Captain Tuttle
Member
Into a big hole dug out by RROD maybe?
Gamesindustry: Xbox Live Compute (Cloud Servers) offered free to devs
- Thread starter Tripp Daily
- Start date
I doubt it. Online Multiplayer games that are 1 player vs. 1 player like Sports or Fighting games will probably still use P2P.
That certainly wouldn't be the first time he talks BS or muddies the waters.
NullPointer
Member
Why in the world would you want physical servers if you could have virtual ones? Its the same processing power, only that virtualized processing power is easier to manage and quicker and more cost effective to scale.
in other words virtual servers?
ps. yes you can read through my posts I dislike MS a lot but I'm serious in asking.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Yes because that's what they are.
Yes. We knew that from the start.
forcefullpower
Banned
What you think there is not a catch to this. Let me give a good guess if you use there servers yours not allowed to put thd game anywhere else for a min of 6 months
Yes, There will be multiple instances running on a single hardware server, one instance may be a forza server that has just spun up as I booted up the game, the machine could also be running one for Chromehounds 2 (I can dream) or Battlefield 4.
These will turn on and off depending on what the users are wanting to play.
Miles Quaritch
Member
You're not wrong. Was hoping it would settle down as we entered the last leg of the new consoles launch, but it just seems to be getting worse.
Jon Blow was pretty outspoken about virtual servers for some reason.
Yes, because it would be incredibly stupid to dedicate 300,000 physical servers for multiplayer gaming.
PC? 360?
Semantics I know...
But then that isn't 300k servers. It's like calling a donkey a horse. Perhaps from an older school here but when people are walking on the edge of truths and lies it annoys me. Why can't people just be straight?
If they're virtual, that means there's even less actual processing power available. So yeah, so much for that extra AI and graphics.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Number 1, I'm dead serious.
2, I know how a cloud system works and virtualized servers are nothing new either, I don't need your shoddy explanations.
I would like to get pure logistical clarification on how this is put in place. That's it. I don't need your bull shit conjecture on how you think this works, because there are dozens of dozens of ways this system could work. Again, you are providing a bevy of assumptions. I don't care for those.
Because it was Microsoft?
No, it's like calling a server a server. Just because you can't grasp the concept doesn't mean it's a questionable concept.
NullPointer
Member
No, that doesn't follow.
Maybe they're not any more?
There's no catch for us per se. The only catch is for Sony when they realize they'll have to pay Microsoft because developers choose to use the Azure servers on all platforms since its free for Xbox One.
I'm not in to the business of reading through peoples posts dude.
But yes, that does mean virtual servers, because without virtual servers this would be highly impractical and therefor impossible in the big business world.
However the fact that they are using the virtual server technique does not mean that the 300k server figure is a lie. I mean if it makes you feel better, yes it could be a lie, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter if they have 300k, 300million physical servers, what matters is if they have enough to provide a good experience for the active user base.
But I guess we can always ask Albert to confirm whether or not MS really has 300k physical servers, if that has not been done already.
The concept is that I can ride my donkey, I can put a fancy saddle on it I can even shoe it but it's still not a horse.
I didn't, last time I bothered people were trying to say that it was 300k real servers and some saying it was virtual so I stopped caring since no one actually knew.
Of course it follows. What doesn't follow is their BS about having the equivalent of 3 times the processing power in the cloud for each xbox one out there. Not with 300,000 servers. Not when they're virtual ones.
tinfoilhatman
all of my posts are my avatar
Rightfully so , in a data center environment for certain applications I'll take physical over virtual any day of the week but for most applications including dedicated game hosting victuals are just fine and offer some MAJOR benefits in flexibility and dynamics.
It's really well documented for those like yourself who want to know the ins and outs
http://www.windowsazure.com/
go read through the tech and support documents.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
I want you to brainstorm all you know and display it to me in a flowchart.
Pretty sure he did already, when he first came around.
Miles Quaritch
Member
A virtual server is running on...wait for it...an actual server.
As the virtualization makes progress, there's less and less reasons to want a physical server over a virtual one these days. Virtuals are pretty much as good as physicals now, only with major advantages in security and flexibility
iamshadowlark
Banned
This is a strange question. If you had choice, the best choice is always pure dedicated hardware. A virtual server is hugely ambiguous. For every physical server rack you could mount 3, 30, or 300 virtual servers.
I think it was 300k real servers. Still nothing compared to what Amazon have afaik.
No not really. These are proper dedicated servers no matter how you twist it.
MS has bucketloads of servers do you honestly think they are going to run out? There is nothing ambiguous about it, this isn't new tech. It's proven existing tech.
They've stated that there is approx 3x the CPU and storage of each Xbox One in circulation available to any user.
The point is that it doesn't matter whether that 3x Power is split up in 30x instances or is all being allocated to a single instance, it is there to use if the user's machine needs it.
To be honest I'm probably still riled up from when the flaming was coming in from each side about this fact. Gakai vs Azure. And I never looked it up again and just remember people saying "real" no "virtual".
It is, but it totally makes sense. It makes sense for the same reason that I don't have 1 PC to run Internet explorer, 1 to run Chrome , 1 to Run Photoshop and 1 to run a game.
I use 1 machine and open and close my applications as I see fit
Except that you use virtual servers to have multiple ones running on one actual machine (otherwise there's no point). They still all have to share the same hardware tho.
NullPointer
Member
This makes perfect sense and I don't know why people are having a hard time understanding this.
When it comes to a game's dedicated server support I'd rather have a scalable cloud based solution than purely physical dedicated servers, so that there's more flexibility in scaling to the needs of the playerbase.
Fanboys can't process positive news about Microsoft. It's getting sad really.
Well it's the easiest way yet to spot fanboys though.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Huh, so they really are offering free servers to all developers?
I'll believe it when I see it.
This sounds about as plausible as the "family sharing plan".
I'll believe it when I see it.
This sounds about as plausible as the "family sharing plan".
SwiftDeath
Member
Do you want to see the receipts? Literally?
Are you serious? To take your later example, that'd be like saying that if you just run photoshop on your computer, it'll run just as well if you have 29 other programs running at the same time.
No one's saying "they're not actual hardware therefore they're not "real". Just that it's not the same at all, and it's rather important given that the actual, real computing ressources are even more limited.
entremet
Member
Read the OP, bro.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
"Better rendering"
They really need to stop with this.
They really need to stop with this.
Pretty sure my donkey would get me to my destination as much as a horse would. Not saying it wont work or will suck. Just saying it's this edge running I dislike. If you didn't get it I like upfront people and Microsoft has been anything but that the last 15 years.
I know Microsoft has tons of servers. And I'm pretty sure Microsoft won't let the Xbox brand use them freely.
This is actually quite good. Hope the ones on Xbox have a good experience. Will still blame them after the kinect develops and knows more about everyones prefered taste in erotica than it's healthy.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
iamshadowlark
Banned
It is speculation about the other platforms, but based upon what has been said so far, it's not the case for XB1 as the CPU required to run a server is allocated to each and every Xbox One several times over, so there would never be a need to limit the servers on a per title basis.