The only people that criticise a platforms games being available on other platforms like PC are rabid fanboys.
The only people that don't want Sony to have a gamepass like service are fanboys who are incredibly worried about their beloved corporation losing money which I find hilarious I might add, They also don't like value for their money
Me personally I'm all for a monthly fee Sony service if it's good value.
I wonder - knowing Sony doesn't own their own internet infrastructure - if they'll pay money to Microsoft to rent serverspace from Azure?
It's funny knowing that Microsoft indirectly profits from Sony's new plans.Even if Sony's using Microsoft's toys to build it, the Japanese tech giant's cloud service is going to be a PlayStation exclusive. What this means for the future of PlayStation as a brand and a console remains to be seen.www.windowscentral.com
Is it a fact that Sony use MS Azure to build their service? That partnership was merely about 'exploration', and I would have thought they might prefer Google now that Stadia is no longer a competitor.It's funny knowing that Microsoft indirectly profits from Sony's new plans.
I think it absolutely funny and ironic - with the console war going on in the background and how serious some people take that while both companies just work together.The thought of your fave company getting money from a competing company is probably something you should feel indifferent towards.
The logic goes like this:Logic?
The logic goes like this:
- They formed a strategic partnership in 2019 to explore game streaming technology and possibilities.
- We have not heard anything since then.
- Since then, Google has given up on their ambition to be a content provider. They are now a technology provider only, and we know their tech is good.
- If I were Sony, I'd consider Google to be the better partner nowadays because they are no longer competing at the content level.
- The result is the question that I asked earlier.
So basically like the human that goes into a shop, ask questions about a product and check it out completely but goes home and orders it online from another retailer? Yeah, quite far fetched that's happening between two big companies.
Organic growth isn't bullshit, it's what they are doing: all their gamedev studios are highly increasing their headcount and they are acquiring studios who previously did work for them during a lot of time in many games. They said that will continue doing that.I think that Sony will continue to grow their first party studios with acquisitions (ignore Jim and his organic bullshit) until they have parity in studio numbers to Microsoft. Then they will launch their own day one service.
Jason said in Twiter 'This new service, expected in the spring, will LIKELY retain the "PlayStation Plus" branding'.The article literally says Now as a brand will be killed.
Sony obviously owns their internet infrastructure. They did a deal with MS to share R&D on cloud tech, and seems they switched the software to manage the servers of Sony's clouds from Amazon AWS to MS Azure, that's all. It's like saying that if Ford got new tools to mantain and tweak their cars, these cars no longer belong to Ford but now to the company who made these tools now owns these car. It doesn't make sense.I wonder - knowing Sony doesn't own their own internet infrastructure - if they'll pay money to Microsoft to rent serverspace from Azure?
PS Now is available in 19 countries, Stadia in 22, XCloud in 26, Amazon Luna in 1 country. Sony plans to continue adding countries to the list, but like in the other game streaming services it will be limited to some countries because game streaming needs to put the servers really close to the users to get a decent latency. Which means a lot of money putting a ton of servers around the world. Even more considering that each game streaming server can handle way less users than a video streaming server or a website or app server.I was just thinking about something...if Sony is basically putting these 2 services together, and if they are all going to be available everywhere, how are they doing it?
One of the reasons why PSNow had stalled in terms of countries it was available was because of their streaming service right? They had no infrastructure for a lot more countries as far as i know, specially in south america, etc...where they probably had no servers for that, specially considering PS3 streaming is literally done by PS3 consoles.
My point is...PSNow branding was tied to the streaming part of it...so if they don't turn PSNow also as a "download" service for all games how are they pulling this off everywhere they already have PSPlus? We'll need to be able to play those games natively as a choice i think.
I'm sorry to tell you this but they don't. They always rented from others.Sony obviously owns their internet infrastructure. They did a deal with MS to share R&D on cloud tech, and seems they switched the software to manage the servers of Sony's clouds from Amazon AWS to MS Azure, that's all. It's like saying that if Ford got new tools to mantain and tweak their cars, these cars no longer belong to Ford but now to the company who made these tools now owns these car. It doesn't make sense.
I'm sorry to tell you you're totally wrong.I'm sorry to tell you this but they don't. They always rented from others.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO Bryan i told you to stop with console war
Now you are banned ... when you were not doing console war you were a good user, i am going to miss you
I'm sorry to tell you you're totally wrong.
Sony owns PSN, PS Now and a ton of related game streaming and streaming patents. Even the server racks are made, patented and owned by them because they use PS3 and PS4 hardware, nobody else can make or own them. They don't use standard server racks, so nobody cant rent them to them. And obviously nobody cant rent PSN or PS Now to Sony because Sony are the only ones who created (and part of them companies they bought many years ago), developed and own them.
The only thing Sony rented, like any other company with big cloud services with worldwide coverage as PSN or PS Now (that needs to have servers across the world) is datacenter space to store their servers. Sony owns these servers, the cloud service hosted on them (PSN, PS Plus, PS Now, etc) and operates them remotely. They (not Sony, but also MS, Spotify, Amazon, Facebook, Google, random websites and as I said, mostly any big app/websites/services/ISPs/etc that runs in a big cloud) rent most of their datacenter space (+ related maintenance/bandwitdh/electricity/etc) because it's cheaper than to own them, since these 3rd party datacenters offer their service to many clients at the same time inside a single datacenter (they may host there stuff from Google, MS, Sony, Facebook, Uber, mobile and console game servers, random websites, ISP stuff, corporate company stuff, etc) so costs get shared between them, and because in small regions where they have only a few users doesn't make sense to build a datacenter, hire related maintenance staff etc just to store a few server racks. It's cheaper just to rent some datacenter space to any random 3rd party datacenter company available there and to operate these serves remotely.
And well, even if these companies rent most of the datacenter space they use, they also own their own datacenter which traditionally is a small portion of the total servers spread around the world. Most of their servers are located in outsourced 3rd party datacenter companies but operated by them.
Datacenter space isn't internet infrastructure, is just to a space to store their servers in a building ready for it and with related maintenance staff. Same goes with Azure, it's only a software to manage their servers remotely. Servers that run a cloud software/service (in this case PSN or PS Now) created and owned by Sony and that has nothing to do with the software they use to manage their servers, which can they replace by any other one from the competition since most of them basically offer pretty much the same and doesn't impact at all their own cloud software/service.