Support NeoGAF

[TheGodfather07]

This is a laughable paragraph to read. The money on the table for those investments is less than Zenimax. Bringing up Minority investment too.

Lol haven studios, lasengle and savage games is the same as Activision!? What are Microsoft smoking? 3rd party deals? I see the term console launch exclusive at every Microsoft show! Microsoft have nothing on sony and are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

[phil_t98]

"Microsoft submitted that having Azure does not give it a material advantage that it can leverage to improve its gaming offering"

Their other response too I think is glossing over the CMAs concern. they downplay the importance of content to suggest that no harm can be caused when I'm sure they know that "content is king":

"Second, the CMA has concerns that Microsoft may use Activision Blizzard
content either alone or in combination with its wider "ecosystem" to out-compete rivals such as
Google, Amazon and Nvidia. In a novel theory of harm unsupported by precedent, economic
literature or the evidence, the CMA alleges that a potential increase in network effects and barriers
to entry—without evidence or quantification of any effect—is sufficient to foreclose major
technology companies from cloud gaming services."

This after one named competitor just foreclosed.

Well azure at the moment doesn't. Also nothing to stop Sony using Azure as they do. Also cloud gaming isn't any good at the moment. You can't stop somebody doing something that in 10 years could be good

No using the activism on content, it's third party and there is no right for any game to be on any system. You could say that Sony uses their clout as market leader to influence third party games anyway with the marketing deals they do.


How about Sony buying shares in company's could influence the market also?

 

[Three]

Well azure at the moment doesn't. Also nothing to stop Sony using Azure as they do. Also cloud gaming isn't any good at the moment. You can't stop somebody doing something that in 10 years could be good

I disagree and discussed this. It does for the reasons already mentioned in previous posts.

No using the activism on content, it's third party and there is no right for any game to be on any system. You could say that Sony uses their clout as market leader to influence third party games anyway with the marketing deals they do.

Sure you could but to suggest that content cannot be used to cause harm to competitors as if it is some outlandish theory is not being truthful.

How about Sony buying shares in company's could influence the market also?

How does this reduce competition? Did it prevent Fortnite or Elden ring from coming to competing systems? Did it prevent equal terms cloud access considering Fortnite is on xcloud and nothing else?
They clearly tried to disingenuously namedrop other big games as if Sony are leveraging these minority shares somehow to influence the market. They're not, and it is in no way effecting competition. If anything it is to prevent buyouts that do.

 

[phil_t98]

I disagree and discussed this. It does for the reasons already mentioned in previous posts.

Sure you could but to suggest that content cannot be used to cause harm to competitors as if it is some outlandish theory is not being truthful.

How does this reduce competition? Did it prevent Fortnite or Elden ring from coming to competing systems? Did it prevent equal terms cloud access considering Fortnite is on xcloud and nothing else?
They clearly tried to disingenuously namedrop other big games as if Sony are leveraging these minority shares somehow to influence the market. They're not, and it is in no way effecting competition. If anything it is to prevent buyouts that do.

no but Sony gets exclusive content from Fortnite, also the deal with from soft was only done at the time or afterwards. you can easily say that lying ,millions in shares to a company would have influence on their work and gear towards one brand more than an other


as for third party games , nobody has a right to them. as discussed earlier in the thread Sony now has control of one of the biggest third party games in Destiny. They have said they will remain independent but for how long? destiny is a huge game and it can effect console sales also

 

[Three]

no but Sony gets exclusive content from Fortnite, also the deal with from soft was only done at the time or afterwards. you can easily say that lying ,millions in shares to a company would have influence on their work and gear towards one brand more than an other

You've got to be kidding me. You know that Nintendo, xbox, Samsung, and Twitch Prime all have exclusive skins right?
The From software shares wasn't done afterwards. They already owned a minority share and bought more.

as for third party games , nobody has a right to them. as discussed earlier in the thread Sony now has control of one of the biggest third party games in Destiny. They have said they will remain independent but for how long? destiny is a huge game and it can effect console sales also

Bungie is an independent subsidiary of Sony. They have already said it will remain on everything but MS is actively arguing over IP removal in this acquisition after a period of time. If they made ABK independent with equal access this back and forth between the CMA and MS wouldn't be happening in the first place.

 

[intheinbetween]

This is a laughable paragraph to read. The money on the table for those investments is less than Zenimax. Bringing up Minority investment too.

Aren't those investments that could lead to push for exclusive content for Sony platforms, or are you implying they just invested in those companies as they could've just invested in any other business? It's about the end goal for those investments, not only the amount of money used.

Also, IF Sony had the financial resources MS has, they wouldn't have just purchased a limited amount of stock of From Software, they could've just bought them.

 

[PaintTinJr]

This is sad. Aside from the fact Xbox has NO responsibility to provide games for competitors sub services, this just shows how utterly clueless CMA is. Arkane is an Xbox first party and Arkane's game, Deathloop is in fact on PS+. I don't foresee this becoming a common occurrence, because why would anyone expect Xbox to provide content for a competing service.

It would be nice if they could at least get their facts straight when making absurd and unreasonable demands on Xbox's use of their own first party games.

Well for a start, Deathloop launched on PlayStation and was a deal before Bethesda was acquired, its presence on PS+ is not a decision that was made by MSFT, so they are completely accurate on their observation of how MSFT act.

Read the report in full. It isn't sad at all, and the CMA aren't advocating either way, merely just pointing to the duplicitous claims of MSFT. The reality of how they actually act in regards of partial or full foreclosure strategies where XGP is concerned and their IP is the reason the CMA make the observation.

