Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[Deleted member 11852]

Clouds that actually works still have a heavy downside, unless it's extremely easy to use, the chance that 3rd parties would tap in to it is small to none, making it a exclusive feature on exclusive games that would sell XBOX's with or without cloud.

I've not used Azure but i've used EC2, which is very easy to use. Even if Azure is easer, nobody writing network code or devolved processing will struggle with EC2. Ease of use is paramount for all the cloud providers these days, you can't afford to be esoteric and weird.

 

[function]

Although Microsoft can incentivise publisher adoption of their cloud platform with discounts, the choice of server for multiplayer is dependant on the publisher. Microsoft aren't - as far as I know - giving free server capacity to Xbox One published games. And with the exception of BF4 and the bit of lag Killzone suffered just before Christmas, I've not heard of substantive issues with PS4 multiplayer.

As far as I can tell, cloud for Xbox One is "free" with the cost presumeably being footed by Live Gold users.

http://www.vg247.com/2013/10/15/xbo...tech-to-all-devs-including-dedicated-servers/

This potentially makes the economics of cloud hosting / augmentation vastly different, and it's something that MS can do because they own Azure. And MS reckon that they've done a lot of work to make their service ideal for hosting games, entirely because of their Xbox plans. It remains to be seen if MS can actually make this an important differentiator though, and if Sony can easily adapt to match (which perhaps a MS competitor like Google would be keen to help them do).

As for lag, it's somewhere between poor and shitty (depending on the host and who's downloading pr0n at any point in time) for any user hosted game: PS4, 360, PC or anything else. Games have to limit the amount of traffic to a fraction of what they could easily use which limits the amount of objects you can synchronise (and of course how often you can synchronise them), and games have to be designed to be able to work with very high levels of sustained lag.

The number of lag-broken Halo 4 games I encountered was the main (though not only) reason I stopped playing. It was horrendous. Everything is horrendous on Live Gold, unless it's simple co-op with four or less players and the host isn't doing anything else BW heavy on their network. PSN is as bad, for the same reasons. Xbox Live and PSN have meant that people have very low expectations for console online games.

Like Destiny, which is also on PlayStation 4. So uh...

I had thought you were asking for examples of XB1 cloud usage that couldn't be overcome by higher local PS4 flops. Obviously, PS4 itself can 'do' cloud gaming just as well as the Xbone, but the economics are unlikely to be same if Azure is free for Xbone. Destiny has an enormous budget and is very ambitious, and doesn't necessarily show that the MS platform don't have competitive advantages.

Any detailed physics simulation can exceed the computational power of any platform. If you're doing it just for the sake of boasting numbers, it's pointless. If you you are going because it would enhance gameplay, I'm listening.

Yep, and this is why MS need to get busy.

But what's to stop Sony or a publisher renting cloud compute from Microsoft, Amazon or Google? Nothing as far as I can tell.

Only the economics are likely to stop them. Which could be anywhere between a small issue or a big stumbling block, I guess.

And I look forward to seeing cloud compute being used to change games. I really do! But I've heard words before. I heard Ken Kutaragi talking effusively about the Emotion Engine in PlayStation 2 and Cell in PlayStation 3 would change gaming forever. I remember Kutaragi also promising offloading processing to the cloud or other Cell-based items in your home. These days I'm more interested in seeing practical applications.

Yep.

Agreed, being a cloud platform owner could be huge advantage for Microsoft. Or it might be an anchor holding them back. I trust Amazon and Google on cloud because they have a long history in the technology and their core businesses are built around it. I've seen Microsoft embrace markets before then let them stagnant, then ignore them and eventually drop them.

And yes again. MS seem to be good at jumping in and then writing off. I think, however, that MS want cloud to be one of their core business as they move forwards, and Nadella as CEO may perhaps reflects this.

