it's an emerging market with lots of players ranging from content providers, infrastructure, middleware solutions, platforms and more. It's possible further remedies may be required but IMO MS have already done the groundwork ahead of time for this to pass across the board (MS wanted to speed things up and they're open to platforms anyhow, just like Azure for the last decade). It's still a possibility it could be blocked altogether but I don't think it's probable (objectively far less likely to be blocked than it ever way so far).

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

It's due for regulatory reviews and in process, as it should be. Personally I doubt any viable case can be made, it's an emerging market with lots of players ranging from content providers, infrastructure, middleware solutions, platforms and more. It's possible further remedies may be required but IMO MS have already done the groundwork ahead of time for this to pass across the board (MS wanted to speed things up and they're open to platforms anyhow, just like Azure for the last decade). It's still a possibility it could be blocked altogether but I don't think it's probable (objectively far less likely to be blocked than it ever way so far).

I remember reading the CMA should have their final word about the deal next month. the gaming community is on edge already, I don't think it can resist much longer.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Apple own a mobile platform for gaming. That is why they're huge in gaming.
It's like Sony without first party games.

Amazon here is like MS/Sony in mobile market. Their presence is very small. Without the content, they won't be able to compete.

Look at Google/stadia. Huge in mobile. Have a 11% in cloud market, yet failed badly in cloud gaming. All because they didn't have the content needed for cloud gaming.

Apple's situation is very specific, they make their money off fees charged for releasing on their mobile platform. It has nothing to do with content. The only other company which gets free money in a similar way is Google with their mobile platform.

Google Stadia failed because it sucked and the monetization model was asinine. You had to buy the game AND pay for the cloud subscription. That completely defeats the whole purpose of subscription models.

Amazon has two approaches to take if they want Amazon Luna to be something. The first is Gamepass-like, which does involved producing original content. The other is like Geforce Now, where no content is produced by Nvidia, you buy the game, and their sole monetization is paying a sub to increase play time limits over the free version.

Obviously if Amazon wanted to seriously break into gaming, they could simply offer to acquire Sony. Or maybe Apple decides they want to be a content producer in addition to sponging off everyone who publishes on the App Store and they offer to acquire Sony. Both Apple and Amazon have the money, the market caps, and the clout with regulators to make such an acquisition. There's little Microsoft would be able to do to block it after they forced regulators to allow the acquisition of Activision-Blizzard which is what triggered the wave of industry consolidation in the first place.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

I remember reading the CMA should have their final word about the deal next month. the gaming community is on edge already, I don't think it can resist much longer.

We have all been on a rollercoaster, it's probably got more ups and downs still but not likely to go off the rails completely.

I tend to look at like this, do I want Apple or Tencent or Amazon dominating gaming in say 5 or 15 years? Not really. I would like Nintendo and Sony to take the Xbox route of opening up more. Their hardware can be the best place to play, same as how I view Xbox doing day one releases for other platforms, I don't mind as a console owner (more people to play games with). It's similar to Google pixel phones vs Google providing Android to Samsung and other handhelds to compete with Apple. I like the more open Google approach. I get MS of old was a total cunt of a company, they're just not like that anymore is the reality. Azure and Nadella ushered in a new open MS and it has paid massive benefits (it still feels weird to this old man spinning up a linux server to run wordpress on Azure for a web client). They're not trying to go Gates/Ballmer 100% dominance and they've mostly shed the corporate mentality of you're 100% MS or you're against us from decades ago. Of course they want first mover advantage in cloud and to sell Azure but they realise against the likes of Apple, Google, Amazon that's not the reality. It's better to sign nVidia/Ninty/Sony for example and share revenue parts of those market segments. It's exactly what Sony want to stop MS getting access to with COD/ActiBliz.

I think between the major 3 or 4 regulators left to approve it's late April and May for dates at the moment. The FTC or appeals/courts might drag on for months but MS can just close the deal and move forward then action legalities with the FTC later on. Oh and I think China regulators have stalled for months to come claiming being too busy, I suppose that's what happens when you halt gaming being allowed to be played and some 14,000 game devs/studios are out of work for that near 1 year hiatus they had on any game releases over there.

Also I just want to play Spiderman 2 on PC in a timely fashion /half joke.

 

[reksveks]

so, the cloud discussion can drag these regulator's final approval?