 

[Three]

Aren't those investments that could lead to push for exclusive content for Sony platforms, or are you implying they just invested in those companies as they could've just invested in any other business? It's about the end goal for those investments, not only the amount of money used.

Also, IF Sony had the financial resources MS has, they wouldn't have just purchased a limited amount of stock of From Software, they could've just bought them.

It's more a safeguard for them to remain independent. If they have minority share it makes buyouts more costly or difficult. It's also investing in a developer you are reliant on already.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Aren't those investments that could lead to push for exclusive content for Sony platforms, or are you implying they just invested in those companies as they could've just invested in any other business? It's about the end goal for those investments, not only the amount of money used.

Also, IF Sony had the financial resources MS has, they wouldn't have just purchased a limited amount of stock of From Software, they could've just bought them.

General what about/what IF's about company A Vs company B with repeated history of using influence and/or money to distort the market… .

The amount of money effectively invested matters, the rest are what if's and whataboutism.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I honestly never expected climate change to be a reason the MS/ABK deal should be shut down, but here we are.

Hey, don't be bashful, let's hear your full opinion in regards of the point I made.

How many companies doing their own cloud computing farms in - even just - the UK and Northern Ireland would be too many for you - for it to be impractical?
Cloud for gaming needs to be minimal hops from the gamer to minimise latency, and the British areas - typically coastal in Northen Ireland or Scotland where cloud farm air conditioning can run cheaper with the benefit of a coastal breeze - are finite, so how much square mileage land use would be too much, too?

And at what cost per KW/hr for electric does it need to reach - a resource increasing in price rapidly because of supply issues - would you consider that Cloud computing farms are the modern-day equivalent of steelworks? Like cloud computing steel was (and is) an essential resource you have to have, but a resource that can only be provided by one - or very few works - for obvious reasons that don't even need explained to climate change denying clowns. Thankfully MSFT and Sony are professional multinational companies that understand these realities - you lol at.

 

[phil_t98]

You've got to be kidding me. You know that Nintendo, xbox, Samsung, and Twitch Prime all have exclusive skins right?
The From software shares wasn't done afterwards. They already owned a minority share and bought more.

Bungie is an independent subsidiary of Sony. They have already said it will remain on everything but MS is actively arguing over IP removal in this acquisition after a period of time. If they made ABK independent with equal access this back and forth between the CMA and MS wouldn't be happening in the first place.

I have Fortnite on switch as well as ps4 and xbox and I can tell you there are a hell of a lot more skins that you get by having a playstation.

also with the bungie deal they say that games will remain on everything. nothing said over new games and Microsoft has said Call of duty will remain on playstation

 

[ManaByte]

I have Fortnite on switch as well as ps4 and xbox and I can tell you there are a hell of a lot more skins that you get by having a playstation.

Sony has a marketing deal with Fortnite where they produce a PS+ exclusive pack at the start of every season. It doesn't always include a skin and hasn't for a long time. Lately it's been a wrap, spray or shitty looking glider.

 

[phil_t98]

Sony has a marketing deal with Fortnite where they produce a PS+ exclusive pack at the start of every season. It doesn't always include a skin and hasn't for a long time. Lately it's been a wrap, spray or shitty looking glider.

yeah and they own shares in epic to. my point is that could influence epic with how they do games. I mean if you remember the statement that the demo for unreal engine on PS5 was only possible because of the super speed of the PS5 SSD, that was a statement they said when in fact it can run on other consoles and PC's as other demos have shown. you can't say that statement couldn't of been influnced by the investment into epic and statements like that influence us guys on consoles of choice

 

[Three]

Hey, don't be bashful, let's hear your full opinion in regards of the point I made.

How many companies doing their own cloud computing farms in - even just - the UK and Northern Ireland would be too many for you - for it to be impractical?
Cloud for gaming needs to be minimal hops from the gamer to minimise latency, and the British areas - typically coastal in Northen Ireland or Scotland where cloud farm air conditioning can run cheaper with the benefit of a coastal breeze - are finite, so how much square mileage land use would be too much, too?

And at what cost per KW/hr for electric does it need to reach - a resource increasing in price rapidly because of supply issues - would you consider that Cloud computing farms are the modern-day equivalent of steelworks? Like cloud computing steel was (and is) an essential resource you have to have, but a resource that can only be provided by one - or very few works - for obvious reasons that don't even need explained to climate change denying clowns. Thankfully MSFT and Sony are professional multinational companies that understand these realities - you lol at.

Just join the hyperscalers bro, it's not hard. /s

These people underestimate how the current market works with colocation and efficiency.

 

[phil_t98]

Just join the hyperscalers bro, it's not hard. /s

These people underestimate how the current market works with colocation and efficiency.

ok a calm question for you. do you think the deal will go through? if yes why do you think it will go through and if no why won't it go through?

 

[Three]

ok a calm question for you. do you think the deal will go through? if yes why do you think it will go through and if no why won't it go through?

I have no idea if it will go through or not, that's for the FTC and CMA to decide. I'm on the fence and and can see the CMAs investigation as a good thing though rather than calling them idiots for raising these points.

The idea that Nintendo or Sony should just build its own cloud infrastructure shows that people don't know how costly and unnecessary such an endeavour is for a competitive market though. You can't squash vertical merger concerns with "well you can do it too if you want". Every company would be doing everything under the sun in that silly hypothetical future. Most companies rely on the big hyperscalers for cloud.

 

[phil_t98]

I have no idea if it will go through or not, that's for the FTC and CMA to decide. I'm on the fence and and can see the CMAs investigation as a good thing though rather than calling them idiots for raising these points.

