You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gamesindustry: Xbox Live Compute (Cloud Servers) offered free to devs
- Thread starter Tripp Daily
- Start date
You can keep using that terrible analogy, but it does not apply to this at all.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.
That's the beauty of virtual servers you allocate them to demand.I know Microsoft has tons of servers. And I'm pretty sure Microsoft won't let the Xbox brand use them freely.
Listen, I'm always down for a good MS beating, but for anyone trying to poke holes in this..don't bother. Dedicated servers for all MP games is fucking awesome--there's no other way around it. I will say this, however, that Sony is going to most likely match dedicated servers on big games--they'll pretty much have to. And as long as big games on both systems have dedicated servers, it'll be enough.
That doesnt say anything about if it would be the same for Xbox or not...
i am not told.
Either you're terrible at analogies or you don't understand the difference between virtual and physical servers.
What is the difference then?
in my mind and probably somewhat oversimplified:
One is a PC running Windows
and one is PC running 5 simultaneous copies of Windows in virtual machines.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Listen, I'm always down for a good MS beating, but for anyone trying to poke holes in this..don't bother. Dedicated servers for all MP games is fucking awesome--there's no other way around it. I will say this, however, that Sony is going to most likely match dedicated servers on big games--they'll pretty much have to. And as long as big games on both systems have dedicated servers, it'll be enough.
Sony won't match anything, they'll likely leave it up to developers as they have done in the past and continue to do.
If you have proof of what you're claiming, post it. If you don't, then it remains nothing but damage control. I'm not the one stating unequivocally that it's going to go a specific way. You are. Burden is on you.
How many times do i have to say this, the proof is games have dedies on both (CoD) and no games have dedies on one and not the other.
Sony won't match anything, they'll likely leave it up to developers as they have done in the past and continue to do.
The same past where Microsoft left it up the developers, they didn't continue with that but Sony obviously would right?
You can keep using that terrible analogy, but it does not apply to this at all.
That's the beauty of virtual servers you allocate them to demand.
Analogy bad, yepp. Applies to it? I think it does.
And yes virtual servers are quite good but they are still dependant on the hardware behind them all. You can't allocate to many or else you'll end up with my donkey, only this time I'm not alone but I have the rest of my family sitting on that donkey and it's not moving...It's probably dead from the allocated weight.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Either you're terrible at analogies or you don't understand the difference between virtual and physical servers.
Physical servers are rarely used these days. Almost everything new is virtualized.
It wasn't ok last gen and it's ok now. MS held the MP hostage. If your friends where on the xbox and you wanted to play with them you had no choice. Or if you liked to play their exclusives online(which was very likely).
Why is it okay now? Any games have dedies on the Xbox One and not on the PS4? Doesnt seem like it, so for the consumer they are getting the same experience on both services but PS+ also gives you free games.
SwiftDeath
Member
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.
Right but aren't you now assuming that the entire resources of the Xbox Cloud compute are usable for Dedicated Servers?
What happens if only a certain portion of that limit is available for dedicated MP servers?
Rest of that allotment to be reserved for cloud compute etc.
Unless it has been answered already?
Thread moves fast
When you show us the proof that COD will operate 100% on Dedicated servers.
But don't you have the same burden of proof for your claims?
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Analogy bad, yepp. Applies to it? I think it does.
And yes virtual servers are quite good but they are still dependant on the hardware behind them all. You can't allocate to many or else you'll end up with my donkey, only this time I'm not alone but I have the rest of my family sitting on that donkey and it's not moving...It's probably dead from the allocated weight.
That is why you have hundreds of thousands of servers. You spin up as and when needed. As the need grows you add more. Why is this so difficult to understand for you?
How many times do i have to say this, the proof is games have dedies on both (CoD) and no games have dedies on one and not the other.
When you show us the proof that COD will operate 100% on Dedicated servers.
Sony won't match anything, they'll likely leave it up to developers as they have done in the past and continue to do.
Maybe. I think the new Sony is smart enough to know that they'll need to match dedicated servers on big games. On the other hand, I think if developers are going to be using dedicated servers on Xbone, they'll probably use them on PS4 as well.
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.
So in other words.
Activision statements: Worst possible interpretation.
MS statements: Best possible interpretation.
Got it.
Miles Quaritch
Member
The same past where Microsoft left it up the developers, they didn't continue with that but Sony obviously would right?
