Sony made a huge splash in the games business today, picking up cloud gaming firm Gaikai for a cool $380 million. Rival Microsoft isn't sitting idly by, however. When GamesIndustry International asked for reaction to the Sony news, a spokesperson noted that the cloud will continue to be hugely important for Microsoft.
30°
10°
30°
40°
Ad 
30°
If you look at the "leaked documents", it clearly states Microsoft is looking to have Cloud in a few years. I'd think that means they have had a plan on the books for a while now.
I tend to think Sony bought an established service in order to offer some semblance of backwards compatibility with the PS4, if its true they dropped The Cell, they will need a service to offer people the ability to play those older games.
So if the technology isn't what Sony want, the customer base is unlikely as there likely isn't many and branding is kind of useless since Playstation is a far stronger brand. The only thing I can come up with is patent, but I can't imagine there being many. This isn't some super high technology stuff, so the final thing is infrastructure and the only reason you want that is because you yourself can't scale up that fast.
Which makes sense, since Sony isn't exactly a player when it comes to cloud technology. Still $380 million is steep, very steep.
@Jihaad_cpt:
MS aren't exactly going for resources when they buy. They usually go for instant marketshare something that is extremely hard to get even if your product/service is better.
@ChunkyLover53:
I hardly think paying $380 million for BC is worth it for a service that gives you sub-par experience combined with a need for *very* high speed internet. By that time, PS3 will be dirt cheap anyhow and the Cell chip will be dollars in cost, not tens.
Best case scenario, they are going to give access to PS4 for PS3 users as a service. Assuming they have fast enough service.
Really? So how is Sony in panic mode? They got more new titles coming out then 360 has. So far all we know about the 360 is it is getting Smartglass and some new titles.
Where Sony is sitting on a huge list, plus who says this is for PS3? For all we know. Sony could be buying this for PS4 and besides I think Microsoft has been falling behind with the lack of titles.
OnLive is great and all, but I don't believe Microsoft is 100% towards them.
What part of my comment was unclear?
Why would a company buy another company when the benefit is minimal? It seems Sony is buyin up Gaikai for the infrastructure, not the technology since it is widely available.
The only reason you buy something like that which is available to anyone, and pay premium is because you are unable to build and scale it up yourself and you want it FAST!
This is a business strategy, not I got so many games releases so I'm immune to the *potential* shift in the industry.
@Patriots_Pride:
OnLive uses hardware compression, but clearly there isn't a problem for Gakai to implement similar technology. In fact, Gaikai uses nvidia Grid, which anyone can purchase. Clearly the patent isn't a necessity.
Certain patent are so obvious you can't really work around it, unfortunately this technology isn't that. Many forms of this already exist prior so I don't believe it's worth half a billion dollars.
Lol, you have no idea how clueless you sound. The amount of technology that has to go in to a cloud gaming platform such as OnLive and Gaikai is extremely complex. It requires years of testing and refining to get it right, and that's even disregarding all the patents that Gaikai and OnLive have in the technology (there's far more to it than just video compression). You can't just "build one of your own". It requires a large investment, a lot of risk and extremely competent programmers.
Implementing it isn't easy by any stretch of imagination. Think about the different factors involved - users are guaranteed to have an unreliable connection, but you can't let that affect gameplay. How about latency? Distance to servers? Dynamic Compression? How about variations in bandwidth and network load? All of these problems have to be invisible to the users, and that's where the difficulty comes from.
"Think about the different factors involved - users are guaranteed to have an unreliable connection, but you can't let that affect gameplay. How about latency? Distance to servers? Dynamic Compression? How about variations in bandwidth and network load?"
You mean how this is something people have implemented all along with online video services and multiplayer games?
This isn't some vodoo technology and is something these companies have been refining for years. Where do you think CDN comes from? Even nvidia has a product called GRID that is used by Gaikai for just this purpose. It's practically off the shelf!
This is well known problems, and if you can't do it with the size of Sony for far less than $380 million, you got major problems. The answer is, they are panicking and buying up infrastructure, because they can't scale up fast enoug.
I hate to say I told you so:
http://n4g.com/news/1029231...