We probably have about 4 weeks left for the EU (the official date for the end is May 22nd but they are some times early) and the UK is the 26nd April. Given that the cloud related SLC hasn't changed much, I don't expect it to have much impact in the negotiations re cloud related remedies.

 

[Ozriel]

Except amazon has little business in gaming.

Luna?

 

[Ozriel]

Sony doesnt have infrastructure, valve doesnt have it, those other cloud providers dont have the vast amout of content that MS has. They can rent them, but it will be limited due to their budget.

Xbox platforms with MS infrastructure is hard to compete with. MS can make a requirement or pay devs to put their games on xcloud. cloud providers dont have that power.

Sony has their own streaming service, and can partner with infrastructure providers for expansion. Valve can do similar if they wanted.

And now MS is signing cloud access deals for Xbox games on a ‘buy-to-stream’ model, their first party content is available to most other cloud gaming services.

 

[Banjo64]

Sony has their own streaming service, and can partner with infrastructure providers for expansion. Valve can do similar if they wanted.

And now MS is signing cloud access deals for Xbox games on a ‘buy-to-stream’ model, their first party content is available to most other cloud gaming services.

Why can’t we play our owned games through xCloud yet? I remember when the store pages leaked and I think it was early last year a load of ‘leakers’ said it was imminent

I can’t wait for MS to revamp their current subscription offerings because RN it feels like it’s Ultimate or nothing.

 

[reksveks]

Why can’t we play our owned games through xCloud yet? I remember when the store pages leaked and I think it was early last year a load of ‘leakers’ said it was imminent

I can’t wait for MS to revamp their current subscription offerings because RN it feels like it’s Ultimate or nothing.

Waiting patiently on that (that came up iirc first during the Apple vs Epic trial) and the UK rollout of Friends and Family subscription plan.

I am interested to see what the MS +Nvidia integration looks like both from UX and a library perspective. I can't remember if third party games from the MS store will be available, I hope so but is it enough to sign up to GFN, not sure yet.

 

[DrFigs]

Luna?

I forgot this existed. cloud gaming just really is not it.

 

[TheGodfather07]

its funny how cod remaining multiplat means this deal has no real effects in the near future. i'll be 40 years old before there is an actual impact and god knows what the industry looks like by then. cod wont lose popularity though, thats for sure. its just too big and a staple ip. it could stay the exact same with only visual upgrades and it would still be just as popular in 10 years as it is today. thats doesnt mean nobody else can create a big fps title though. sony can do it. they've created new ip that sold over 20m copies. they have bungie too, but have said they will remain multiplatform.

 

[Topher]

Ah, so you just have Sony focus again like I have pointed out repeatedly, we are talking about cloud overall. Even limiting to just that you're still incorrect. Sony purchased Gaikai for $400Million, have a ton of content (exclusive even) and still chose Azure over AWS or Google.

Your point is irrelevant and misguided.

Actually it isn't known that Sony is using Azure. There was an MOU to explore the possibility but no announcement was ever made. Someone else posted slides in this thread earlier from a presentation showing Sony implementing PS5 in AWS.

It is/was an exploratory partnership. Sony/PS extensively use AWS for cloud services.

Either way, it’s irrelevant to the acquisition

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Waiting patiently on that (that came up iirc first during the Apple vs Epic trial) and the UK rollout of Friends and Family subscription plan.

I am interested to see what the MS +Nvidia integration looks like both from UX and a library perspective. I can't remember if third party games from the MS store will be available, I hope so but is it enough to sign up to GFN, not sure yet.

I said in another thread at some point but I'd like regulators to push the industry players and technology based on consumer ownership rights. For example back in physical copy days we could trade, sell, take to a friends house and all that. It didn't matter what device you played a movie on for example, Sony DVD or Panasonic etc. It would be nice if regulators pushed the ownership/cloud technology and industry to where it really meant personal ownership and not just some walled garden DRM the industry has self-developed for its own corporate balance sheet. I'd like to see a future where if I own a game on my Xbox that I'm free to play that on whatever device I choose e.g. taking a game from Xbox to PC or Playstation. I get the tech behind it is a total pain and gaming hasn't really evolved how music players did so it's not a one to one comparison but it's my way of describing what I see as a real issue for consumers of movies, music and games going forward. I'd rather regulators focused on consumers from that point of view and created a framework where what I own is in fact real ownership; even down to the point of say cloud saves or progress.

