Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

Why would Microsoft be making custom servers in which to insert their custom blades? Why not make xCloud blades that work in any of the variety of these existing server configurations? Do you have a source for this because it doesn't sound right. Or sensible. But does explain why Microsoft struggle with profitability.
My apologies, I misspoke by writing too quickly: custom blades, dedicated servers.
As I understand it, Xbox Live also largely also does not run on Azure hardware. As it has been largely around before Azure really took off. I'm not sure if there is any intention to migrate however.

FiQmj4JXoAEZH33
 
That leaves me confused on the state of Azure hosting for MS and Sony regards their previous joint venture. Did they both give up?

I guess Azure is limited to bespoke solutions from those shopping around and PlayFab, used by MS's first parties.
 
That leaves me confused on the state of Azure hosting for MS and Sony regards their previous joint venture. Did they both give up?

I guess Azure is limited to bespoke solutions from those shopping around and PlayFab, used by MS's first parties.
Perhaps not yet, if this is an on-going discussion, it's sure to be soured by the ABK merger - unless Sony is using it as leverage for their terms on Azure.
 
That leaves me confused on the state of Azure hosting for MS and Sony regards their previous joint venture. Did they both give up?
If you look back at what both companies said, it was nothing more than a MOU on collaboration for cloud and AI, which is really difficult to pin down as something being tangibly delivered. It wouldn't surprise me if this resulted in nothing more than PlayStation servers being installed in Microsoft's Azure global datcentres. I.e. not running on Azure, but use hosted in Azure's infrastructure like xCloud.

I guess Azure is limited to bespoke solutions from those shopping around and PlayFab, used by MS's first parties.
No, it's definitely not. Azure, like AWS and Google's server services, is really flexible. But there is nothing in any of these that are videogame-specific.
 
those are too big. I am anti too big companies. The only one I like is Microsoft. But the world is not well distributed. Tech companies are the future world "dominators" if we don't stop that, specially those that use our data as the product.
 
If you look back at what both companies said, it was nothing more than a MOU on collaboration for cloud and AI, which is really difficult to pin down as something being tangibly delivered. It wouldn't surprise me if this resulted in nothing more than PlayStation servers being installed in Microsoft's Azure global datcentres. I.e. not running on Azure, but use hosted in Azure's infrastructure like xCloud.
PSN is hosted on AWS, certainly voice chat and multiplayer.
No, it's definitely not. Azure, like AWS and Google's server services, is really flexible. But there is nothing in any of these that are videogame-specific.
I meant limited to how they are being used in the game space. You honestly thought I thought MS's massive Azure network wasn't equal to AWS and Google?? :-?
 
Sure, and the dual-bus architecture RSX was custom for Sony's PS3. Xenos in 360 introduced unified shader model before the technology hit PC graphics cards. Any change made makes something custom, but it's the degree of difference between the commodity design/architecture that really determine the R&D cost. Radeon were taking this approach much earlier than Nvidia.
AMD/ATI never released a a GPU in any product that I've seen that resembles Xenos in specs/features, though. It was early with unified shaders, tessellation, and it's ROPs could do 4x MSAA per cycle, no to mention the inclusion of eDRAM. Some people might want discount the eDRAM from GPU innovation, but IIRC the ROPS are located on the daughter die with the eDRAM.

I wish there was the kind of innovation we saw in Xenos in other integrated applications. Think of a laptop with an efficient laptop GPU that relies on system memory for many tasks but has eDRAM for a framebuffer and efficient AA/upscaling. You could adjust the eDRAM amount based on the screen resolution, which should be fixed unless you have users changing screens.
 
AMD/ATI never released a a GPU in any product that I've seen that resembles Xenos in specs/features, though. It was early with unified shaders, tessellation, and it's ROPs could do 4x MSAA per cycle, no to mention the inclusion of eDRAM. Some people might want discount the eDRAM from GPU innovation, but IIRC the ROPS are located on the daughter die with the eDRAM.
Whilst I'm not familiar with ATI hardware of the era, Xenos is commonly likened to the Radeon X1800 XT in terms of features. The eDRAM implementation was cool, and was necessary due to the lack of RAM given the 360 was originally intended to have only 256Mb RAM.
 
Whilst I'm not familiar with ATI hardware of the era, Xenos is commonly likened to the Radeon X1800 XT in terms of features. The eDRAM implementation was cool, and was necessary due to the lack of RAM given the 360 was originally intended to have only 256Mb RAM.
I've read this on the internet before, but I think that's just because the X1800 XT was released contemporaneously with Xbox 360. Xenos has unified shaders. X1800 (and the whole R500 series) used vertex and pixel shaders. Unified shaders weren't available in ATI graphics cards until the HD 2000 cards (R600), and they weren't released until 2007. 18+ months after Xbox 360, with a different amount of shaders, ROPs, etc. Beyond that, from memory, the X1800 XT had 16 ROPS that I think could only do 2x MSAA per cycle while Xenos has 8 ROPS with 4x MSAA per cycle, and had some Z only optimizations that could use MSAA samples as Z only. Not to mention that the ROPs aren't even on the same die on Xenos. They are pretty different.
 