Lol at the troll article you posted. Not that it proves anything, so I'm not sure _why_ you posted it...
OnLive took 7 years to develop, from conceptualisation to functional system. Gaikai started development later, but development still took 3 years, with the concept already in place.
What does this mean? 3 Years of development for a platform is a long time, and there's two reasons as to why that might be:
1) The system is extremely big
2) The system is very complex.
Online Video Streaming and Multiplayer games are a world apart from the technology used in Cloud Gaming. Latency and bad connections is not an issue for video streaming, as it doesn't matter if the user has to wait for a few seconds. Latency and bad connections have a lower impact on online games as well, as predictive algorithms can be used to approximate where a player is at any given time. The problem is, you can't do either of those things in Cloud Gaming. Input has to be precise, there is no room for error - predictive algorithms are thus out of the question. Latency is a major issue due to input, so ignoring that is also not possible.
These systems, as simple as they may seem to the end-user, abstract away immense amounts of technical innovations and accomplishments.They are, along with games, some of the most complex software systems in the world.
On top of that, with that $380 million which Sony paid in shares (e.g. they did not pay in cash), Sony immediately acquires a large list of intangible assets, such as patents, brand name and partnerships, as well as tangible assets such as Server Farms, User Base and Infrastructure.
GRID is a technology that supports the video compression ratio, but it still requires an extensive framework to make use of it. It's not some kind of magic device that does everything for you. It's comparable to a GPU - Just because you have a GTX680 does not mean that Command & Conquer 95 will suddenly have mind blowing visuals.
First of all, you don't have to explain technology to me. I'm well aware of all of this as I work with it on a daily basis.
Now to the main point, since it took OnLive 7-years and then Gaikai 3-years, what do you think it will take now?
Fact of the matter is, technology moves forward and with each iteration it is far simpler. When Gaikai started, there was no nVidia Grid, so yes it makes it that much easier. Data is data, doesn't matter if it is an image, video or a text file.
"These systems, as simple as they may seem to the end-user, abstract away immense amounts of technical innovations and accomplishments.They are, along with games, some of the most complex software systems in the world."
Games? Potentially. Networks? Not so much, because most of the problems are almost exactly the same. Poor bandwith, connection quality and poor latency. Video encoding is a well known problem!
"Sony immediately acquires a large list of intangible assets, such as patents, brand name and partnerships, as well as tangible assets such as Server Farms, User Base and Infrastructure"
This is exactly my point. The Gaikai brand wasn't strong to begin with and the Playstation brand is far more valuable. Gaikai doesn't have a viable business. Heck, OnLive doesn't have a viable business yet whom is bigger and one of the earliest players.
All Sony got was some patents (probably very few valuable ones as the technology isn't groundbreaking) and server farms i.e. infrastructure. User base is probably negligable. That is why I think it was a bad deal for Sony.
"It's not some kind of magic device that does everything for you. It's comparable to a GPU - Just because you have a GTX680 does not mean that Command & Conquer 95 will suddenly have mind blowing visuals."
What? I think you are confused about the technology. Gaikai used to use software video encoding for their cloud games, but now uses nvidia Grid. What Grid does is provide two GPUs, one for partially hardware accelerated video encoding and another one for regular graphics with fast frame buffer access. This technology is available now for anyone to buy from nVidia and has nothing to do with "because you have a GTX680 does not mean that Command & Conquer 95 will suddenly have mind blowing visuals." The frame work is partially provided by nvidia, but nothing a team of engineers can't do for less than a million dollars in far less than 12-months.
The hard part isn't the technology, it is the infrastructure i.e. the server farms, but even that is far easier to obtain today than ever.
And I'm President Obama
"Now to the main point, since it took OnLive 7-years and then Gaikai 3-years, what do you think it will take now? "
First game took longer to develop than those that followed as well, but those that followed all had a roughly similar development cycle.
I'm not even going to bother to respond to the rest, because of this:
"Games? Potentially. Networks? Not so much, because most of the problems are almost exactly the same. Poor bandwith, connection quality and poor latency. Video encoding is a well known problem! "
You make a fundamental mistake in your assumption here - Just because the problem is always the same does _not_ make it easy, _especially_ for distributed computing. How do you ensure the user actually receives the package? Do you use TCP or UDP? Why is TCP a bad choice for Cloud Gaming? Why is UDP a bad choice for Cloud Gaming? Those are the most basic questions that you can possibly ask, and yet the answer to the question of which protocol to use is already very difficult.