The idea that Nintendo or Sony should just build its own cloud infrastructure shows that people don't know how costly and unnecessary such an endeavour is for a competitive market though. You can't squash vertical merger concerns with "well you can do it too if you want". Every company would be doing everything under the sun in that silly hypothetical future. Most companies rely on the big hyperscalers for cloud.

so your saying because of a cloud infrastructure that this could [possobly fail? just getting your take on things. do you think Sony or Nintendo need their own cloud infastructure? they can piggy back on others maybe

edit: also we not looking at xbox gaming doing a cloud infrastructure we are looking at Microsoft so the same applies to Sony when doing this the whole company would be doing it not just the gaming division so it shouldn't be looked at in this way in my opinion

 

[reksveks]

The argument that Sony is ecological conscious so that's a factor why that they don't invest in their own servers is very funny. How does anyone quantify that statement? What is Sony's scope 1/2/3 emissions etc and how does it compare to MS? How does we compare them to the industry?

I do find it interesting that MS says that they are using custom servers for xcloud and imo the design of the ps5 would probably mean that they are going to have to use custom racks anyways. For boring stuff like CDN, they will be fine with the normal cloud providers.

MS could have advantages over other smaller cloud streaming providers using more normal setups especially those licencing windows but Sony less so. They may have advantages in terms of financing and knowledge though.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

The argument that Sony is ecological conscious so that's a factor why that they don't invest in their own servers is very funny.

This argument collapses if you remember that Playstation 5 is a huge piece of plastic

 

[Topher]

The argument that Sony is ecological conscious so that's a factor why that they don't invest in their own servers is very funny. How does anyone quantify that statement? What is Sony's scope 1/2/3 emissions etc and how does it compare to MS? How does we compare them to the industry?

I do find it interesting that MS says that they are using custom servers for xcloud and imo the design of the ps5 would probably mean that they are going to have to use custom racks anyways. For boring stuff like CDN, they will be fine with the normal cloud providers.

MS could have advantages over other smaller cloud streaming providers using more normal setups especially those licencing windows but Sony less so. They may have advantages in terms of financing and knowledge though.

This argument collapses if you remember than Playstation 5 is a huge piece of plastic

XSX weighs the same as PS5, but why does any of this matter again? Where is the ecological argument coming from? CMA?

 

[reksveks]

XSX weighs the same as PS5, but why does any of this matter again? Where is the ecological argument coming from? CMA?

Again 'sub-tweeting' someone here in this thread.

CMA is looking at the right stuff but I think they are focused on the wrong players. I think most issues will come from the small cloud streaming players rather than Sony.

 

[Topher]

Again 'sub-tweeting' someone here in this thread.

I see it now.

 

[ReBurn]

"Microsoft submitted that having Azure does not give it a material advantage that it can leverage to improve its gaming offering"

Their other response too I think is glossing over the CMAs concern. they downplay the importance of content to suggest that no harm can be caused when I'm sure they know that "content is king":

"Second, the CMA has concerns that Microsoft may use Activision Blizzard
content either alone or in combination with its wider "ecosystem" to out-compete rivals such as
Google, Amazon and Nvidia. In a novel theory of harm unsupported by precedent, economic
literature or the evidence, the CMA alleges that a potential increase in network effects and barriers
to entry—without evidence or quantification of any effect—is sufficient to foreclose major
technology companies from cloud gaming services."

This after one named competitor just foreclosed.

So what you are saying is that in the statement to the CMA where Microsoft said they do not use Azure to deliver cloud gaming:

is a lie? Microsoft does have a cloud services platform, but they contend that it is not used for cloud gaming. This is one of the points CMA is going to have to prove and certainly something Microsoft would appeal on if CMA uses it as justification to block the deal.

If Microsoft choose to migrate cloud gaming to Azure then Azure could be an advantage. But I can tell you from my professional experience with Azure trying to build a low latency data event messaging framework there there that it's impractical to expect that Azure is going to be able to deliver low latency game streaming without some serious additional investment. If you have a different experience with Azure please elaborate.

Also, please elaborate on how Microsoft was responsible for a competitor's foreclosure. If you are talking about Stadia then Google had a terrible business plan where cloud streaming was the only way gaming content could be delivered and the gaming community isn't ready for that. It's fundamentally different than game pass and Xbox cloud gaming in that you don't need cloud at all to play the games you own on game pass. You actually can't stream the games you own unless they're on game pass. So Microsoft did not foreclose in relation to Google. Stadia just failed.

 

[Three]

so your saying because of a cloud infrastructure that this could [possobly fail? just getting your take on things. do you think Sony or Nintendo need their own cloud infastructure? they can piggy back on others maybe

edit: also we not looking at xbox gaming doing a cloud infrastructure we are looking at Microsoft so the same applies to Sony when doing this the whole company would be doing it not just the gaming division so it shouldn't be looked at in this way in my opinion

That's not what I'm saying at all. The CMA has raised concerns that MS have a cloud advantage already and MS have responded that they have no material advantage with regards to cloud. I just found that funny and dishonest especially considering Spencer's past comments before he was trying to get this deal through. Whether the CMA ultimately find that the cloud advantage will cause this to fail or not I have no idea.

The argument that Sony is ecological conscious so that's a factor why that they don't invest in their own servers is very funny. How does anyone quantify that statement? What is Sony's scope 1/2/3 emissions etc and how does it compare to MS? How does we compare them to the industry?

I do find it interesting that MS says that they are using custom servers for xcloud and imo the design of the ps5 would probably mean that they are going to have to use custom racks anyways. For boring stuff like CDN, they will be fine with the normal cloud providers.

MS could have advantages over other smaller cloud streaming providers using more normal setups especially those licencing windows but Sony less so. They may have advantages in terms of financing and knowledge though.