Except MS didn't really leave it up to developers (apart from EA and Epic, who were the exception) whereas Sony did.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Maybe. I think the new Sony is smart enough to know that they'll need to match dedicated servers on big games. On the other hand, I think if developers are going to be using dedicated servers on Xbone, they'll probably use them on PS4 as well.
They don't even have them for their flagship online fps. Is that not a big enough game?
So stop using it! It does not work. It doesn't apply either.Analogy bad, yepp. Applies to it? I think it does.
And yes virtual servers are quite good but they are still dependant on the hardware behind them all. You can't allocate to many or else you'll end up with my donkey, only this time I'm not alone but I have the rest of my family sitting on that donkey and it's not moving...It's probably dead from the allocated weight.
But you are essentially saying the virtual servers will get overcrowded, but the same thing can happen with physical servers. If anything you can provide a better experience with less servers since you can allocate servers to the most played games.
Because MS offers free dedicated servers for devs. Try to keep up now. For example the exclusives have dedi's on XB1, but Sony only has dedi's for their exclusives on the PS4 in the bullshit PR sense.Why is it okay now? Any games have dedies on the Xbox One and not on the PS4? Doesnt seem like it, so for the consumer they are getting the same experience on both services but PS+ also gives you free games.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Maybe. I think the new Sony is smart enough to know that they'll need to match dedicated servers on big games. On the other hand, I think if developers are going to be using dedicated servers on Xbone, they'll probably use them on PS4 as well.
Yep, Sony don't really need to match anything. Developers will do it themselves for the sake of parity in most instances.
They don't even have them for their flagship online fps. Is that not a big enough game?
Yawn.
You can argue over the definition and implementation of "dedicated servers" all you want. The fact is Killzone does have dedicated servers. They were more forthcoming on what is actually happening. They could have said nothing and people would have just assumed it's running dedicated servers. This is the same implementation they used before and it's ran beautifully.
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.
And your point is?
iamshadowlark
Banned
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.
You talk as if "clouds" and physical hardware are mutually exclusive. The strength of your cloud is directly proportionate to physical hardware it's ran on.
Miles Quaritch
Member
They don't even have them for their flagship online fps. Is that not a big enough game?
Huh? KZ has dedis...
So how are physical servers better? They are limited by their hardware as well. So what is your point?You talk as if "clouds" and physical hardware are mutually exclusive. The strength of your cloud is directly proportionate to physical hardware it's ran on.
Dedi's that still needs a player's PS4 as a host...Huh? KZ has dedis...
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Huh? KZ has dedis...
Still uses your console to host which was his point.
Right but aren't you now assuming that the entire resources of the Xbox Cloud compute are usable for Dedicated Servers?
What happens if only a certain portion of that limit is available for dedicated MP servers?
Unless it has been answered already?
Thread moves fast
But don't you have the same burden of proof for your claims?
It shouldn't happen, because the allocation of CPU for a single user will greatly exceed the CPU power required to run a dedicated server for several players together.
So lets say if you are playing in a game with 16 people each user has 5.25ghz of CPU available to their machine (based upon the 3x cpu statement)
but the dedicated server itself may only be using 1ghz to run the game for those 16 players. That means there is 83ghz of CPU power between all of those users sitting there unused, whilst playing a game there is going to be limited uses for that power. Some of it may be dealing with notifications or doing something background matchmaking, but generally there should always be enough to go around. Especially early on when the cloud isn't going to be used to render anything or do anything truly intensive.
As for the proof, if it is free to leverage, why wouldn't they use it?
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Huh? KZ has dedis...
Not running the game logic. It's like a hybrid solution or something as far as I understand.
Still uses your console to host which was his point.
That's not true.
One session PS4 runs scoring and mission logic.
Not running the game logic. It's like a hybrid solution or something as far as I understand.
You're right, the game logic is running on your own PS4 and is then sent to the server. It's a similar setup to Battlefield 3. The whole point of dedicated servers is to eliminate host advantages and lag. This accomplishes that.
That is why you have hundreds of thousands of servers. You spin up as and when needed. As the need grows you add more. Why is this so difficult to understand for you?
Yes 300k I get it, virtual some say others say physical. Sure it could be 300k physical. Wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft actually allowed Xbox to allocate all these and then run even more servers in form of Virtual machines on them, so yes I expect Xbone to sell really really well.