Also agreed. It's wacky that Sony have a free camera-based software (Play Room) in every PS4 and Microsoft don't. Microsoft really don't make things easy on themselves and I wonder if this is a sign of the economic pressure they are under. They're not idiots or stupid and things that are obvious to customers must be obvious to them so something is preventing them from implementing quick-wins. My money is on budgets.

I think MS had unrealistic expectations about what they could achieve, and what they could show to share holders, and this prevented them from making the right decisions (not just for Xbox either, phones and tablets too). I think that MS are becoming a lot more realistic, and pretty quickly. And they're going to have to re-think what they need to invest in the gaming side of Xbox.

 

[function]

People don't care about power, they can't "see" the difference, yet they care about the cloud?

Most people don't care enough about power to worry more about differences in power they can't see than things like what games there are, what their friends are, how much things cost, etc.

Early adopters care, but many of them need people to tell them so they can enjoying knowing they've got it, without having to burden themselves with being able to appreciate it.

And no-one cares about the cloud at the moment. Which is rubbish and shows what dicks 'core' gamers are because it'll impact on game design far more than the current differences in GPU FLOPs.

It doesn't mater if people see something, they will read it and their friends will tell them. This is how word of mouth works. Do you think people are going to be brag about the cloud while their game runs at half the frame rate of their friend's version?

If you're the kind of person that brags about such things, I don't see why you wouldn't brag about having more impressive simulation, more complex games, and online experiences that weren't fundamentally limited and damaged through user hosting.

Sometimes it sounds like people are just regurgitating MS talking points. No one cares about Azure or the any API to tap it. If a game needs dedicated servers, it will get them, the customer is not concerned about the backend. TF does not illustrate any power of the cloud. It is a basic online shooter. It does what lots of shooters does, but with less players.

Economics dictate whether a game will get dedicated servers. It won't be automatic for any game design that 'needs' them if publisher have to pay to use and maintain them.

A system that can scale its needs according to every user that owns the system is far more elegant and flexible than any publisher paid for cloud based platform.

MS needs a lower price and games. The rest of their talking points (Azure, Dx12, Kinect, etc.) are quickly becoming a joke.

Perhaps to you and others like you.

To people making games, or who enjoy enjoy using them, not so much.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

As far as I can tell, cloud for Xbox One is "free" with the cost presumeably being footed by Live Gold users.

Thanks for the link, that is very interesting and very cool for Xbox One games!

It remains to be seen if MS can actually make this an important differentiator though, and if Sony can easily adapt to match (which perhaps a MS competitor like Google would be keen to help them do).

I'm just waiting on novel uses of cloud in games, period. I've been playing MMOs - EverQuest, EverQuest 2, World of Warcraft - for almost 20 years so persistent worlds won't wow me like it may be new for some who only play on consoles.

I had thought you were asking for examples of XB1 cloud usage that couldn't be overcome by higher local PS4 flops.

I was, sorry, I didn't realise that example but should have picked it up as Microsoft demonstrated something like this recently and it was discussed over in the server augmentation thread and I actually commented on it! This could be exciting, if the problem of send/receiving large amounts of fragment detail isn't a bigger problem but I'm trying to think of practical game applications for it - code that is too CPU intensive to run locally, that isn't reliant on vast amounts of network I/O, that improves the game but is latency tolerant.

I'm feeling like this gen and last gen are the ages of interesting-tech-with-promise-if-anybody-can-think-of-something-cool-to-with-them. There's probably a German work for it, technikpromiseunfuch or something.

And yes again. MS seem to be good at jumping in and then writing off. I think, however, that MS want cloud to be one of their core business as they move forwards, and Nadella as CEO may perhaps reflects this.

And of course, this is Microsoft 3.0. Past behaviours may not be relevant. Nadella was previously their cloud guy.

I think that MS are becoming a lot more realistic, and pretty quickly. And they're going to have to re-think what they need to invest in the gaming side of Xbox.