As for GRID, GRID is a technology that supports hardware encoding of video. Whilst it may speed up the process of encoding, it does not solve any of the networking problems, nor does it mean that having GRID technology somehow makes implementation of cloud gaming easy. If you actually had _any_ experience in this area whatsoever, you would know that.
Oh and 10 million users is "negligible"? I rest my case.
Some times its cheaper and easier to just buy a company for its patents than to pay royalties or try to find a work around the patent.
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
There were areas where OnLive seemed to have an edge and then you thought Gaikai had the upper hand in area's. There was only one point though where i felt i could see little more detail on Gaikai.
But overall... Literally no difference when you play it unless you try to find differences...
And yes MS can make their own cloud gaming service and to be honest i dont know what it takes to start one up from scratch but i do know that Sony would have one advantage: market share and in business market share is everything!
Gaikai - Sony
OTOY - Microsoft. Been tested on X360 controllers, Windows phones, and Microsoft branded devices since 2008 I believe.
OnLive - Nintendo
That's what I believe anyway.
When all the disks go away everyone will just be a cloud pc gamer. Crazy..
Educate yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
A Server is not.
A server is a computer, but not a PC. Whilst the terms Computer and PC have been used by the mainstream interchangeably, they do not mean the same thing.
From your own link
"In most common use, server is a physical computer (a computer hardware system) dedicated to running one or more such services"
A server is only a piece of software in the case of client-server architectures, often used locally.
If you use to broad definition of a server, you're still incorrect - A server is a computerised process that shares a resource with a client process.
It is most definitely not a PC, but may in many cases be a computer. (Just because your truck is a vehicle does not mean that all vehicles are trucks. Likewise, just because your PC serves as a Server does not mean that all Servers are PCs. ).
Not really...Cloud gaming will be streamed on TV too which was a smart move by sony to buy this Gaikai.
With a service like Gaikai there is very little infastructure crossover needed if they intend to use it as a demo downloading service similar to what they do with Walmart. ( http://see.walmart.com/game... ) did you notice...POWERED by Gaikai..nothing elaborate, simple interface that could be put in at anytime ...you gate in using your PSN account...go to the demo section and all the PSN demo are live streamed. And there you have it... cloud gaming, not replacing but complimenting traditional game delivery.
That's a highly unlikely scenario. The only difference is disc production, distribution and giving retailers their cut. That's not adding up to a $40 difference. And publishers have no reason to push streaming content using such a significant price difference.
Anything driving up game costs is likely due to production of the game, not distribution. In that case, that's going to be passed on to anyone buying the game, not just the those who want a physical copy.
As "convenient" as cloud gaming may seem, they would actually lose customers if they make that the ONLY choice.
Besides, it isn't happening anytime soon in Australia.
ISP stubbornly refuse to offer fast unlimited plans, we're always capped. So if I only have 50 gb for the month, which is a high end plan here, (sad, isn't it) I'm going to burn through that in a few days if I'm streaming all my games.
Just not going to happen for a loooong time.
Obviously Microsoft is now left with few options after Sony swooped in and picked up Gaikai. Between Gaikai and OnLive, Gaikai is considered the better streaming service with better technology and the ability to introduce new games onto their demo service that even OnLive can't do. Also with their recent partnerships with Samsung for their SmartTVs and Nvidia for the GeForce Grid, being able to buy Gaikai for $380 million in the current inflation driven economy was a steal.
However for MS and OnLive, it's a little bit more complicated. OnLive is basically known for brand recognition when it comes to streaming services but it isn't as well implemented as Gaikai. Also, Sony was able to buy Gaikai for $380 million while current value estimations place OnLive around $1.8 billion. Does Microsoft want to put that kind of money into the inferior service and perhaps bolster it, or like someone said before try to use their own technical know-how to make their own cloud service? Either way, this was a huge grab for Sony and Microsoft (and the world) knows it.
Very informative post.