I don't think anyone is saying compare MS and Sony on their emissions. They are saying cloud farms are expensive to run and use 4%+ of the electricity of some nations. Everyone setting up their own farms would be ridiculous. What cloud companies provide is colocation to cut costs for cooling and space. That means custom racks are set up at Google or MS farms.

 

[The_Mike]

Sony has a marketing deal with Fortnite where they produce a PS+ exclusive pack at the start of every season. It doesn't always include a skin and hasn't for a long time. Lately it's been a wrap, spray or shitty looking glider.

But, according to Sony, only Sony is allowed to have these type of deals, because they are trying to sneak a requirement that "Microsoft is not allowed to have any exclusive promotions, or game pass features, should they acquire Activision Blizzard".

Sony tries to block the competition, trying to actively avoid getting any sort of competition so they can sit in their comfortable chair with little effort.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

That's why I'm skeptical of the streaming model for gaming, at least the way Xbox/MS are going about it. It's one thing to make extra money on the back end with a legacy catalog service but to put all of your eggs in one basket is just crazy. It's going to cost so much money to make content to keep a service like that going I don't know where they'll make it up. Netflix has over 220 million subscribers, they spend roughly $10 billion to $15 billion on content a year, game pass has about 25 million according to MS and they will have spent almost $100 billion if this deal goes through just buying studios in the last 5 years, that doesn't cover the cost of actually making the games etc. It takes a lot longer to make a single game than it does to make several seasons of a tv show.

Bombs will hit different on subscriber programs. How you absorb the blows are a lot different, but eventually, they have to increase the price of the program to keep up with the costs and that is when people instantly re-evaluate whether they want to keep paying. They'll have to do very micro-adjustments to price to have a frog in boiling water effect at some point Microsoft will seek to limit how much they're spending on the majority of titles, with maybe a few titles being the big draw.

But they'll be constantly chasing growth to keep up with costs and they think they can get ahead of it like Netflix did by buying content makers. That's risky business the way they're doing it.

 

[reksveks]

I don't think anyone is saying compare MS and Sony on their emissions. They are saying cloud farms are expensive to run and use 4%+ of the electricity of some nations. Everyone setting up their own farms would be ridiculous. What cloud companies provide is colocation to cut costs for cooling and space. That means custom racks are set up at Google or MS farms.

I was just debating the idea that Sony is 'environmentally conscious' without any evidence and that is a factor that Sony aren't creating their own cloud infrastructure. That factor is immaterial imo.

Cloud farms are indeed expensive and can see Sony definitely using co-location services and/or more standardize hardware where it makes sense but that's more a factor of $ and the features that it enables.

 

[Three]

So what you are saying is that in the statement to the CMA where Microsoft said they do not use Azure to deliver cloud gaming:

is a lie? Microsoft does have a cloud services platform, but they contend that it is not used for cloud gaming. This is one of the points CMA is going to have to prove and certainly something Microsoft would appeal on if CMA uses it as justification to block the deal.

Yes I think MS are playing fast and loose with regulators:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/gaming/game-streaming/cloud/azure

"Azure provides more global regions than any other cloud provider -- offering the scale to bring your games to players around the world"

They are trying to say it doesn't use their cloud services "Azure" data server blades but they are 100% hosted at Azure data centres with infrastructure, bandwidth and location advantages. Phil has mentioned Azure and MS have mentioned Azure. Now they are trying to distance themselves from the word "Azure" and pretend this is some separate thing without advantages simply because they use xbox server blades.

If Microsoft choose to migrate cloud gaming to Azure then Azure could be an advantage. But I can tell you from my professional experience with Azure trying to build a low latency data event messaging framework there there that it's impractical to expect that Azure is going to be able to deliver low latency game streaming without some serious additional investment. If you have a different experience with Azure please elaborate.

It depends what you define as "Azure" infrastructure. If you are referring to web app deployment then yeah I don't think they are particularly low latency. If you are talking about xCloud at Azure data centres that's something else.

They have completely missed the point on the OS front too. Nobody is saying that xcloud is a PC. The complaint is that anybody trying to set up a competitive gaming server would need to licence Windows client OS or maybe buy those xbox blades? Because most games are written for windows.

Also, please elaborate on how Microsoft was responsible for a competitor's foreclosure. If you are talking about Stadia then Google had a terrible business plan where cloud streaming was the only way gaming content could be delivered and the gaming community isn't ready for that. It's fundamentally different than game pass and Xbox cloud gaming in that you don't need cloud at all to play the games you own on game pass. You actually can't stream the games you own unless they're on game pass. So Microsoft did not foreclose in relation to Google. Stadia just failed.

I didn't say they were Phil Harrison had a rant about it. I was pointing out the irony in saying there is no foreclosure risk for a company they name dropped which foreclosed. I would say due to content on their Pro sub too.

 

[PaintTinJr]

The argument that Sony is ecological conscious so that's a factor why that they don't invest in their own servers is very funny. How does anyone quantify that statement? What is Sony's scope 1/2/3 emissions etc and how does it compare to MS? How does we compare them to the industry?

I do find it interesting that MS says that they are using custom servers for xcloud and imo the design of the ps5 would probably mean that they are going to have to use custom racks anyways. For boring stuff like CDN, they will be fine with the normal cloud providers.

MS could have advantages over other smaller cloud streaming providers using more normal setups especially those licencing windows but Sony less so. They may have advantages in terms of financing and knowledge though.

Feel free to read Sony's website on their sustainable development plans like their 2050 Road to Zero efforts
This is the top link
https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/eco/sustainable-development

And here is just three of the many sub links from that page above, lots of stuff to consider against my claim they are ecologically conscious for you to agree or disagree with.
https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/eco/headphones
https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/sustainable-audio
https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/eco-tv

In a recent video they did some months ago they said it is part of everything they do, now, So I guess it is informally or formally part of the company's mission statement.