Not doing so well in a bunch of markets does that too you. Apple got crazily realistic back in 1997 and Sony in 2007. Microsoft are nowhere near the level of desperate that the other two were and I do beleive they can turn it around by putting great games on their games console. I don't think need to throw money at it, they just need patience. Sony turned around the train wreck that was PlayStation 3.

 

[-tkf-]

I've not used Azure but i've used EC2, which is very easy to use. Even if Azure is easer, nobody writing network code or devolved processing will struggle with EC2. Ease of use is paramount for all the cloud providers these days, you can't afford to be esoteric and weird.

I have no idea how classic cloud development can be compared to xb1 clouding. For general server hosting and cloud saving I would guess it would be fairly straight forward. But we are expecting cloud enhanced graphics and game play. That was Microsofts play.

The titanfall example may be awesome from the developers viewpoint but for gamers, like me, I see nothing special, apart from a good launch with servers being online

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I have no idea how classic cloud development can be compared to xb1 clouding. For general server hosting and cloud saving I would guess it would be fairly straight forward. But we are expecting cloud enhanced graphics and game play. That was Microsofts play.

And I would be very interested to see what APIs and associated data structures Microsoft have got in place for this. I have been assuming (bad, very bad!) that Xbox One's APIs for Azure would be traditional client/server/storage/transaction functions that you'll find equivalents for other cloud platforms.

But perhaps they do have something special. It's virgin territory, there's no book for this.

 

[McHuj]

Would that be instead off or in addition to a PS4?

If instead off, would it be the same if there was a 299 disc-less PS4?
If i addition to, where would you play your multiplatform games, PS or XB?

In addition, I already own a PS4 (former 360 only owner too). I'd probably play multiplatforms where the bigger audience for MP was (BF on PS for example).

Although it may be awesome for you it may not be awesome for a larger portion of the market which may be the majority of the pie.

I would sell two SKU's a cheap discless/kinectless one and the current one that way consumers can have a choice.

At the moment I genuinely struggle to have any kind incentive to get one. Also, having had both of their previous machines (all of Sony's with the exception of 3) I was quite upset with their reveal. I really hoped the rumours were false.

Every time I keep thinking of picking one up, I find a reason not too. Right now, I'm struggling to find the value. Sub $399 with compelling software, it starts to increase my interest, but right now I can't justify it. Like zup said, if the next Gears of War was out now. I'd jump on it, but PS4 has satisfied all my console needs for the time being.

MS needs to increase the value of the hardware (lower the price) and increase the value of software/Live. As it is now, I think Sony is offering better value on both hardware and software.

 

[-tkf-]

And no-one cares about the cloud at the moment. Which is rubbish and shows what dicks 'core' gamers are because it'll impact on game design far more than the current differences in GPU FLOPs.



To people making games, or who enjoy enjoy using them, not so much.

Core gamers are dicks because they don't care about something they were promised but haven't seen? Cloud computing enhancing games are vapor until they show something real. AND it has to be something else than multi-player servers

Joke is harsh word, but it's under delivering tech, so far at least.

 

[-tkf-]

But perhaps they do have something special. It's virgin territory, there's no book for this.

I would expect every major cloud player to be working on that book, it's essential to their future. In Microsofts case they have an advantage of a locked server client setup where they can really build a tight software package. We an hope

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I would expect every major cloud player to be working on that book, it's essential to their future.

I don't think many are qualified to write that book. The vast majority of cloud usage is storage and non-latency critical distributed compute, i.e you send a complex job up and wait for to process and the results to come back. That and transactions with a remote database.

Without some real world cases for actual game use I'm not sure anybody can even start on tackling the problem of making cloud compute ready for games. But I'm not the right person to speculate, modern graphics technology isn't my thing. My graphics coding ended on the Amiga!

In Microsofts case they have an advantage of a locked server client setup where they can really build a tight software package. We an hope

True.