But what I don't get is how no one can see the difference between physical and virtual. Wouldn't surprise me with the popularity of the box if people got another Sim City/D3.
And I AGAIN press the fact that I don't think it will suck. I press for what is actually what instead of everyone having their own theory.
Not running the game logic. It's like a hybrid solution or something as far as I understand.
If you don't understand it, why are you downplaying it?
And your point is?
That people are just taking the 300k servers at face value as if it's some kind of amazing number and that it'll be an amazing improvement for not only MP but different processing tasks, but it's actually meaningless. Especially in terms of processing.
SwiftDeath
Member
It shouldn't happen, because the allocation of CPU for a single user will greatly exceed the CPU power required to run a dedicated server for several players together.
So lets say if you are playing in a game with 16 people each user has 5.25ghz of CPU available to their machine (based upon the 3x cpu statement)
but the dedicated server itself may only be using 1ghz to run the game for those 16 players. That means there is 83ghz of CPU power between all of those users sitting there unused, whilst playing a game there is going to be limited uses for that power. Some of it may be dealing with notifications or doing something background matchmaking, but generally there should always be enough to go around. Especially early on when the cloud isn't going to be used to render anything or do anything truly intensive.
As for the proof, if it is free to leverage, why wouldn't they use it?
To be honest that is still speculation albeit far more convincing
I wouldn't prescribe using the word proof anywhere in there
Do you have a link at hand for when MS stated how much resources are allocated for each user?
So stop using it! It does not work. It doesn't apply either.
But you are essentially saying the virtual servers will get overcrowded, but the same thing can happen with physical servers. If anything you can provide a better experience with less servers since you can allocate servers to the most played games.
Yes and then if it's 300k physical ones it will make a major difference than if it was "just" 300k virtual ones.
Because MS offers free dedicated servers for devs. Try to keep up now. For example the exclusives have dedi's on XB1, but Sony only has dedi's for their exclusives on the PS4 in the bullshit PR sense.
Might be the second best thing to happen.
NullPointer
Member
Yeah, I know this. They aren't just platonic forms floating in the ether ;PYou talk as if "clouds" and physical hardware are mutually exclusive. The strength of your cloud is directly proportionate to physical hardware it's ran on.
My concern is the speed, cost and flexibility of the initial setup for launch as well as scaling resources up and down as needed. While its all ultimately physical, I'd rather manage it as a metered abstraction of processing power and resources.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Yes 300k I get it, virtual some say others say physical. Sure it could be 300k physical. Wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft actually allowed Xbox to allocate all these and then run even more servers in form of Virtual machines on them, so yes I expect Xbone to sell really really well.
But what I don't get is how no one can see the difference between physical and virtual. Wouldn't surprise me with the popularity of the box if people got another Sim City/D3.
And I AGAIN press the fact that I don't think it will suck. I press for what is actually what instead of everyone having their own theory.
There is a difference, virtual is better for online gaming of this type. There are a lot of advantages.
So? Even if they had physical server they would still run out if there aren't enough servers. The advantage of virtual servers is that they are more versatile. What I don't get is why you don't understand this.Yes 300k I get it, virtual some say others say physical. Sure it could be 300k physical. Wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft actually allowed Xbox to allocate all these and then run even more servers in form of Virtual machines on them, so yes I expect Xbone to sell really really well.
But what I don't get is how no one can see the difference between physical and virtual. Wouldn't surprise me with the popularity of the box if people got another Sim City/D3.
So you think they won't have enough servers for launch? You think a server host won't enough servers? Ok I'm done.Yes and then if it's 300k physical ones it will make a major difference than if it was "just" 300k virtual ones.
Yes 300k I get it, virtual some say others say physical. Sure it could be 300k physical. Wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft actually allowed Xbox to allocate all these and then run even more servers in form of Virtual machines on them, so yes I expect Xbone to sell really really well.
But what I don't get is how no one can see the difference between physical and virtual. Wouldn't surprise me with the popularity of the box if people got another Sim City/D3.
And I AGAIN press the fact that I don't think it will suck. I press for what is actually what instead of everyone having their own theory.
People see the difference. The problem here is that some people(you for example) can't grasp the reason why virtual servers are a better solution than allocating a physical server in every region of the world for every single game (that would be incredibly stupid).
Miles Quaritch
Member
Dedi's that still needs a player's PS4 as a host...