What was interesting about the CMA report in regards of Xbox's deployed for Xcloud is that the number used was redacted, so we can't know how many were causing XsX scarcity at launch, or how many could be taken off the projected sold number - as these would be internal counted as sale, I suspect - to get a better idea of the install base for Series consoles that can sell software to gamers.

 

[reksveks]

Feel free to read Sony's website on their sustainable development plans like their 2050 Road to Zero efforts
This is the top link
https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/eco/sustainable-development

And here is just three of the many sub links from that page above, lots of stuff to consider against my claim they are ecologically conscious for you to agree or disagree with.

Everyone has a sustainability plan aka my question about quantifying it and comparing it to others.

This is such a minor factor and it's so obtuse to determine what the correct strategy is. Maybe designing a more conventional hw so you could use standardized hw rack would have helped. (might have gotten ps5 games onto ps now sooner but that's a tangent)

 

[PaintTinJr]

Everyone has a sustainability plan aka my question about quantifying it and comparing it to others.

This is such a minor factor and it's so obtuse to determine what the correct strategy is. Maybe designing a more conventional hw so you could use standardized hw rack would have helped. (might have gotten ps5 games onto ps now sooner but that's a tangent)

A company worrying about the ecological impact of shipping products and lowering weight isn't setting up redundant Cloud farms IMO, are they? I mean they are using packaging paper for PS5 made from bamboo which can regrow quickly and locally to product manufacture - saving shipping of packaging too in carbon emission.

 

[phil_t98]

Yes I think MS are playing fast and loose with regulators:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/gaming/game-streaming/cloud/azure

"Azure provides more global regions than any other cloud provider -- offering the scale to bring your games to players around the world"

They are trying to say it doesn't use their cloud services "Azure" data server blades but they are 100% hosted at Azure data centres with infrastructure, bandwidth and location advantages. Phil has mentioned Azure and MS have mentioned Azure. Now they are trying to distance themselves from the word "Azure" and pretend this is some separate thing without advantages simply because they use xbox server blades.



It depends what you define as "Azure" infrastructure. If you are referring to web app deployment then yeah I don't think they are particularly low latency. If you are talking about xCloud at Azure data centres that's something else.

They have completely missed the point on the OS front too. Nobody is saying that xcloud is a PC. The complaint is that anybody trying to set up a competitive gaming server would need to licence Windows client OS or maybe buy those xbox blades? Because most games are written for windows.


I didn't say they were Phil Harrison had a rant about it. I was pointing out the irony in saying there is no foreclosure risk for a company they name dropped which foreclosed. I would say due to content on their Pro sub too.

I could also argue Sony is playing fast and loose with regulators saying they couldn't survive without COD, their own games are some of the best and best selling games every year.

 

[adamsapple]

Sony has a marketing deal with Fortnite where they produce a PS+ exclusive pack at the start of every season. It doesn't always include a skin and hasn't for a long time. Lately it's been a wrap, spray or shitty looking glider.

So they're not afraid that other console gamers will miss out in that case ?

 

[The_Mike]

I could also argue Sony is playing fast and loose with regulators saying they couldn't survive without COD, their own games are some of the best and best selling games every year.

Look at the bigger picture.

The majority of those who buy a console are fifa cod players.

Since these people buy an ps, they are in the eco system and more willing to buy first party games.

If CoD becomes exclusive they buy that instead, not caring enough to buy a ps for exclusives.

It's about having as many on your ecosystem.

 

[reksveks]

A company worrying about the ecological impact of shipping products and lowering weight isn't setting up redundant Cloud farms IMO, are they? I mean they are using packaging paper for PS5 made from bamboo which can regrow quickly and locally to product manufacture - saving shipping of packaging too in carbon emission.

What are you expecting? Whole new buildings for custom server racks? What's the alternative? Using Collocation services with their custom hw? How much co2 does that reduce?

Again reducing co2 emissions especially when it comes to servers usage isn't a simple calculation especially if you are accounting for scope 1/2/3 emissions.

Also there are places where companies will compromise in one area and go further in others instead and then there is the whole topic of greenwashing or carbon compensation.

I am not arguing that Sony doesn't care about their co2 footprint, I am just arguing that its very down the list of key factors.

 

[ReBurn]

Yes I think MS are playing fast and loose with regulators:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/gaming/game-streaming/cloud/azure

They are trying to say it doesn't use their cloud services "Azure" data server blades but they are 100% hosted at Azure data centres with infrastructure and locations. Phil has mentioned azure and MS have mentioned Azure. Now they are trying to distance themselves from the word "Azure" and pretend this is some separate thing without advantages simply because they use xbox server blades.

How does cloud gaming Infrastucture being collocated in facilities with Azure infrastructure make the cloud gaming infrastructure Azure? Though osmosis? You are right about Microsoft and Phil talking about building cloud gaming on Azure. They announced the deal with Sega last year partnering with Sega to build out Sega's cloud gaming platform on Azure. And it's entirely possible that Xbox cloud gaming could merge with Azure one day. But CMA still has to prove how that would give Microsoft an unfair advantage and foreclose competition.

It depends what you define as "Azure" infrastructure. If you are referring to web app deployment then yeah I don't think they are particularly low latency. If you are talking about xCloud at Azure data centres that's something else.

They have completely missed the point on the OS front too. Nobody is saying that xcloud is a PC. The complaint is that anybody trying to set up a competitive gaming server would need to licence Windows client OS or maybe buy those xbox blades? Because most games are written for windows.