In terms of subs, say Game Pass/Ultimate, why not push the industry to deliver a framework and ecosystem capable of such things? You sub and port your save game to another sub platform. You buy a game on discount from a sub, why do I not own it when other platforms have a version of the same game? I get the corporate supply chain of profit but one has to ask if these regulators are really for consumers why don't they actually look at consumer problems?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Actually it isn't known that Sony is using Azure. There was an MOU to explore the possibility but no announcement was ever made. Someone else posted slides in this thread earlier from a presentation showing Sony implementing PS5 in AWS.

True, I get Sony are yet to settle on a full solution, they may be doing what Steam do and taking a hybrid approach or regional specifics etc. It's a nice illustration of my point, Sony have competition to choose from, it doesn't have to be Gaikai (which whatever Sony is doing there), Azure or Google. They could go AWS. Plenty of competition out there.

 

[Topher]

True, I get Sony are yet to settle on a full solution, they may be doing what Steam do and taking a hybrid approach or regional specifics etc. It's a nice illustration of my point, Sony have competition to choose from, it doesn't have to be Gaikai (which whatever Sony is doing there), Azure or Google. They could go AWS. Plenty of competition out there.

Added the link to my previous post. Here is another:

Sony Interactive Entertainment GDC22 Case Study

Using the opportunity of a generational jump from PlayStation 4 to PlayStation 5, Sony Interactive Entertainment reimagined its online multiplayer ecosystem to meet game developer and player needs at a global scale. In this session, Sony Interactive Entertainment shares how it reinvented its...

aws.amazon.com

Pretty safe to say Sony is using AWS, imo.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Added the link to my previous post. Here is another:

Sony Interactive Entertainment GDC22 Case Study

Using the opportunity of a generational jump from PlayStation 4 to PlayStation 5, Sony Interactive Entertainment reimagined its online multiplayer ecosystem to meet game developer and player needs at a global scale. In this session, Sony Interactive Entertainment shares how it reinvented its...

aws.amazon.com

Pretty safe to say Sony is using AWS, imo.

It's tough to know for now until something official from Sony. For example one game/studio may use AWS and another Azure and yet another self-hosted servers. For example Respawn originally had Titanfall on Azure servers, then with Titanfall 2 used UK based Multiplay and finally now these days uses Google Cloud from what I understand. I'm guessing case studies and announcements from various cloud partners are just specifically for studios or games and not the "whole cloud" strategy out of Sony.

 

[feynoob]

Waiting patiently on that (that came up iirc first during the Apple vs Epic trial) and the UK rollout of Friends and Family subscription plan.

I am interested to see what the MS +Nvidia integration looks like both from UX and a library perspective. I can't remember if third party games from the MS store will be available, I hope so but is it enough to sign up to GFN, not sure yet.

Wouldn't MS advantage stem from the subscription service (gamepass+xcloud), since their rivals aside of Luna/Sony uses B2P integration?

 

[Topher]

It's tough to know for now until something official from Sony. For example one game/studio may use AWS and another Azure and yet another self-hosted servers. For example Respawn originally had Titanfall on Azure servers, then with Titanfall 2 used UK based Multiplay and finally now these days uses Google Cloud from what I understand. I'm guessing case studies and announcements from various cloud partners are just specifically for studios or games and not the "whole cloud" strategy out of Sony.

I'd think Sony would have one cloud solution for all their internal SIE studios, but yeah, I really don't know. It is definitely odd there wasn't an announcement when they publicized the MOU with Microsoft for Azure.

 

[phil_t98]

What did that give them?
3m psnow users, which mostly are on PS.

My point is stands. 20m and higher is going to have a lot of cost outside of the content requirements, something Sony would have to calculate with price cost of their service.

MS can simply eat those cost, which is why patforms like Sony who have the content can't afford those prices. And those who can afford those costs don't have the content.

That is the reason MS has huge advantage in this sector.

Again for a simple term. Content (Sony and MS have the content) + cloud service cost (Amazon and MS have their own service)= overall cost and library of the service.

Keep in mind, MS doesn't make money from xcloud. So those 10m userbase who are using xcloud is being bankrolled by MS.

well snow has gone and they converted the service across, wasn't long ago people on here were bragging about PS+ numbers being much higher than gamepass numbers now. so that not taken into account?

 

[GHG]

I listed my evidence, but he says it's farce because it was after the CMA.

Sorry if I was mistaken

It is what it is man, I didn't create the chain of events.