Still uses your console to host which was his point.
Not running the game logic. It's like a hybrid solution or something as far as I understand.
Seems like semantics and we're surely better than that?
It has a dedi solution. That's really all that matters...
SneakyStephan
Banned
I thought all traffic passed through a server before going to the score keeper wouldn't that mean it was not pure p2p.
All traffic is always routed through a proxy for everything you do.
Every bit of information you send over the internet is passed on through a whole bunch of different proxies as it is handed on from isp to isp , to get to you.
None of the game logic is done on an outside server, it's not exactly like p2p, it is p2p
One player hosts the game logic on his ps4 , acting as listen server (those two words are like a nail on a chalkboard for any gamer who'se been around multiplayer gaming on pc for long enough) , everything is sent to him, calculated on his console.
A regular consumer does not have the connection to deal with this traffic.. they will have too much packet loss (hilariously much if they are on wifi) and too much bandwidth choke to deal with it all, and the simulation is only done at the framerate the game is running on.
A good dedicated server will run the hit detection and other game logic at anywhere between 128 to 1000 times per second and equally importantly will not have routing issues like packet loss or bandwidth choke (bandwidth can't keep up so packets are put in a queue and arrive delayed)
If there are routing issues to a certain server, you and your friends quit it and pick one that works normally, and if one player has a bad connection only that player suffers, noone else does.
p2p multiplayer is always shit, some players will make less shit hosts than others, but they are all terrible.
When I play cs I do it with a ping of 6-10 on a belgian server and , with 0 choke and no packet loss
When timmy plays killzone shadowfall on his ps4 he will experience a ping anywhere from 100 to 400 ms, usually with massive amounts of packet loss, relying onprediction code as a bandaid hack to make it look like it's less laggy than it is
This is how you get shot around corners in games, get killed a second after you killed the other guy on your screen or kill eachother at the same time, how people will die a second after you stop shooting them etc etc.
Another bandaid is running more and more game logic on the client side (for example player movement/aiming direction is only tracked on the console and not on the host, so other people won't see what you see ) instead of on the server side , which is more smoke and mirrors making games less interactive and also a cause for things like getting shot around corners.
For example: the other player had the game logic for your movement ran on his own console, the movement prediction suggested you kept moving forward, he shot you, his console decided you died, the fact that you died is sent to the host/server , by now your updated position is sent to the server/host with that hilarious 100++ ms delay, but according to the server you are already dead at the other spot, so the server tells your console you just got shot and died, you are dead around the corner, he never even saw you move.
Not very interactive , is it?...
With proper netcode and dedicated servers, players send their inputs to the server and all of the player positioning, aiming, hit detection, grenade bouncing , damage taking, dying etc is simulated on the server and then sent back to every player who is connected, so everyone sees the same thing all at once and what happens is coherent with what everyone did, for everyone.
This is sent many times per second, and since the server will be receiving the updates from the clients (players) at slightly different times, you can have the simulation done even more times per second (128, 256 or even 1000) so that the server always uses the very most recent data that represents the latest frame the player saw and used inputs for, and not an older frame which would make it seem laggy) ,that is called tickrate/ update rate
With a decent ping this whole process of player input -> send to server-> calculate game logic and hit detection- > send back to player is done within less than one frame so it is awesome.
With p2p you're on a quarter of a second or more delay, with people not actually being in sync, and then there is a whole lot of smoke being blown up your ass (and a whole lot of control taken away) to convince you that it's not as laggy as it is...
The best way to imagine how this works in practice: is that on LAN or on a good server, you can imagine you and your friends each holding a toy car and moving it across the ground and slamming them in to eachother.
With peer2peer multiplayer noone gets to actually hold the toy cars, they drive themselves and everyone can give it a poke in the direction they want once a second. You don't actually get much input and there isn't much moment to moment interactivity as you are at the mercy of where the cars decide to go between pokes.
Oh and each player has to close their eyes for a moment at different times so they can't all see where the other player's car actually is at the same time as the other players.
This is why dedis are such a big deal, why people were rightfully outraged at mw2 releasing with no dedis on pc, why a lot of people don't like bf3 infantry combat (dice's servers aren't very good and their netcode is pathetic) , or why people hate the matchmaking in cs: go, because despite the matchmaking actually using dedicated servers ran by valve, those servers only have a tickrate of 64... so the hit detection isn't consistent.