 

[zupallinere]

interesting-tech-with-promise-if-anybody-can-think-of-something-cool-to-with-them. There's probably a German work for it

There probably is a German word for it and if someone said it to me I would probably think I did something wrong or was given orders

 

[tuna]

They could buy exclusivity but that's more expenditure. I think they just need to wait it out, as Sony had too. Arguably Sony didn't even begin to turn around the PS3 until 2-3 years after launch. The Xbox One has momentum and support, it'll skate until the great games appear.

Most of the great games will be even better on the PS4. So what should MS wait for?

 

[shredenvain]

Most of the great games will be even better on the PS4. So what should MS wait for?

Thats opinion. Sure some games will have higher resolution but that doesnt mean in all peoples minds that they are better. Some people will enjoy one systems online interface more. Some people may prefer one systems controller over the other. We could have some situations where The Ps4 version of a game may be 1080p vs 900p on the One, but the X1 version could have dedicated servers for multiplayer where the Ps4 version doesnt. Which version is better now?

 

[Brad Grenz]

When that actually happens we can talk. The online features are largely at parity, the controller advantage is basically gone and if twice as many of your friends are buying PS4 you can't use your friends list as a reason to choose Xbox One. Xbox can't count on a network effect since it's now working against them.

 

[-tkf-]

Thats opinion. Sure some games will have higher resolution but that doesnt mean in all peoples minds that they are better. Some people will enjoy one systems online interface more. Some people may prefer one systems controller over the other. We could have some situations where The Ps4 version of a game may be 1080p vs 900p on the One, but the X1 version could have dedicated servers for multiplayer where the Ps4 version doesnt. Which version is better now?

So far it's fact, not opinion unless you prefer low framerate and resolution. And as said before, multi-player servers is as old as Quake and nothing special. It's unlikely that EA or other publishers will suddenly be unable to host servers themselves.

As for the rest of your arguments they all go both ways.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Well, either way core gaming is not typically massively profitable.

A blockbuster game like GTA V or Black Ops II can take more revenue in their first 24 hours than many movies over their entire cinematic runs and follow-up DVD and Blu-ray sales. This isn't new, revenue from games overtook Hollywood in 2009 and the gap continues to widen.

Not all games sell gangbusters but if you have a great selling game, it's a licence to print money:

Minecraft - 49 million slaes (all platforms)
GTA V - 32 million sales (360, PS3)
COD4:MW2 - 28 million sales (360, PS3, PC)
GTA San Andreas - 27 million slaes (all platforms)
COD:MW3 - 25 million sales (360, PS3, PC)
Gran Turismo 5 - 10 million sales (PS3)

This is why Sony are dropping low-margin utiliarian markets like PCs but remain in the console business but are dropping low-margin markets like PCs. And it's why Microsoft won't just abandon it lightly. Even when your are only the platform holder, you're picking up licensing royalties.

 

[London Geezer]

A blockbuster game like GTA V or Black Ops II can take more revenue in their first 24 hours than many movies over their entire cinematic runs and follow-up DVD and Blu-ray sales. This isn't new, revenue from games overtook Hollywood in 2009 and the gap continues to widen.

Not all games sell gangbusters but if you have a great selling game, it's a licence to print money:

Minecraft - 49 million slaes (all platforms)
GTA V - 32 million sales (360, PS3)
COD4:MW2 - 28 million sales (360, PS3, PC)
GTA San Andreas - 27 million slaes (all platforms)
COD:MW3 - 25 million sales (360, PS3, PC)
Gran Turismo 5 - 10 million sales (PS3)

This is why Sony are dropping low-margin utiliarian markets like PCs but remain in the console business but are dropping low-margin markets like PCs. And it's why Microsoft won't just abandon it lightly. Even when your are only the platform holder, you're picking up licensing royalties.

That's really a bit of a generalisation. "Some", very rare, games can have the GTA kind of success. Just like some, very rare, movies can have the Avengers kind of success. 10 million sales got GT5 for example - so we even know how much the game coat to make? How many of those 10 million were sold at full price? There are so many variables.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That's really a bit of a generalisation. "Some", very rare, games can have the GTA kind of success. Just like some, very rare, movies can have the Avengers kind of success. 10 million sales got GT5 for example - so we even know how much the game coat to make? How many of those 10 million were sold at full price? There are so many variables.

