Mugatu
Member
Damn, I didn't know they were that far ahead, I thought MS had just about caught up.
Gamesindustry: Xbox Live Compute (Cloud Servers) offered free to devs
- Thread starter Tripp Daily
- Start date
Damn, I didn't know they were that far ahead, I thought MS had just about caught up.
yankeehater
Member
Isnt what they are doing with Forza and driveatars kind of trying to do just that?
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
So the PS4 is going to hold back the Xbox One to have parity online, and the Xbox One will hold back the PS4 to have parity with visuals.
Is everyone happy now?
At least MS has a strong talking point now, that is free of PR double speak. Sony needs to step up to the plate if they want to match this one. Big move from MS, regardless.
Fake edit: It's also pretty hilarious seeing people argue that dedicated servers are not all that, and that p2p is better. Come on guys, a win is a win.
Its not pure p2p though so it won't have all of the downfalls but it is kind of sad that it is not fully dedicated servers.
Even dedis can have lag.
NoPiece
Member
Because it is the "cloud" they can just create and remove instances on demand. In 4 years when someone wants to play NHL 15, a server instance can be spun up in a few seconds to support it. In theory, it should allow easier, cheaper, longer support of multiplayer. In reality, who knows.
Well BF had dedicated servers on both 360 and PS3 so I am assuming we will see the same for next gen, but I do agree that it will be interesting to see if some 3rd party games will only have dedi's for Xbox.
Tripp Daily
Member
It kind of brushes against that topic, but dismisses as saying they don't think indies will need the extra power right now. I don't see why a indie dev couldn't go to MS and work out the same access as a large publisher given that there is a reason to, but I don't expect MS to give access of their Azure network to any joe schmoe who turns his X1 into a dev kit.
Knightmarre
Member
I do not think MS's definition will match our definition but we will see soon enough.
Unknown One
Member
There has to be something to it. Nothing is exactly free. Microsoft will probably get something out of it.
When has MS bullshited with the definition of dedicated servers? Sony on the other hand...
Mugatu
Member
As others have said, I think Sony has to answer and match this. I think they can, whether or not they will remains to be seen.
That's pretty damn pessimistic. They've flat out said that devs get everything from the cloud for free.
iamshadowlark
Banned
I think the question everyone has been avoiding, is the extent of these free resources. How substantial of an online system will you be able to stand up with these servers? How long will MS foot the bill?
GarthVaderUK
Banned
It'll encourage people to keep paying for Gold.
I hope we get clarification on this soon, however 2 years will be enough for me.
statham
Member
more console and/or game sales?
martino
Member
Maybe it is paid by xblg.
SwiftDeath
Member
Rackspace actually has a larger cloud as well I believe (compared to MS's azure)
And sony did make a deal with rackspace so I wouldn't be surprised if that one was for something more than just Gaikai considering Gaikai had their own servers
NullPointer
Member
Its not like MS isn't getting paid to provide these multiplayer services. For once they're clearly justifying the subscription fee.
So Microsoft is currently making billions from Gold subs each year for P2P gaming, and now they're offering dedicated servers which is great, but you seem to think that they're ok with spending the billions in revenue that was going into their pocket and will now spend it on the cloud services without some other way to recoup that new expense.
I just don't see it.
Not saying I don't believe the dedicated servers because they are clearly saying now that they are providing dedicated servers. But for them to not have a new revenue stream to offset the expense...it just doesn't sound like Microsoft.
Something is going to be giving them additional revenue to compensate. Something.
I wonder where all that money went before this
SwiftDeath
Member
While I don't subscribe to such things, lagstation is "better"
Driveclub is getting dedi's as are cod and BF
KZ are getting proxy so peer is not entirely accurate
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
So the PS4 is going to hold back the Xbox One to have parity online, and the Xbox One will hold back the PS4 to have parity with visuals.
Is everyone happy now?
That would up up to the uninformed person who assumes PS4 won't be at least as competent as PS3 in terms of online.
Can Crusher
Banned
Way I see it those who believe Live subs will pay for it are way off base, since that would mean MS is ok with much less revenue. So the logical conclusion is that data gathering for advertisers is what's actually going to pay Cloud.
SEGAvangelist
Member
$100?
MS will get lots of positive PR. Exactly as they are doing in these threads. They probably realised the positive PR outweighed the costs.
But do you buy that Sony is going to both improve their infrastructure AND keep up giving free games constantly? As they get more and more PS+ subs, I would have to imagine they have to be spending more to make the developers happy.
Tripp Daily
Member
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/05/14/whos-got-the-most-web-servers/
quick search. hope its relevant. updated as of July 2013
States that Ballmer is quoted as saying that as of July 2013 the Azure network was over 1 million servers.
Microsoft is now used to the Gold subscription money being a revenue stream. They aren't going to simply divert that revenue into subsidizing the cost of dedicated servers for all games without replacing that revenue stream with something else.
I mean unless they're trying to piss off shareholders even more by diverting profits already being made.
iJudged
Banned
gamemadmax
Member
MS needs to answer this question
Unknown One
Member
Could be, but I believe nothing is free in this world. There is always a catch. Most consumers won't notice nor care. They play COD on P2P for so many years now.
The consumers is the developers this time around. I don't think shareholders would like the thought of giving away free money basically.
But anyways good thing.
The idea from Sony's perspective is that instead of the 10 million or so PS3 owners who pay for PS+, they can try to get like 30+ million subscribers. So yeah, they forced peoples' hands a bit to get more PS+ subs and with that money will improve their infrastructure.
We may see more first party games becoming free and less third party games though since it would be cheaper for them to do so. But we shall see.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
I don't think you seem to be understanding Microsoft's strategy right now. They invested in Azure a few years ago. The load being given to the Xbox division is a tiny fraction of the entire service. They're already making a killing off of Azure for other non gaming platforms.
By giving this service to devs for free they're forgoing just a bit of revenue from spare capacity in order to gain a solid competitive advantage while at the same time making devs more reliant on Microsoft's services.
It's a long term strategy. And it's a good one.
Actually they've specifically missed the word "everything"
I believe quote generally use the phrasing "some compute"
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
A lot of people have moved onto the bargaining stage now...
Can Crusher
Banned
Doesn't seem too logical to believe that Sony will make PS+ worse now that it is mandatory for MP (not with F2P I think), while MS improves XBL.
Like Ballmer yelled, advertisers advertisers advertisers advertisers. That's where the gold mine is.
How about not losing the generation to Sony, which has outclassed them in almost all other fronts?