But the Geforce grid is a big plus for Gaikai.
I'm about to try out both so I can have a good comparison.
Walmart uses Gaikai... and this is how I see PSN getting it implemented. Also... lets be honest, this now gives Sony a new revenue arm they can push out to other retailers and have them use Gaikai on their back end.
A proper UI?
Also, i don't feel like looking at crap quality games that look worse than current gen consoles do. All i know, is GaiKai is a hell of a lot better than OnLive when it comes to processing graphics.
5 to 10 more years may be good for cloud gaming, but right now? hell no.
I hope this isnt the fate of console gaming...
EA is already laughing in the background, because they can see the cash from the misinformed.
I can safely say that i won't bend over for them, not a chance in hell.
when this streaming,tablet,smartphone,TV ,multiple device community takes off I'm sure epic wont keep gears on Xbox. Epic and EA are already making engines that work on every platform. Kinnectimals, mass effect, sonic...already on android market place...Its coming and it will be glooorious.
It is not enough to want to turn the Xbox into a cable box.
MS has been focusing too much on none gaming content....they shouldn't loose sight on gaming...
http://www.windowsazure.com...
your read to use it. Besides the Name would be cool name Xblaol.
but can someone please explain to me what cloud gaming is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
J/K
http://mikesaltzman.com/wp-...
Microsoft have been heavily investing in their own streaming services technology for years. Zune on the xbox 360 streams HD video content literally 2-3 seconds after you press the play button, its incredible to see.
it also dynamically changes the resolution to match your download speeds, something which will come in handy in regards to streaming games. it will keep controller response at its best, which is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING in streaming games.
Microsoft dont need to buy OnLive because theyve been making their own version of it in front of our noses the last few years. streaming games is no different to streaming videos, as thats all game streaming is - game play encoded as video streamed from the servers to your console. pressing pause/play/ff/rewind/etc on your remote while streaming a video via Zune is the same as pressing X/Y/A/B on your controller while streaming a game.
the groundwork is already there for Xbox live to have streaming games, they dont need to buy it from someone else.
What you are explaining is simply streaming video sources for playback on a console. A thirty dollar DVD player can do that from Netflix. If it was that simple MS and Sony would already have a huge play on cloud based gaming. They don't.
Regardless, 90% of Americans don't even have the bandwidth to run your average HD game from cloud gaming. Sony is probably immediately looking at their library from PS and PS2.
Are people really so obsessed with graphics that they're willing to deal with this massive input delay?
Think about it, you're sending the signal from your controller into a box > which processes it and sends a network signal > goes through your home router > goes through several network servers along the way > network signal is decoded by onLive/Gaikai/whatever server > server processes input and renders graphics > compresses graphics for streaming > graphics are streamed through several servers on the way to your house > through your router > your console/TV receives compressed data and decompresses it into a usable video signal > and FINALLY sends it to your TV.
HOW is this an improvement over controller > box > TV? Are graphics REALLY that important?!
Or maybe just an option on the PS store to stream/download games, which could help for PS+ members trying out free games each month.
What if you don't have excellent internet? Would that mean you couldn't game??
We as consumers have the power to say no to cloud gaming, if no one buys the consoles they will HAVE to return to physical media. The main reason they are doing this is money, it's well stated they hate the second hand market.
If it goes pure cloud I'm (sadly) done with gaming.
If you feel itchy by DRM then Cloud gaming is the Black Death.
That's what MS did with kinect. They had no design input. They just bought the tech.
And then SPENT KAJILLIONS telling you it is needed.
Everyone knows it's crap. But people stil trying to convince it's good,lol.
It's shite.
Smart tv guesture control works better then kinect. Fitness and dance can be done with a normal camera. It's worthless junk, But i'm guessing you'll buy the 720's version 2.0.
Fuk when will you sheeple wake up.
Ever since I started playing onlive I knew that cloud gaming was the future. I love my consoles and pc but the best implementation of gaming services that I've seen can be done in cloud gaming. Sony will implement this in all of their tv's, computers and tablets and will try to also implement it on everyone else's. This will be big.
Sony could in fact use this service along with the ps3 to provide with substantial processing power,
more than enough for a next gen graphics.