You don't need 30, 10 or 5 millions sales to turn a profit unless you're development process went off-plan. As for "very rare"? I don't think think they're that rare. Looking around over the last few console generations I can see Halo (franchise), Ratchet & Clank (franchise), Gears of War (franchise), Uncharted (franchise), Resident Evil (franchise), Tomb Raider (franchise), Call of Duty (franchise), Assassin's Creed (franchise), FIFA (franchise), Dead Rising (franchise), GTA (franchise), Gran Turismo (franchise), Final Fantasy (franchise), Metal Gear (franchise), Motorstorm (franchise), God of War (franchise), Killzone (franchise), The Elder Scrolls (franchise).

They keep making them because they are profitable. They're not all been gold, but overall, they've keeping their publisher's pockets lined. And there are a lot of them every year, on average one every 2-3 months. That's not rare, that's regular.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You don't need 30, 10 or 5 millions sales to turn a profit unless you're development process went off-plan. As for "very rare"? I don't think think they're that rare.

There are thousands of games made each generation. The percentage of big successes will be less than one percent. That's rare.

 

[function]

I was, sorry, I didn't realise that example but should have picked it up as Microsoft demonstrated something like this recently and it was discussed over in the server augmentation thread and I actually commented on it! This could be exciting, if the problem of send/receiving large amounts of fragment detail isn't a bigger problem but I'm trying to think of practical game applications for it - code that is too CPU intensive to run locally, that isn't reliant on vast amounts of network I/O, that improves the game but is latency tolerant.

I'm wondering about AI.

If all AI were shifted to the cloud, along with world simulation, you could have a very large number of entities reacting to the world around them, with the clients syncing based on updates from the cloud/server in a similar way to multiplayer games.

This way in a game like, say, Halo 5 you could have scores of marines fighting scores of covenant, with intelligent path finding that could react to a changing environment (as vehicles crash and buildings crumble), on a scale far greater than a single console could manage. Most of the traffic would be downstream to the client, which would suit domestic broadband far better than current user hosting.

In a co-op game you would only ave to do this processing once, and then distribute updates to all the other players. Or ... you could allocate n times the cloud resources and really go nuts with what was going on (moar dropships!).

Lots of high quality AI going into a complex sandbox, that could be shared between players in a way that wouldn't be possible relying on domestic broadband upload BW for the 'host' machine. That's what I'd try and punt out for people to take a look at ....

I'm feeling like this gen and last gen are the ages of interesting-tech-with-promise-if-anybody-can-think-of-something-cool-to-with-them. There's probably a German work for it, technikpromiseunfuch or something.

So far that's all it's been. But unlike the talk of Cell toaster supporting PS3, I think this generation can deliver, it's just that were going to slide towards these enhancements slowly and conservatively. Someone with something to lose and something to prove and lots of money needs to build a showcase.

And I guess that would have to be ... Microsoft.

Not doing so well in a bunch of markets does that too you.

Apple got crazily realistic back in 1997 and Sony in 2007. Microsoft are nowhere near the level of desperate that the other two were and I do beleive they can turn it around by putting great games on their games console. I don't think need to throw money at it, they just need patience. Sony turned around the train wreck that was PlayStation 3.

One thing that helped Sony was drastically slashing the PS3 BOM by taking a saw and cutting off anything that they could from the machine. They actually started this process before the machine even came out, dropping the twin HDMI, triple ethernet etc. And they continued ruthlessly with some then all BC hardware, shrinking, going with a simpler case, dropping some USB ports (I think), eventually even dropping a motorised disk tray and mechanical HDD.

MS can cut a lot of fat from Xbone, but in the mean time, I just think that they need to keep the Kinect SKU close to PS4 price and undercut with a Kinectless SKU, and be prepared to bleed a little ...