It wouldn't necessarily require a Windows server OS license to set up a competitive gaming server. Sony runs servers for their online games and game streaming services somewhere and never before has Windows OS licensing been a problem for them. Linux/Unix is perfectly capable as an alternative to Windows in server side scenarios. Probably more capable in many scenarios.

On the client side Valve is proving with Steam Deck that Windows is not a requirement to play PC games. Rosetta 2 on Apple Silicon has been showing the same thing. Also, lots of people just don't pay for Windows licenses and are still gaming just fine. Microsoft nags them with a watermark but doesn't shut them out. They also don't care if you buy an oem license key from ebay for $25. Windows licensing is not a barrier to entry.

I didn't say they were Phil Harrison had a rant about it. I was pointing out the irony in saying there is no foreclosure risk for a company they name dropped which foreclosed. I would say due to content on their Pro sub too.

There wasn't foreclosure. Just closure. If anything Stadia shutting down shows that cloud streaming for games is risky and there's no guarantee that Microsoft will be successful in the long term. You said Sony failed at it, which I'm not sure is accurate considering they're still selling it. For their failures to be considered in the scope of this acquisition the CMA will have to show that it was directly related to Microsoft. Google had a bad business plan. They killed their own business. Sony, who boasted the largest revenue stream from cloud gaming in 2018 with PS Now, neglected to invest in their service beyond PS3 gaming. So if it's a failure then that's why. Neither is related to Microsoft.

 

[SportsFan581]

This after one named competitor just foreclosed.

Keep in mind that this occurred before this deal closed. And has occurred with every stand-alone streaming service brought forward so far.

 

[reksveks]

Do remember that Phase 2 is where these factors that the CMA highlight in Phase 1 will be more quantified and analysed.

I am most interested in the % margin lost due to the windows license cost.

 

[Three]

How does cloud gaming Infrastucture being collocated in facilities with Azure infrastructure make the cloud gaming infrastructure Azure? Though osmosis? You are right about Microsoft and Phil talking about building cloud gaming on Azure. They announced the deal with Sega last year partnering with Sega to build out Sega's cloud gaming platform on Azure. And it's entirely possible that Xbox cloud gaming could merge with Azure one day. But CMA still has to prove how that would give Microsoft an unfair advantage and foreclose competition.

That's the wording both MS and Phil use before this acquisition scrutiny. They say they use Azure. They say they use the data centres.

The question is how is "colocation" not an advantage when other people have to buy bandwidth and pay usage fees?

It wouldn't necessarily require a Windows server OS license to set up a competitive gaming server. Sony runs servers for their online games and game streaming services somewhere and never before has Windows OS licensing been a problem for them. Linux/Unix is perfectly capable as an alternative to Windows in server side scenarios. Probably more capable in many scenarios.

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that a linux server would be superior for gaming. Your opinions aside please read the text below:

"The CMA believes that, as a result of having Windows OS, Microsoft is in a strong position relative to other cloud gaming service providers. First, it has a significant cost advantage. For example, one cloud gaming service provider explained that the cost of a Windows Server licence is a significant proportion of overall costs and ensures that Microsoft will always have a competitive advantage. Second,
Microsoft has unrestricted access to Windows OS. Although the Parties submitted that most Windows applications (including games) run equally well on Windows Client and Windows Server, one cloud gaming service provider explained that the Windows Client version of OS is superior to the Windows Server version for gaming, since games are compiled and tested for the desktop version, and gaming-related updates are often included earlier in the desktop version than in the server"

And tell me how MS' response of "xCloud doesn't run on a PC, we actually have significant disadvantages" answers this concern regarding OS. They have completely missed the point and haven't directly addressed these advantages.

On the client side Valve is proving with Steam Deck that Windows is not a requirement to play PC games. Rosetta 2 on Apple Silicon has been showing the same thing. Also, lots of people just don't pay for Windows licenses and are still gaming just fine. Microsoft nags them with a watermark but doesn't shut them out. They also don't care if you buy an oem license key from ebay for $25. Windows licensing is not a barrier to entry.

SteamDeck only officially runs less than 10% of its Steam game library through something akin to a Windows emulator (WINE), unless you install windows itself and get near 100%. Not sure what point you are trying to make there. You can't use a Windows Client version in your cloud service either. Don't care if people run Windows for free with a watermark. You have evidence that Windows licencing cost is a significant proportion of the costs for a provider.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Yeah and honestly the best selling COD on PS4 was 14 million and there is no way they get everyone who bought that game to switch platforms.

Going to push back slightly on this thinking.

They don't need to just get all 14 million, but there will be a knock on effect as welll.

Say I don't play CoD but my best friend does. In this scenario, we both have PS4s. If my friend gets an Xbox Series X and I usually play, say Madden with him, I might also get an Xbox Series X even though I don't play CoD at all. In this scenario, I don't know/care if Madden has cross-platform support, but I hope you get my point.

I think Sony has time to counter this by making strategic investments in FPS and creating a CoD competitor, but they really have to act quickly at this point. Another thing they might want to look into is working with Disney on taking over Battlefront with a new IP made by Sony instead of EA.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

That's why I'm skeptical of the streaming model for gaming, at least the way Xbox/MS are going about it. It's one thing to make extra money on the back end with a legacy catalog service but to put all of your eggs in one basket is just crazy. It's going to cost so much money to make content to keep a service like that going I don't know where they'll make it up. Netflix has over 220 million subscribers, they spend roughly $10 billion to $15 billion on content a year, game pass has about 25 million according to MS and they will have spent almost $100 billion if this deal goes through just buying studios in the last 5 years, that doesn't cover the cost of actually making the games etc. It takes a lot longer to make a single game than it does to make several seasons of a tv show.