Xenos was a custom chip designed by ATi and Microsoft and produced by ATi. It was far ahead of anything on the PC, provided 2x the pixel performance of the X1800XT and had the most modern architecture. You got high end pc performance for $399 with the Xbox360. It had 10x the pixel performance of the GPU in the first Xbox.
 
AMD/ATI never released a a GPU in any product that I've seen that resembles Xenos in specs/features, though. It was early with unified shaders, tessellation, and it's ROPs could do 4x MSAA per cycle, no to mention the inclusion of eDRAM. Some people might want discount the eDRAM from GPU innovation, but IIRC the ROPS are located on the daughter die with the eDRAM.

I wish there was the kind of innovation we saw in Xenos in other integrated applications. Think of a laptop with an efficient laptop GPU that relies on system memory for many tasks but has eDRAM for a framebuffer and efficient AA/upscaling. You could adjust the eDRAM amount based on the screen resolution, which should be fixed unless you have users changing screens.
Believe it or not the Xenos is closer to the Adreno 200 series (based on the AMD Z430 IP) than any PC AMD GPUs going by open source driver code. The only commonality that Xenos shared with AMD GPUs in general at the time were PM4 packets (used for command processor to interface with fixed function units and programmable shaders which is still used on modern AMD GPUs today) and their VLIW ISA design ...

The Xenos came about from a time where nearly everything was nonstandardized. New systems went towards standardized hardware designs to get benefits like subsidized future hardware development, standardized software development practices, and backwards compatibility. Going back to "innovation" in hardware design like Xenos would potentially mean undoing progress the industry has made in those areas ...
 
Nintendo is just trolling Sony. Everyone knows that Microsoft wont bring any AAA games to the switch.
Microsoft wouldn't make a new modern Call of Duty game run on on local hardware, not unless significantly more capable new hardware is around the corner. More likely, Microsoft would plan to provide games via cloud streaming just like a bunch of other games.

None of this is about Sony, this is Microsoft trying to convince the regulators that they are good people not intending to move content for other platforms. But from the regulator's perspective, I can only see this coming across as Microsoft confirming that they actually do intend to move content from other platforms but indicating that they'll down that point down the line so please tell us how many years we have to put up with this bullshit.

I don't think anybody has raised concerns about Call of Duty not being on Nintendo consoles, because it hasn't been for a decade.
 
As someone that has only played World at war only because it was bundled with the 360, and disliked it with all my energy, I diagnose all of you as crazy.
I understand that for reasons beyond my understanding, it prints money, but it's not the only one. Why this obsession with it?
 
That's a big sigh of relief from all the Nintendo owning COD fans who need that game on their Ninty console...
Microsoft's strategy does look to be ignore all concerns other than Sony banging on about Call of Duty.

UK/EU Regulators: We have these concerns about content, stores, operating systems, and cloud and subscription services.
Microsoft: Sony can have Call of Duty for five years.
UK/EU Regulators: So about these other concerns..
Microsoft: Sony can have Call of Duty for ten years.
UK/EU Regulators: On cloud, stores and services.
Microsoft: Nintendo can have Call of Duty for ten years!!!


The list of people in attendance at today's closed-door hearing in Brussels includes executives from Microsoft, Activision Blizzard and Sony, as well as representatives from Nvidia, Electronic Arts, Google and Valve.
 
Microsoft's strategy does look to be ignore all concerns other than Sony banging on about Call of Duty.

UK/EU Regulators: We have these concerns about content, stores, operating systems, and cloud and subscription services.
Microsoft: Sony can have Call of Duty for five years.
UK/EU Regulators: So about these other concerns..
Microsoft: Sony can have Call of Duty for ten years.
UK/EU Regulators: On cloud, stores and services.
Microsoft: Nintendo can have Call of Duty for ten years!!!


The list of people in attendance at today's closed-door hearing in Brussels includes executives from Microsoft, Activision Blizzard and Sony, as well as representatives from Nvidia, Electronic Arts, Google and Valve.

This is just PR.
 
This is just PR.
It also appears to be working, to some extent at least regards the public discourse where commenters are talking about Sony being awkward etc. based purely on COD. As far as The Internet is concerned, COD is all any of this is about. It really should be held behind closed doors; none of this public fighting between organisations should be happening. The official regulators should operate as unprejudiced, logical professionals and The Public should butt out until a decisions is reached. Score one more significant negative for The Internet.
 
It also appears to be working, to some extent at least regards the public discourse where commenters are talking about Sony being awkward etc. based purely on COD. As far as The Internet is concerned, COD is all any of this is about. It really should be held behind closed doors; none of this public fighting between organisations should be happening. The official regulators should operate as unprejudiced, logical professionals and The Public should butt out until a decisions is reached. Score one more significant negative for The Internet.

I don't think so. Does the sales of PS5 are tanking? Are the general public caring about Microsoft or Sony position? This is nothing out of hardcore gaming circle...
 
Back
Top