Gemüsepizza
Member
What are you talking about? We already have confirmation that CoD Ghosts will have dedicated servers on ALL platforms:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=693142
Gamesindustry: Xbox Live Compute (Cloud Servers) offered free to devs
- Thread starter Tripp Daily
- Start date
What are you talking about? We already have confirmation that CoD Ghosts will have dedicated servers on ALL platforms:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=693142
That's my biggest peeve with P2P. Servers dropping all the time and horrendous lag.
That's definitely cool if that's how it ends up working. I imagine if that's the case, MS will kind of lead the way on that sort of thing, and it'll end up taking hold on other platforms as well (would love to see something like that on the PC in light of fewer developers offering a dedicated server app over the last 4-5 years).
Impeccable
Member
Hardly anyone is downplaying the dedicated server part of this "announcement". Just the computational advantage which has been debunked time and time again.
In fact, I would say there are more people complaining about people complaining about "good news" than people actually complaining about "good news" in this particular thread.
You can't have your cake and eat it too on ANY forum, either keep a positive discussion going or point out the negativity which only breeds more negativity. Hardly anyone is helping the discourse of conversation lately.
GarthVaderUK
Banned
Yup, that's how I understand it. It means multiplayer games can be hosted on servers on demand, so there's no need to permanently switch off servers for a game's multiplayer if it isn't popular.
This is potentially fantastic for less popular games, it's like multiplayer servers without cost to the developer that don't get shut down.
It's not a concern for publishers, it's a concern for platform holders.
If Sony want to have feature parity with the Xbox One version, then I'm pretty sure Activision will have said "You pay for it then"
Because ultimately right now "dedicated servers" means very little the vast majority of users. And from reading this thread it's quite obvious that even some very hardcore gamers don't understand what the mean, how they work and what they do.
If it was an important thing, game boxes would have been listing them as a feature long long ago.
The only reason it is going to be there is because it does offer a better experience (whether the average COD player notices or not) and it's being offered totally free of charge to Developers making games on Xbox One.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Sony is offering their Rackspace infrastructure for free?
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
This is a massive deal, I can't wait to see what indie devs do with this.
NullPointer
Member
Sounds like the best possible setup.
And some people believe the Boy crying Wolf even after the hundreds time.
It's not about spinning something into negative but temper expectations and being realistic about what is really going to happen long term. Anybody using common sense would come to the conclusion that this will have some strings attached, my guess being it's only free for the first X months.
bleachrude
Banned
Not necessarily.
As mentioned, Killzone isn't using dedicated servers so weirdly, 1st party games on the Wii-U and Ps4 might not.
The other question is what exactly does the extra computing power mean in ACTUAL terms that the average player can see?
Better bots? Bigger worlds?
I honestly don't know and am curious to see what developers think of it...
(One advantage with Azure is that the servers will never turn off...unless MS itself goes out of business or starts charging down the road. Which is kind of cool but hard to see as a bullet point.)
Anyone buying these new consoles is like 99% guaranteed to pay for online services wether it is LIVE or PSN. The bitching about "Behind a paywall" is nothing but fanboy drivel at this point.
Garrett 2U
Member
I don't often "lag" in a Battlefield 3 game..
Occasionally there will be an interpolation issue when flying in a jet...
Sometimes I've been shot around corners, but I think you understand why that occurs.
I've lagged in other multiplayer games. I've been kicked out because I didn't have a compatible NAT. I've been disconnected because the host quit.
And it isn't just about lag. Of course you're going to have a better online experience..
The reason Battlefield 3 could support such a larger scale than other multiplayer games is directly related to the dedicated servers.
You can't host a multiplayer game like Battlefield on a local host, it just takes too much resources and bandwidth.
That is what I'm looking forward to the most. Large scale multiplayer worlds.
Facepalm.
They have said that they will have dedicated servers in key geographic locations, if a user is outside of this area or if there is no space on a server, then they will be playing P2P.
With the Azure servers, there can never be "no spaces" because they can create as many servers on the fly as demand fluctuates on a minute by minute basis.
SwiftDeath
Member
You know I think a place like DigitalFoundry should add this into their game comparisons
Compare both games online in the same environment (obviously it'd be better to have multiple data points but still)
I'd love to see objectively what game has a better online experience on what console
I have always found this to be so unclear
Obviously this is a good initiative and great for games but I'd love to see the benefits in real life too
I'm hoping MS will also be able to provide a consistent MP experience. There are a lot of different servers hosts not all of them good.
martino
Member
Recent examples show maximun capacity is the big flaws of online
I'm curious to see how "cloud" will work at launch and during rush hours.
CitizenCope
Member
It's the worst I've seen it but stay tight. Once the machines are released threads will be more geared towards the games and the Mods do a good job on those.