That's exactly right. You look at the success of Disney+ and there are two primary factors

1) backlog catalog
2) low cost

It's cheaper than Netflix and has content that people REALLY want. As Disney increases their price, however, they're going to lose subscribers, and they know this. This is why they're still trying to create enticing new content, although they've had mixed results there.

When you stop to analyze all of these streaming services and their models, most people would be cautious about GamePass, given the nature of video game development. It's almost more akin to what happens when Netflix drops 200 million dollars on a movie and its bombs on streaming and doesn't contribute to sustained/new subscribers. They end up eating that cost and lowering their margins.

I could see Microsoft making games more episodic and seasonal in nature to keep demand going on big budget titles.

 

[Three]

Yeah and honestly the best selling COD on PS4 was 14 million and there is no way they get everyone who bought that game to switch platforms.

I think BO3 was played by 55M PS4 owners (more than half of PS4 owners at the time) but that was part of a subscription service so.

I know I got a bunch of CoDs from PS+ namely BO3, and MW Remastered. I play the second religiously because I have family I play with online. I don't think simply looking at the best selling CoD is a good way of figuring out potential players lost. CoD like Fifa has a lot of draw.

 

[GHG]

It makes no difference whether it was a blunder on their part. Sony burned cash to keep PlayStation going and ultimately turned it around with PS4. They lost money for years because they thought it was worth it. Not wanting it to matter doesn't make it not matter. The amount of the loss per unit is not relevant in any way. You still have to multiply it by the millions of units they lost on it. It doesn't magically not matter because they lost less in subsequent cycles. It's still money they had to invest up front, money that came off the bottom line, before they could make a profit on it.

It's exactly the same with Game Pass. It does not have to be profitable 100% of the time on its own. It's perfectly fine for Microsoft to be investing in it to grow it because they have the money to do so. But somehow you guys think that's different than when Sony or even Nintendo do similar things. It was perfectly fine for Sony to buy exclusivity for games on PS4 while burning through billions in cash keep PlayStation afloat and hang on to their #1 place as the biggest player in the console space. It was fine for Nintendo to lose money to ultimately make the Switch it is now. But Microsoft refusing to tell you how much profit Game Pass makes means they're bleeding money to buy the industry right out from under Sony.

There's a difference between losing a ton of money due to a series of blunders in manufacturing cost projections and intentionally losing a ton of money because that is the strategy (battle of attrition).

 

[Hendrick's]

There's a difference between losing a ton of money due to a series of blunders in manufacturing cost projections and intentionally losing a ton of money because that is the strategy (battle of attrition).

It's the strategy according to fanboys like you, not in reality. There is no evidence that Xbox or Game Pass is losing money.

 

[GHG]

It's the strategy according to fanboys like you, not in reality. There is no evidence that Xbox or Game Pass is losing money.

Anyone who isn't delusional enough to believe gamepass is currently a profitable venture is a fanboy.

One thing is for certain, if it were making money Microsoft wouldn't hesitate to inform their shareholders and the press.

As always, history won't be kind to some people.

 

[reksveks]

"The CMA believes that, as a result of having Windows OS, Microsoft is in a strong position relative to other cloud gaming service providers. First, it has a significant cost advantage. For example, one cloud gaming service provider explained that the cost of a Windows Server licence is a significant proportion of overall costs and ensures that Microsoft will always have a competitive advantage. Second, Microsoft has unrestricted access to Windows OS. Although the Parties submitted that most Windows applications (including games) run equally well on Windows Client and Windows Server, one cloud gaming service provider explained that the Windows Client version of OS is superior to the Windows Server version for gaming, since games are compiled and tested for the desktop version, and gaming-related updates are often included earlier in the desktop version than in the server"

And tell me how MS' response of "xCloud doesn't run on a PC, we actually have significant disadvantages" answers this concern regarding OS. They have completely missed the point and haven't directly addressed these advantages.

Think the key thing in this one is the cost advantage and not the OS difference (Client vs Server), as MS said there isn't a technical/compatibility advantage for them as they don't use any windows license for xcloud. I suspect that there might be some concessions around the licensing costs for the usage of Windows Server. Don't think the CMA are going to ask/want Windows Client to be offered up as an option although it gets me thinking about Windows 365 and if that's a Windows Client license (obviously exclusive to MS which maybe it shouldn't be)

 

[ReBurn]

That's the wording both MS and Phil use before this acquisition scrutiny. They say they use Azure. They say they use the data centres.

The question is how is "colocation" not an advantage when other people have to buy bandwidth and pay usage fees?

Microsoft also has to pay for bandwidth. They also pay to build and maintain their data centers. I hope you're not assuming that they get their network infrastructure for free. Even at cost the cost to build and maintain data centers is quite significant, which is why so many companies choose to colocate. A company the size of Sony can afford to build and maintain their own facilities and they can build them on network backbones like colocated data centers. If they're not then it's because they're making that choice. They are not being forced to do it.

In fact, Sony has gone on record saying that they approve of Azure and see its benefits for cloud gaming

https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/microsoft-and-sony-team-up-cloud-based-gaming

"For many years, Microsoft has been a key business partner for us, though of course the two companies have also been competing in some areas," said Sony CEO and President Kenichiro Yoshida, in a statement. "I believe that our joint development of future cloud solutions will contribute greatly to the advancement of interactive content. Additionally, I hope that in the areas of semiconductors and AI, leveraging each company's cutting-edge technology in a mutually complementary way will lead to the creation of new value for society."

Suddenly it's a problem?

