cheapchips
Veteran
It's not clear if Playstation's game streaming stuff is. That used to be dedicated racks of PS3's somewhere prior to the Azure deal.
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
It's not clear if Playstation's game streaming stuff is. That used to be dedicated racks of PS3's somewhere prior to the Azure deal.
I don't think so ? Sony bought gaki or whatever the old streaming service was and its been running for like 10 years now
It is Gakai. This is not running on Azure.
Gaikai was the PS3 era stuff. What's the MS Cloud collaboration if not Azure powering PS+ streaming?
www.tweaktown.com
"Under the memorandum of understanding signed by the parties, the two companies will explore joint development of future cloud solutions in Microsoft Azure to support their respective game and content-streaming services," reads the announcement. "In addition, the two companies will explore the use of current Microsoft Azure datacenter-based solutions for Sony's game and content-streaming services. By working together, the companies aim to deliver more enhanced entertainment experiences for their worldwide customers. These efforts will also include building better development platforms for the content creator community."
If not powering PSN streaming now, it certainly would appear that's the intention. For PSN operations and content delivery, Sony are using AWS.
Sony and Microsoft team up, Azure to power PlayStation Now
Worlds collide: Sony and Microsoft partner to explore AI, cloud gaming, and experimental tech.
www.tweaktown.com
"Under the memorandum of understanding signed by the parties, the two companies will explore joint development of future cloud solutions in Microsoft Azure to support their respective game and content-streaming services," reads the announcement. "In addition, the two companies will explore the use of current Microsoft Azure datacenter-based solutions for Sony's game and content-streaming services. By working together, the companies aim to deliver more enhanced entertainment experiences for their worldwide customers. These efforts will also include building better development platforms for the content creator community."
If not powering PSN streaming now, it certainly would appear that's the intention. For PSN operations and content delivery, Sony are using AWS.
I never saw anything after that initial statement that they would be talking and exploring possibilities. I'd imagine if Sony opted to use Azure there would have been followup announcement about it, at least from the Azure side in order tomattract more more potential customers.
Yes. Sony haven't said they use AWS for streaming where they gave a GDC talk on using it for infrastructure. Either the MS collab has gone nowhere, in which case are all Sony's streaming servers in house, or Sony are using Azure as they said was the intention.
America, wooooaa! Well, it is what Microsoft denounced, that they never sat down to negotiate, they blocked the deal because of blocking, let's see how this is sustainable in a trial.
PlayStation's Jim Ryan Reportedly Met With EU Antitrust Boss Over Microsoft's Planned Activision Acquisition - PlayStation Universe
Sony's Jim Ryan has reportedly met with the head of EU antitrust regarding Microsoft's proposed Activision Blizzard acquisition.
www.psu.com
And today we have news about Sony lying to regulators. The lying Jimi meme will never die.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The logic set out in message 3/4 is nonsense. The premise being that why would Microsoft hold back games from other platforms because that means giving up profits. Yet Microsoft have already said that will not release Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI on PlayStation (and presumably any Nintendo hardware capable of running these games) so they are very content to give up profits to make their platform more appealing through exclusivity.
I've seen arguments that Call of Duty is different because it is multiplayer and you need a big player base, but to believe this you have to ignore that Call of Duty's multiplayer has only been cross-platform since 2019, prior to that it wasn't and it sold great on individual platforms which demonstrates Microsoft don't need Sony's platform at all; Xbox and Windows vastly outnumbers Sony's platform numbers.
Call of Duty is no more popular after 2019 than it was a decade ago. Black Ops (2010) and Modern Warfare 3 (2011) both sold 30m, and Modern Warfare Reboot (2019) and Black Ops Cold War (2020) also sold 30m. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I am baffled why people swallow this logic.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
That's according to Frank Shaw in Microsoft who is getting this second hand. This is quite an escalation, and potentially actionable if untrue because it's tantamount to slander - although the "I hear" may mean they could avoid that.