Gemüsepizza;86162104 said:
Heh
It's funny when people that don't know what they're talking about try to correct you.
I was right with my original post. Period. Some games are built with different setups based on the hardware. Some games are built to support both dedis and p2p. PureGone is incorrect thinking that if one is supported in one instance, then it will be supported in all instances.
Google "listening servers" guys.
Of course it's concern for publishers, providing similar services across major platforms equals more sales. Of course they'll go to Sony looking for a deal similar to what MS offers, but just like the servers for Ghosts, no worthwhile publisher is going to release a game across multiple platforms and gimp one version over another.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Well I think it's pretty clear what will be better online.
And both PS4 and Xbox One versions have dedies...
I didn't say they would pay for them, i said they would pay for the PS4 versions of make a deal of Sony to have feature parity.
So they can continue paying for these games, publishers don't make them free for free.
Well so far it seems it is, as there are no games confirmed to have dedicated servers for Xbox One and not for PS4.
10ms, this is why people need to temper their expectations, your not going to get 10ms thanks to dedicated servers. 10ms ping is reserved for LAN games.
So they force players that don't give fuck about PS+ to pay for it. As I said it's a cash grab.
Gabotron ES
Member
Nice news!
bleachrude
Banned
Not sure it is actually possible to do this since it depends HIGHLY on host location.
Take COD:ghosts...Activision has said that there are dedicated servers in key location but does this mean that you potentially could be in a P2P setup?
If so, you would need to have a gamer out in Timbuktu and then compare it to a gamer living in Santa Monica....
Or you know, since the cost of computational power on the server side went down significantly since MS first introduced Xbox Live, they've decided that they can afford to offer such service to gamers within the subscription. Perhaps there are strings attached, perhaps there aren't. Some people on the first two pages immediately refuted this news without reading the article.
Less than half of 360's are online....well XBLG
Already? Magical, and the consoles aren't even out yet!
SEGAvangelist
Member
Very true. More like 40-80 is what I'm guessing we'll see.
That's as much confirmation as you're going to get between now and launch with the gag order the deal between MS and Activision requires. Of course they're going to be there (they already are to a lesser degree for BLOPS2 actually on the PS3 and 360)/
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
We know what has more graphics power just by looking at specs. This is no different.
SwiftDeath
Member
But it's comments like that that make me want to have something objective to look at
Then I can actually see the comparison, it's obvious etc.
Arguing about dedicated servers is nice and all but without knowing what does and doesn't have dedicated servers and the quality of the netcode I don't know
Last gen I had friends who were convinced that every X360 game had dedicated servers
So much of this has always been unclear
But that's my point I guess
It always seems so dependent on other things
It's good news but I just want some way to actually see it in action
I wish there were objective ways to test this but I suppose there are not
Yeah, panick mode MS is pretty good. Still kinda worried what will happen at MS with the leadership changes.
Surely you're dizzy by now.
martino
Member
already see 12 if on fiber with good dedicated server.
But it's 2 big and non common requierement
Tripp Daily
Member
It was stated that this won't be the case in the article. MS Azure network will be able to dynamically spin up servers as they are needed for whatever game requires it. The only instance, if I understand correctly, that there would be no server support for a game using the azure network is if MS goes under and they shut down the entirety of the azure network. Not likely to happen.
Mugatu
Member
I don't think we have architecture or specs for either Xbox Live on the XBO or PSN on the PS4.
In time for launch Sony would never be able to have the size of infrastructure and the tools to manage it in time for launch.
Give it a few years then perhaps they could make a deal with Sony, but Sony aren't going to fund 300k servers (or whatever) just for the sake of a "feature" that 99% of players won't notice or understand.
Microsoft are offering it because they can, it's not the primary use for the servers.
Sony are working on a similar system, but give the history of Xbox and PSN I would perhaps expect that to be a few years off yet.
GarthVaderUK
Banned
This is why I'm not jumping in at launch - let them suffer and sweeten the deal, lol.
No more blaming it on the host :l lol
Colbert
Banned
Smart!
Opus Angelorum
Member
A game running dedicated severs is better than a game without. Don't suggest otherwise.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
If it helps to make games better, great. If all it ever ends up being is nothing more than dedicated MP servers for games, then I'll take that since that's already a pretty big deal and devs don't need to pay for it, which is fantastic and should at least guarantee they make extensive use of it on the platform. If it actually ends up being more than just dedicated servers in MP, then I look forward to seeing how it can make my games better.
This is a very good point here.
With it being on demand you can better assure that the resources aren't randomly and without warning being shut off on people still wishing to play and enjoy those games. This is an amazing thing to provide to console gaming.
This is a very good point here.
With it being on demand you can better assure that the resources aren't randomly and without warning being shut off on people still wishing to play and enjoy those games. This is an amazing thing to provide to console gaming.