@michaelmikado: You're right. I fold. MS is way way way behind Sony here. Like you stated, MS has a few options on their upgrade path, but by the looks of things they're not even where Sony was 4 years ago. It'll take MS way too long to upgrade at this point. It's probably only a half-hearted effort on their part anyway. I suppose we should just be happy with MS's play anywhere program as it currently is, which admittedly sucks seeing as MS games won't work on pc's with Nvidia GPUs.

I also concede to Shewjenga as well. The overhead costs must be enormous for MS. If they had the capital that Sony, Amazon, or hell even RadioShack had, then it would be easy. Too bad they're so cash strapped these days eh?

I've seen the light. Sony is really the only company capable of streaming games on a large scale. Sure PSNOW has regressed since it was introduced. Yeah its available now on less devices than before, and not available in many regions. I think this Sony's way of "crouching before they leap" so to speak. They've got Amazon in their back pocket. Amazon has said that they're getting into streaming games, but I honestly think they were joking. I mean way even try when they can let Sony just make all the money.

Thanks for educating me. I almost thought for a moment that MS had a robust cloud server system at they're disposal. Good to learn that it's all just for show, and basically useless for streaming games.

@michaelmikado: I think we're arguing slightly different points here, both at a technical level, and the broader picture overall.

MS has been heavily installing XBX VM over the last year or so into their racks, so yes... MS does have AMD GPU VM's installed, and is installing more and more everyday.

My point about it not mattering on which brand it was running on is referring to streaming games to devices in general such as pc's, tablets, phones, etc... Could Nvidia GPU VM's not work on those devices? It would seem as though you're asserting that because Azure is run primarily with Nvidia GPU's, that Azure can't stream games, which is ludicrous. Reading your last post, I'm beginning to think that you're referring explicitly about streaming to an xbox console. You would have somewhat of a point there, but again... They've already began installing AMD GPU hardware into their racks for streaming there. So while your point had merit a year ago, it really won't soon.

Adding onto all of this, is the fact that MS owns all it's infrastructure in which to put this. Sony does not. If you can't see the obvious advantages that this entails, then I really don't know what to tell you.

You're arguing both sides of te same coin here guy. On one hand you try and explain how MS is at a disadvantage because it uses Nvidia for it's VM's and won't work, but at the same time claim that Sony can partner with just anyone, and everyone, and it will be fine. Sony has very little cloud infrastructure when compared to MS. That's just a simple fact. You're actually trying to imply that that fact gives Sony some kind of advantage?

Yeah, I have no idea what he's talking about. Any server farm has agnostic hardware and software in order to be used as widely as possible. Azure infrastructure has more AMD hardware than Nvidia. At least from what I've seen on their racks. Probably due to cost. Not that it matters anyway, as it wouldn't really make any kind of difference anyway.

Your second point is also correct. Amazon can do what Sony does here. Sony can't do what Amazon does. At some point, it will benefit Amazon to take marketshare from Sony.

@michaelmikado: Just to point a few things with your post.

Sony has zero presence in cloud services. The PS3 hardware for the blade racks aren't even in Sony's farms. They're in both AWS, and Rackspace farms. Trying to imply that Sony does have a presence in cloud services is a false narrative.

You're assertion that AWS just uses AMD, while Azure uses Intel/Nvidia is also absurd, and that's not how it works anyway. If you're trying to say that AWS uses AMD, and Azure uses only Nvidia, so Sony has the upper hand, you have no idea how any of this works.

Finally. Yes Sony uses AWS now. Amazon is going to launch its own game streaming service. At some point it behooves them to leverage their resources against their competitors. If Amazon was looking to sign some big contract with Sony, we probably wouldn't be hearing about Sony trying to partner with Verizon.

Sony's first party AAA offerings are overrated. Their overall offerings... Not so much.

You look at their AAA level first party products such as..

UC4

TLOU

HZD

GoW

GoT

DG

Etc...

^These are the AAA games that Sony's devs are putting out. Nothing wrong with those if you only enjoy third person singleplayer cinematic experiences, but there isn't a lot of diversity there.

I'll reply to the first post, and then come back to yours.

In the scenario mentioned above, EA could very well just stop supporting all other platforms, and just release on their own. The companys who choose to still release their games across all platforms will outperform EA though, because for companies like EA, Ubi, and Activision it's all about how many games they sell.

Secondly. People say that Sony is behind with cloud services, because Sony currently has zero cloud services. It's really not a difficult observation to make. Amazon and MS have the largest cloud services, followed by Google. Sony uses a cloud service such as Amazons AWS, marks up the price, and then let's you stream games with it. PSNow simply doesn't work without companies like MS, Amazon, and Google supplying the so called "cloud".

Over the last few years, it has been beneficial for those companies to provide the cloud infrastructure to Sony for a price. Going forward, all these companies have announced that they will be creating their own streaming services for games. At that point they will be directly competing with Sony’s PSNow. At some point, it no longer becomes worth it for them continue to rent Sony those servers. They might, but they will drastically increase the price in order to force Sony to price itself out of the market. Even at that, they will hamstring Sony's streaming in order to compare favorably to their own.

These things happen all the time in business. If you want a somewhat comparable example, look at Fortnite vs PUBG. Fortnite allowed Bluehole to develop PUBG on their Unreal engine. As soon as they got it up and running, Epic created Fortnite BR in a matter of months. They used all the tips and tricks that Bluehole had. Since it was Epics engine, they then went even further with their in and out knowledge of it, and made their product buttery smooth and bug free compared to PUBG. It's not an exact 1 to 1 example, but it's close enough to illustrate how companies will work with you, and help you out... UntIl they want to compete in that space as well. They then leverage all that to squash you.

PS4 players have been thirsty for PUBG after all it seems. Kinda sad considering it plays the worst on that platform.

When looking at the pic of the PS4 games. Does anybody else find it amusing that the character in the third pic is based off of a character on TV played by the guy in the first pic?

That being said, the PS4 is really going all out with the bush hiding in 2019!

Not really surprised it sold.

Cows this gen have fallen in love with movie games, where you watch more than play. The PS4 is chock full of them.

Thank god I'm better than that.

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!!

That game has flop on written all over it so bad the OP didn't even include it in the poll.