I read every point you made and I countered it with my opinion.  It was you who stated you could not be bothered to read what I wrote, which is fine.  

I beieve you mistake me for someone who cares anything about being pro Sony or MS.  I am more about technology and how its used and what it does for me.  Your arguments are based on being pro Sony, my arugments are based on my knowledge of cloud base services and the advantages I see between Sony solution and MS.  There is a very clear advantage MS has in this space.

@Bolded:  Not sure what you are getting at.  Your point of view doesn't end with you just stating it.  Its not like your point of view is shared amoug everyone or is such a lock that no one would disagree.  I disagree with your point and provided my reason just like any debate on a topic.

I believe you think I am pro MS, I am pro no corporation.  I am the person who purchase every console, has a top of the line PC and have every handheld device.  I purchase based on my need/want not who the corporation is.  Hell, in my house, I have more Sony products than MS.  I have 2 PS3, 2 Vitas, one Sony Viao, One PSP, Still have my PS2, Traded in my PS. I have PS+ which I must say is a clear advantage to Sony for people who love games and when you have a Vita its even better.

Does this mean, I am a Sony lover, No.  I love no corporation but what I do like is a product that meets my needs.

Gaikai has the world record for the world's most widespread cloud gaming network, so they have the coverage. The analysis by DF found that the quality beat out OnLive, and the latency was able to equal a 360 game. This was over a year ago. I get that you are an MS supporter, but is all this really beaten by rumour?

Isn't it kind of easy to get a record when there is only 2 players in the race.  I am not sure if Gaikai beat Onlive since both have their strengths and weakness.  Gaikai had better image quality but ran games at 30FPS.  Online looks to run all their games at 60FPS but by doing so, the image quality was not as good as Gaikai.  It really is up to the gamer which is more important, speed or image quality.  Crysis 2 showed how a demanding game can impact controller response and latency in the signal.  

One part of the article that I have talked about that will be key to acceptance of Gaikai, especially in the US and maybe even going up against MS is how close the datacenter is to the customer.  Here is a blurb from that article that should be very interesting.

"On the other hand, Gaikai's server for supplying the UK is based in London (around 52 miles from where we tested the service) and it appears that the closeness of the server allows for levels of latency on a par, or even better than OnLive, even with the video stream being encoded at half the frame-rate."

I believe location will be the key to how well Gaikai or even MS Rio works and the quality of service both can provide.

There were at least 6 cloud gaming companies running at the time of the award, and more have launched since. But I only mentioned it because it was for covering the most countries, it had nothing to do with the quality of the service.

I'm impressed that being 52 miles away has such good latency, as this means that one server location would cover one fifth of England. That assumes that 52 miles is the limit, it could actually be better. Do you know what would still count as "close" to a server?

Given that both MS and Sony are going down this path (and putting a lot of money into it) they both must believe that a good quality service is a reasonable proposition. While I doubt MS is concered whether they will match the technical quality of the service, they will have much more of an issue when it comes to game quantity. Sony has a whole extra generation of games they can put on the service. This, and being a year behind, are bigger problems.

We can only assume if MS is a year behind.  A lot of their research is done behine close doors.  I definitely agree that Sony with their catalog of games from the PS1 to today is a great advantage and this could be something Sony can leverage even if they do not have the most servers within one geographical location.

I did some digging and it appears other companies that are trying to make a profit in this space is having a hard time.  One company, Big Fish, closed down because adoption of cloud streaming wasnt working very well.  It really is expensive to run such a service because the investment in hardware, datacenters hosting and general maintenance.  I am wondering if Sony and MS will charge on top of their network service and additional fee.

1 You can't even read a post that's IN A POST you're posting. Bolded. "I'm not going to read your post if you're not going to read the thread."

2 Wrong. I'm arguing from a rationalist point of view. Something was said by Kowen that made no sense. I countered it, and have been attacked for it this whole time. THe stance? That you can't say Sony's service is bad just because MS' cloud service, which is of course being used for MUCH MORE than xb1, has more infrastructure.

3 It IS a lock. It's plain as day. An apple doesn't taste bad simply because an orange tastes great. If you can't understand this simple point you have no reason to be here. You have no room to disagree.

4 Funny how I always see you slamming Sony then, and defending MS.

@Bolded:  What does that even mean.  I did not want to waste time answering something which meant nothing to me.  You suggest I have not read the thread which in my opinion was a defensive measure not to debate the points.

Point 2:  You are arguing from your point of view.  You can name it whatever you want but it doesn't make it valid.  Kowen said MS has an advantage with 300,000 servers and it did not make sense to you.  You countered it just like anyone would if they have a different opinion.  I countered what you stated and for some reason you believe I am attacking you? Statements like that make me believe you believe everything you say is correct and cannot be debated.  You cannot find any statement from me where I have stated Sony service is bad.  The question was raised if Sony can provide the same quality of service if they do not have the resources to provide enough servers and datacenters within the US.

3.  There is no such thing as a lock with a service like this.  Sony has not launched and their biggest competitor appears to be preparing their own service.  Until the service is out there then we can see what investment and commitment Sony has made to make Gaikai a success.  This attitude that you know best is probably the issue more than anything else.  You continue to present an opinion you feel cannot be debated and there is nothing in what you say that is irrefutable.  

