Sony CEO: Cloud Gaming Has Technical Difficulties - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 03 July 2023 / 3,626 Views
Sony Chief Executive Officer Kenichiro Yoshida in an interview with the Financial Times cloud gaming still has technical issues when it comes to latency. However, Sony is looking to use "various options" for cloud gaming.
"I think cloud itself is an amazing business model, but when it comes to games, the technical difficulties are high," said Yoshida. "So there will be challenges to cloud gaming, but we want to take on those challenges."
Yoshida added an issue is the fluctuating amount of players as there will be "dark times" followed by an influx of players when people come home from work. That huge influx could lead to issues with performance.
"The dark time for cloud gaming had been an issue for Microsoft as well as Google, but it was meaningful that we were able to use those (quieter) hours for AI learning," said Yoshida.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
CMA fuming.
For real... Such a bad timing to come up with that. In any case, I think the case is almost close with Microsoft and Activision. I'm confident the UK/CMA will probably announce that they will clear the deal next week after meeting with the parties.
Thats not how the process goes. First the CAT has to evaluate CMA's findings via the hearing. The CAT will send its finding to the CMA and then they will choice to either hold another hearing from the start or stick to their guns. If the CMA decides to reevaluate the case that will take another year.
First: I'm not talking about the CAT appeal :) I'm very aware of the timing and dates for the appeal and what I said is not related to that.
Second: if the CMA does not bend to save faces before that, Regarding the appeal. When Microsoft will win the appeal end of July, the CMA will not take a year to come up with a new ruling. Just for your information, this will NOT be a new ruling but just sent for "further review" without the cloud considered as a separate market, it will not take long for the CMA to come up with the review and approve it, as that was the only argument (they ruled out the console market). Now if you want to believe it will take a year to do that, that's your opinion :) I am not going to argue further about that with you for sure.
Wasn't their initial argument that Sony couldn't survive without Call of Duty? And weren't they the same guys that said that Nintendo didn't exist in the same market? And now we are to believe that they are the ONLY people on earth that can see the true potential of the cloud market in the years to come..
Why does that matter? Sony and Nintendo have plenty of time to invest for the future. Why are they handicapping a Company that predicts the future and wants to invest heavily into it.
Why do the consumers have to be handicapped? For over a decade, cod has been multiplat, and many consumers have gotten used to an ecosystem where they can enjoy the game on the system they are used to. But soon they will be forced to make a choice.
So why do people have to suffer?
Because Sony didnt buy it, its not their proterty and ABK shouldn't have to not be able to sell because of another company heavily relying on it.
There is never a point in time that any 3rd party game that is multiplate will always be assessable to every platform. Nintendo says hello and Final Fantasy as well. ABK just like any other company has the right to sell to whoever they want, restrict their games to whatever platform they want or decided to just partner up with anyone they want. Yes, in a completive environment consumers have to make choices. If you want to play COD and you are on a Nintendo system, you have to get a PS/Xbox. If you want to play the latest Final Fantasy games, you either get a PS or wait who knows how long and get it on PC. Even though its an inconvenience to you each company should be able to make decisions that they believe is best for their company and shareholders as long as it does not cause harm to an industry.
It still isn't right. Cod is an established mulitplayer franchise and is one of the longest running multiplayer games on multiple systems.
Please don't compare single player games, that aren't annual releases , and isn't anywhere near as big in sales. It's like 4 to 5 years between a ff release, exclusing remaster/remakes. They do still get FF games though. But all consoles have their small exclusives that others miss out on. Like it sux playstation owners can't play the bayonetta series after having played the first on ps3.
There should be laws that prevent taking away what is already the norm, and locking people out. It's disruptive and unfair.
Imagine something so well loved like coke, being tied to only one supermaket chain, do you think they'd allow that?
On another point, why during the hearings for the Appeal did the CMA asked the judge to use an independent analysis then the one they used to come to their decision on the cloud market. That raises huge flags that the CMA does not want their own analyst to testify concerning his opinion on the market. The judge stated he wanted to hear from the expert they used instead of someone different which signify that maybe the CMA own expert did not come to the same conclusions as they did.
'Why does it matter?' They have explained why it matters to them multiple times. And likewise just because it matters to them doesn't mean you ever have to make an effort to understand them. But if Microsoft wants to ever get the deal through THEY are going to have to understand and respond in kind. Listening and understanding are adult activities.
And have you listened and understood the blocking? Seems majority of the world disagree with the CMA who's ran be an Ex Sony employee.
Yes but the CMA also said that "a" competitor told them that 'latency' was not an issue anymore and the technology was ready to make cloud gaming as efficient as having a console at home. And it was also one of their "key" point of bringing Cloud as their own market. This goes directly against that.
The point is not that this is not the main reason why the CMA is arguing that the cloud its in own market, but it was def. one of their reasons, and this is going directly against that.
So this is bad for the CMA.
And while we know that this was BS (as they are no way today to "suppress" that latency all-together.) Someone from Sony confirming that is basically doing the work for Microsoft and that's one less thing they will need to "prove" if needed...
21 comments, not one about the article. CMA, CMA, CMA, pathetic.
Another CMA lie is being exposed by Sony itself. Deal closed.
Sadly there will be no arrests or punishment for CMA corruption, because it would be such an awful look for the British economy that corruption can run rampant In its regulators.
It will be written off as errors, or mistakes, or the math was wrong……nope. corruption & fraud. Plain & simple. Lying to rig against a legitimate deal, to favour a competitor is as pure corruption as it gets.
So the CMA blocked over an assumption? Sounds legit.
Whether we agree or disagree with the the decision the fact is they are tasked with making decisions on the impact of mergers and a large part of that brief involves future outcomes while these can never be done with 100% percent certainty they do look at a lot of data so it isn't just wild speculation the fact is regardless of the decision someone is not going to like it I'm sure if it had passed there would have been cries in some quarters of corrupt CMA rubber stamps takeover it's human nature.
Yes, but since no one can actually take the CMA to court to prove what they say, it becomes a problem when a regulatory agency has enough power where they cannot be questioned.
What I mean by that is that the CAT does not work the same as US courts where in the US, the FTC will have to support their claims concerning the merger of ABK and MS. In the CAT, all they do is check and see if procedures were followed correctly but what MS cannot do is actually litigate the CMA decision. Even if MS win in CAT, it just goes right back to the CMA which they can still make the same decision without questions on whether their decision is correct. So MS cannot question their findings, cannot question their interpretation of the market, cannot question any part of their decision unless its procedural. That is the really big issue with the CMA.
I get what you are saying but they just act in accordance to a regulatory framework set by parliament I'm not totally sure about the CMA, I'm Australian but if it works like similar statutory bodies then the appeal if upheld will be sent back with guidance centred around the findings of the appeal , and another panel will undertake the case using that guidance as a framework , these tribunals are usually set up so you we don't get protracted cases clogging up the legal system, and while the US system tends to after a point send this through the general legal system so you hear terms like the FTC suing etc and correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the present FTC case pretty much inhouse too .
The Westminster system sees the relevant minister having is his own powers under the act then there is the avenue of using common law , but in the end it is what is .