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that a linux server would be superior for gaming. Your opinions aside please read the text below:

"The CMA believes that, as a result of having Windows OS, Microsoft is in a strong position relative to other cloud gaming service providers. First, it has a significant cost advantage. For example, one cloud gaming service provider explained that the cost of a Windows Server licence is a significant proportion of overall costs and ensures that Microsoft will always have a competitive advantage. Second,
Microsoft has unrestricted access to Windows OS. Although the Parties submitted that most Windows applications (including games) run equally well on Windows Client and Windows Server, one cloud gaming service provider explained that the Windows Client version of OS is superior to the Windows Server version for gaming, since games are compiled and tested for the desktop version, and gaming-related updates are often included earlier in the desktop version than in the server"

And tell me how MS' response of "xCloud doesn't run on a PC, we actually have significant disadvantages" answers this concern regarding OS. They have completely missed the point and haven't directly addressed these advantages.

Where I'm getting the idea that Linux is suitable for the server side of a game is that the server side of a game is just like the server side of everything else. If you're going to tell me that servers for all video games require Windows OS licensing then I'm going to need for you to prove that. I can build a Minecraft server in Linux on Digital Ocean right now and clients across various operating systems can use it.

The key here is "The CMA believes..." The CMA is going to have to substantiate each of their beliefs or, like many other of their high profile decisions, any action to block the acquisition is probably going to be overturned on appeal.

SteamDeck only officially runs less than 10% of its Steam game library through something akin to a Windows emulator (WINE), unless you install windows itself and get near 100%. Not sure what point you are trying to make there. You can't use a Windows Client version in your cloud service either. Don't care if people run Windows for free with a watermark. You have evidence that Windows licencing cost is a significant proportion of the costs for a provider.

The point I'm trying to make is that games written for Windows don't necessarily require Windows to run them. Proton is a technology that is actively being developed to allow Windows games to run on Linux. Any while only 10% or so are "officially" supported we both know that many more are absolutely working and playable, otherwise Valve wouldn't be selling so many Steam Decks.

But it's not even that important to my point. Microsoft does not require people to pay for a Windows client OS license to be able to play games. They want you to, but they do not enforce buying a license as a condition for playing games on Windows. It's also a silly point because unless you build your PC yourself your PC is more likely than not going to come with a Windows license. To bring Windows licensing into this in any way is weird since it's never been an issue before.

 

[Three]

Using Collocation services with their custom hw? How much co2 does that reduce?

Not sure about CO2 but it can reduce energy consumption by 25%. Not sure how that translates to CO2 reduction though. I think overall though colocation is a much more efficient way than every company going it alone.

Think the key thing in this one is the cost advantage and not the OS difference (Client vs Server), as MS said there isn't a technical/compatibility advantage for them as they don't use any windows license for xcloud.

I suppose this would only be true if you ignore underlying xbox and windows compatibility advantages like DirectX. Maybe legally this cannot be defined as a "compatibility advantage" simply because they are different products being sold.

 

[Three]

Microsoft also has to pay for bandwidth. They also pay to build and maintain their data centers. I hope you're not assuming that they get their network infrastructure for free.

Um, of course not. Do you know what constitutes an advantage though. Do you think the economies of scale for somebody who has data centres and is paying for massive bandwidth is not reduced? Especially for a third party buying that bandwidth from you with a markup?

Even at cost the cost to build and maintain data centers is quite significant, which is why so many companies choose to colocate.

This is proving my point. They choose to colocate because of economies of scale which they do not compete with.

A company the size of Sony can afford to build and maintain their own facilities and they can build them on network backbones like colocated data centers. If they're not then it's because they're making that choice. They are not being forced to do it.

In fact, Sony has gone on record saying that they approve of Azure and see its benefits for cloud gaming

http://[URL][URL][URL][URL][URL]htt...microsoft-and-sony-team-up-cloud-based-gaming

[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

Suddenly it's a problem?

So they can afford it but they are partnering with Azure for cloud gaming. Who apparently don't even provide cloud gaming advantages. Good to know.

Where I'm getting the idea that Linux is suitable for the server side of a game is that the server side of a game is just like the server side of everything else. If you're going to tell me that servers for all video games require Windows OS licensing then I'm going to need for you to prove that. I can build a Minecraft server in Linux on Digital Ocean right now and clients across various operating systems can use it.

What? Games are written for DirectX, and the games that are lucky enough to run on linux have poorer performance on linux because they were written for DirectX. Do you understand what cloud gaming is? We are talking about streaming. Your rebuttal is minecraft, do you know what Java is? Are you talking about something other than running the game, like backend stuff not actually running the game hence why you think linux performs better or is more capable for gaming?

The key here is "The CMA believes..." The CMA is going to have to substantiate each of their beliefs or, like many other of their high profile decisions, any action to block the acquisition is probably going to be overturned on appeal.

No doubt they would investigate it. That's the point.

The point I'm trying to make is that games written for Windows don't necessarily require Windows to run them. Proton is a technology that is actively being developed to allow Windows games to run on Linux. Any while only 10% or so are "officially" supported we both know that many more are absolutely working and playable, otherwise Valve wouldn't be selling so many Steam Decks.

Proton has 10% official compatibility. The rest are unverified and unsellable.

But it's not even that important to my point. Microsoft does not require people to pay for a Windows client OS license to be able to play games. They want you to, but they do not enforce buying a license as a condition for playing games on Windows. It's also a silly point because unless you build your PC yourself your PC is more likely than not going to come with a Windows license. To bring Windows licensing into this in any way is weird since it's never been an issue before.

We are talking about servers running windows here for a cloud gaming provider. Not client OS. The provider cannot install a free personal OS with a watermark and not pay licensing fees.

 

[twilo99]

They should make a TV show based on all of this.