Communities benifit from having control over the servers, so they can hire from whatever host company that provides them with a solid no packet loss route to their and their friend's homes.
With bf3 and cs go matchmaking you are at the mercy of w/e ea and valve picked.
Xbox one moving to all dedis IS a good thing (though about as praiseworthy as someone flushing after they take a shit, thanks for not stinking up the house and making the only right choice there is? something that's been standard for a long time everywhere else? )
Again , you will be at the mercy of the servers being any good, ,but even a bad dedi is better than the best p2p connection.
And the stupid PR spin of calling the servers that handle the matchmaking and rank ups (the same servers that exist for every p2p game...) for killzone SF dedicated servers is insulting, so please don't fall for it.
There is a difference, virtual is better for online gaming of this type. There are a lot of advantages.
For someone who describes Killzone's servers as "a hybrid or something" you really shouldn't be saying things like this as fact.
That's not true.
One session PS4 runs scoring and mission logic.
You're right, the game logic is running on your own PS4 and is then sent to the server. It's a similar setup to Battlefield 3. The whole point of dedicated servers is to eliminate host advantages and lag. This accomplishes that.
There is still a host though, I was under the impression that the server simply accepts all the connections from all players, regardless of their NAT status then sends that data to the game host in 1 big sweet lump that is free of NAT compatibility issues.
Almost all logic relating to you runs on your local PS4, with only a very small portion of the game logic running on the 'session master', one PS4 in the game selected for its connection quality
It's just regular P2P with the NAT issues removed, you'll still get host advantage because the Host's machine is having the final say on every shot fired.
iamshadowlark
Banned
I really don't know how to dumb this down any further.So how are physical servers better? They are limited by their hardware as well. So what is your point?
Dedi's that still needs a player's PS4 as a host...
The more physical hardware you have, the more resources you have.
The more virtual servers you have, the more physical resources you need.
No it will still have problems with lag, host quiting, etc.. Since you know there is a host for actual game logic.Seems like semantics and we're surely better than that?
It has a dedi solution. That's really all that matters...
NullPointer
Member
If there't still host advantage than its a pretty shitty setup. A player's console being host also makes the game more vulnerable to cheats and hacks.Seems like semantics and we're surely better than that?
It has a dedi solution. That's really all that matters...
Isn't it tougher to mix AI and players in a peer to peer environment? Do you have the same sync issues as you would with a dedicated server running that AI?
Who is arguing that the cloud isn't run on computers that exist in the physical world?I really don't know how to dumb this down any further.
The more physical hardware you have, the more resources you have.
The more virtual servers you have, the more physical resources you need.
From my edit:
Yeah, I know this. They aren't just platonic forms floating in the ether ;P
My concern is the speed, cost and flexibility of the initial setup for launch as well as scaling resources up and down as needed. While its all ultimately physical, I'd rather manage it as a metered abstraction of processing power and resources.
I don't know how to dumb this down any further. 100 physical machines running virtual server gives a better experience that 100 physical machines running physical servers, because they get adjust the server count to the most played game.I really don't know how to dumb this down any further.
The more physical hardware you have, the more resources you have.
The more virtual servers you have, the more physical resources you need.
To be honest that is still speculation albeit far more convincing
I wouldn't prescribe using the word proof anywhere in there
Do you have a link at hand for when MS stated how much resources are allocated for each user?
http://www.computerandvideogames.co...s-cpu-and-storage-capacity-of-three-consoles/
http://www.oxm.co.uk/54748/xbox-one...e-equivalent-of-three-xbox-ones-in-the-cloud/
it was part of the initial launch stuff, they've never given exact figures though
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
For someone who describes Killzone's servers as "a hybrid or something" you really shouldn't be saying things like this as fact.
Is that not what it is though?
I know the advantages of virtual servers in general.
I really don't know how to dumb this down any further.
The more physical hardware you have, the more resources you have.
The more virtual servers you have, the more physical resources you need.
And the more virtual servers you have, the fewer physical resources you need.
There is still a host though, I was under the impression that the server simply accepts all the connections from all players, regardless of their NAT status then sends that data to the game host in 1 big sweet lump that is free of NAT compatibility issues.
It's just regular P2P with the NAT issues removed, you'll still get host advantage because the Host's machine is having the final say on every shot fired.
The whole point is to remove host advantage. But sure, you know it all seeing as you work for GG and all....