Because it doesn't. It just doesn't. Azure has 300,000 but Xbox one does not. the 300,000 number refers to the virtualised servers, not actual servers. That second article you posted is dated May 23 and refers to the same quote you're getting that 300,000 number from. The eurogamer article you also posted is much more recent and directly addresses it. Perhaps you should read this quote again:
If they really did have 300,000 servers JUST for Xbox One at LAUNCH, why wouldn't they just say? Also have you any idea how much money that many servers costs to buy and run? Of course they're virtualised, it ludicrous to think otherwise. Show me a single source that unoquivecally states that Microsoft has 300,000 actual, real servers and not a single one is Virtualised. Because that's what Azure is - virtualisation. You buy virtual machines to run on it. You never, ever get control of an azure server directly because that's not the cloud, that's just hosted servers. That's why Azure is so good, because it scales linearly.
You need to understand what Azure actually is and how it works for you to realise why the 300,000 dedicated servers is rediculous. Once again, I implore you to find a concrete source that actually states that those servers are real, dedicated servers and not virtualised across the Azure platform.
"Microsoft also detailed changes that are coming to Xbox Live. The outfit has increased to 300,000 servers to power Xbox One users -- up from 15,000 that handle the Xbox 360"
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/21/m...es-xbox-live-/
Go watch the E3 Presrntation, they explicitly say so too.
And how many games did you get with your £25 subscription to Xbox Live? Sure, it's a better service, but it's not £25 better. You can disagree about the games all you want, it's clearly great value and you're now just arguing for the sake of it.
i don't pay for XBL to get old games that I've played already / can be picked up cheaply / don't expire when my sub stops.
I pay to game on the best online network with all my friends and others around the works who actually talk online. Unlike on PS3 where people have fogey Bluetooth headsets that echo, are too loud, too quiet and are littered with French kids.
I don't see PS+ as value. I would rather spend £10 a month and get disc based access to any game available on the platform rather than wait and see what they will offer and have to continue to subscribe to keep the games.
It's as clear as mud. One guy quoted 300,000 servers and since then, Microsoft has been evasive about how many of those 300,000 servers are actually dedicated hardware or virtualised. It makes sense to Virtualise them, then you don't have to have a bunch of expensive, hot, power-hungry servers sitting on all the time on the off-chance someone wants to play an old game. You just have what you need and scale as necessary.
Please find me a source that shows SONY has set up severs for the UK :/
There's very little information on the PSN servers, but you forget that Sony is a huge company. They run a few MMO's and have servers dedicated for Europe (== UK). I believe Planetside 2's servers are all in the Netherlands, as is DCU:O so chances are that's where the European PSN servers are.
Have a look at the various MMO's that Sony runs:
https://www.soe.com/status/ and notice how most have EU dedicated servers.
So when you're claiming that Sony CAN'T or WON'T have servers for the UK, then explain why they can for MMO's that have a much smaller subscriber base than PSN?
Give up on the 300,000 figure, it's meaningless number without some additional information. Jonathon Blow said it best:
That's an actual game developer, albeit one who's a bit up his own arse.
Once again, this is raw speculation on your part. You're also blindsided by the fact that Microsoft runs Azure for a whole bunch of stuff, so of course they're going to invest a buttload into servers. Even if they cancelled the Xbox One tomorrow, Azure would still be there and still be going strong and those 300,000 servers would still be around.
Once again though, "numbers" of servers is meaningless, especially when you consider that some are virtualised and some aren't.
I'm not saying that Sony isn't behind or that Microsoft won't have the better service here, but you're saying that Sony flat out won't even try to compete and won't have any kind of solution. I'm saying that you're mistaken - games will still have dedicated servers, because they did on the PS3 (Unless you're saying that games like MAG ran on a peer-to-peer system....), dedicated servers are nothing new. You seem to keep missing that point.
And just so we're clear, I'm saying this as someone who owns about 4 Xbox 360's and only one PS3 that's very much gathering dust. I have a gamerscore of about 28,000 yet I've only got about 10 trophies to my name. I firmly believe that the 360 was the better console this generation in almost every way. I just don't think you're being fair to Sony here and you've been taken in by Microsoft's 300,000 number that has been given with very little context.