If Microsoft have indeed offered Sony a complete parity deal then it will be really easy for them to produce that written agreement and when it was sent to Sony. Job done. But the last news have have from EU regulators (yesterday) is that the EU are seeking remedies from Microsoft. Which kind of suggests that Microsoft has not satisfied the EU regulators.
If it's so clear cut, why are Microsoft still in this position?
Last edited by a moderator:
If it's so clear cut, why are Microsoft still in this position?
At least from the FTC's perspective, they have an axe to grind.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It definitely looks that way. However, the EU does not.
Thanks for this insiders perspective.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
You are welcome. Whilst I have an extensive career in the UK civil service, I have never worked in an official capacity for the Commission but have spent more than a decade representing the UK with the Commission on internal and external regulation issues. That experience makes me believe in the EU's independence as the EU's strength (and weakness) in that it is steered by representatives from 27 member states which keeps it from becoming an organisation incapable of achieve specific national policy goals.
It many ways this makes it sometimes seemingly impossible to do something that is conventionally the right thing, but it's filled with checks and balances to prevent the power of the block being used to stop things which aren't wrong.
Until we know what remedies the regulators want, I don't think we should assume those remedies have anything directly to do with Call of Duty. There were other TOH that might need to be addressed. As far as we know the 10 years deals Microsoft offered for COD might have satisfied the regulators but there might be other issues that they want to negotiate with Microsoft.That's according to Frank Shaw in Microsoft who is getting this second hand. This is quite an escalation, and potentially actionable if untrue because it's tantamount to slander - although the "I hear" may mean they could avoid that.
If Microsoft have indeed offered Sony a complete parity deal then it will be really easy for them to produce that written agreement and when it was sent to Sony. Job done. But the last news have have from EU regulators (yesterday) is that the EU are seeking remedies from Microsoft. Which kind of suggests that Microsoft has not satisfied the EU regulators.
If it's so clear cut, why are Microsoft still in this position?
May depend on what “parity” means. Marketing rights? Exclusivity clauses etc.That's according to Frank Shaw in Microsoft who is getting this second hand. This is quite an escalation, and potentially actionable if untrue because it's tantamount to slander - although the "I hear" may mean they could avoid that.
If Microsoft have indeed offered Sony a complete parity deal then it will be really easy for them to produce that written agreement and when it was sent to Sony. Job done. But the last news have have from EU regulators (yesterday) is that the EU are seeking remedies from Microsoft. Which kind of suggests that Microsoft has not satisfied the EU regulators.
If it's so clear cut, why are Microsoft still in this position?
Today Sony is used to having these. What does parity mean to Sony may not mean the same to Xbox. Xbox is looking for releasing the same game same time all platforms. Sony could be looking for more. Saying it would be unfair that MS is going to be marketing COD going forward, They could be demanding want to have marketing rights to it as well or it will impact their user base and cause users to switch to Xbox as written in their response.
Call of Duty is a multiplayer game that requires large player populations to keep alive. Starfield and Elder Scrolls are single player games and do not require large player populations to keep alive.The logic set out in message 3/4 is nonsense. The premise being that why would Microsoft hold back games from other platforms because that means giving up profits. Yet Microsoft have already said that will not release Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI on PlayStation (and presumably any Nintendo hardware capable of running these games) so they are very content to give up profits to make their platform more appealing through exclusivity.
I've seen arguments that Call of Duty is different because it is multiplayer and you need a big player base, but to believe this you have to ignore that Call of Duty's multiplayer has only been cross-platform since 2019, prior to that it wasn't and it sold great on individual platforms which demonstrates Microsoft don't need Sony's platform at all; Xbox and Windows vastly outnumbers Sony's platform numbers.
Call of Duty is no more popular after 2019 than it was a decade ago. Black Ops (2010) and Modern Warfare 3 (2011) both sold 30m, and Modern Warfare Reboot (2019) and Black Ops Cold War (2020) also sold 30m. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I am baffled why people swallow this logic.
I find your logic exciting because that means sony should never be able to buy a studio and make exclusive content for playstation again. After all they are the market leader and they don't ever release on xbox or day and date on pc.
That is the logical conclusion to your logic correct ?
Similar threads