4 Show me one post where I am slamming Sony.  I highly doubt you will find it since I know for a fact I never have.  What I find is that people who are pro one company or another cannot separate when someone has an opinion about features or technology instead of praising one company and blinding themselves with fanboy fever.  What you will find is me arguing about certain pieces of technology both companies are bringing with their next gen console.  My opinion is that people who cannot take any criticism of the corporation of their choice is moving more to fanboism than anything else.

*gospel mode on*

dont worry prof is biased like iamdeath said pot kettle

i find this panic from the sony boys annoying, fact is microsoft will a have a ton more infrastructure, yes its still unknown how much will be available for the one but do you honestly expect it won't utilise it? HOW IDIOTIC would that be. they wont stream full games yet due to bandwidth but certain tasks will deffo be done aside from hosting games on the infrastructure

Remains if microsoft gets so far that it has the equivalent of 3 xbox ones ( and more depending on succes ) in the cloud and can stream that in your household on for instance the xbox one its basicly game set and match

@bolded You said "I'm not even sure anyone was arguing that Gaikai can't handle the limited launch...."
Kowen said "I simply don't see how Sony can have the infrastructure to have a competant online service like this if demand is very high...MS has 300k servers and keeps on adding"
You have DECISIVELY not kept up. By saying "I'm not sure if anyone..." you fundamentally acknowledge ignorance of this and my own argument. Period.

Point 2: Kowen did not ONLY say that MS has an advantage. He said that Sony simply does not have the resources available to be competant, CITING MS' advantage. This train of thought says that MS will be able to handle competancy because of the infrastructure. Sony's is not even a tenth of that, therefore, incompetant. That is the logic of the post. Like I said to walsufnir, it doesn't take a techie to know what illogic looks like. "The question was raised if Sony can provide the same quality of service" HAH! Good luck trying to change the argument. You can't even stay on this one topic even though I bring it up over and over and over. Stop dancing.

3: I Didn't say the service is a lock. I said the argument is a lock. It cannot be debated. You cannot say that one thing cannot be competant and cite something else as reasoning. MS has a reason to have much more invested in infrastructure, and guess what, it's not because of xb1. They have an entire suite of hardware and software interacting with the cloud. Hence, they need a bigger system to address the larger audience outside of gaming. Ergo, it doesn't take as much investment if the focus is on a single service. I can't explain how many times I've said this in the thread. This cannot be argued. It is like a law of nature. A basketball player doesn't need to be 7 foot tall to dunk, a singer doesn't need a beautiful voice to be famous. While natural advantages do create greater POTENTIAL and EASE, you cannot look at an advantage and say something lesser is incompetant. That's bananas. Forget apples and oranges. Bananas.

4: I'm not even going to touch how close you're getting to calling me a fanboy. You have not stayed on the point of arguement. You refuse to address my points. You cannot keep up with the thread. You spun what Kowen said for the sake of your own argument. You cannot even remember what was said a single post ago. Case in point, you said "It's not like your point of view is shared by everyone or is such a lock.." and then when I say "it IS a lock", you say "there is no such thing as a lock with a service like this". It's uncanny how you cannot even recall what was said a single post later. Again, if you have been keeping up, which you assure me you have, you would know that my only point is that just because Sony has LESS infrastructure does not mean it doesn't have enough infrastructure. I have made no point saying that they DO have enough. I have not made any claims that Sony is fine or is a lock of any kind with this service.

So now, you can either tell me that you have not been following, or that you are guilty of everything above. What's your choice?

PS: lol @ kirby. When kirby is on your side you know you fucked up.

noone has said that. The point argued by both myself and iamdeath was that ms doesn't require that much. Sure they will use it, but the amount of investment is far above what's necessary for the service. It's like having a brand new 500$ video card to play nes roms. Sure, the system will use it, but that doesn't mean a ti4200 from 12 years ago cannot. However, if I were to buy a ti4200, you'd say "but dude, you won't be able to play new games, or encode video quickly, etc etc". I agree. See next paragraph.

You're right. MS IS doing a lot more with their cloud. Offloading tasks, smartglass, simulations, etc etc. You are PROVING the point, not countering it. MS NEEDS more since they DO more. Sony having a smaller focused service inherently implies less need. Let's not even get into the fact that their service had already been running in the wild for two years, won awards, and had the fastest speeds and best service out of all the competition for exactly the singular service that Sony wants to use it for.

It is like saying "that hammer isn't good. It can't make a sandwich." Sure. It can't make a sandwich. But it's an award winning hammer. It's probably one of the best hammers you can get. When you want to hit a nail, sure enough, this is the perfect tool for it. Sure maybe it's not also a saw...that would be useful...and maybe it would be even better if it had a level in the handle...that would be handy... but hey, it's a pretty fucking solid hammer. Just because your Russian military issue spade can dig holes, cut logs, measure, aim, and stab, it doesn't mean this hammer isn't fucking balls at making a piece of wood feel like a dirty little whore.