Support NeoGAF

[aravuus]

Considering some of the rubbish that some juniors in here are posting and some with some very pro sony bias in their posting history and his post is the one you pick out as pr

It's not that, puppet's post just happened to really, genuinely sound like what a pr person would say. The others just sound like trolls and idiots.

Did you read what I was replying to? You sound salty.

You discovered my secret, I am the king of salt. Of course I did, silly. I like words!

Salty... Come on now

 

[spwolf]

As for KZ, I remember the thread about "dedicated servers" (I was like, wut? that's not really dedicated) but it does seem that they're using some kind of "hybrid" solution so we'll see how it goes. KZ2 was overall a fairly OK experience, but there were always these times where you'd end up with a shit host and some games turned into lagfests or would kick everyone out after 5mins. That was certainly far from the norm though.

Well, COD on XB1 will have exactly the same "dedicated" p2p servers as KZ, right?

Dedicated servers a certainly a god send when it comes to network play... they solve a lot of issues.

 

[hoos30]

Ha, so true. I'm surprised no one has claimed they're only offering free dedicated servers so they can sell peoples data to the NSA or target more ads at them.

You missed it. The 'ads' post was on page 3 or something.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Microsoft has talked a lot about the cloud and dedicated servers so we will soon find out if all this PR talk makes any difference when we compare how the experience is from those who try both the XBox One and PS4. All this build up pre-launch is great for entertainment but seeing people choose sides with no actual history of playing either one means nothing right now.

Sony had dedicated servers for a few of their own games but if Microsoft can manage to get them on all or most games on the XBox One that could have a huge impact. Especially now with so many games having multiplayer or some form of online function built in.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Sony fanbitches am cry.

Really?

Aside from your stupid choice of words, why should PS4 owners "cry"? I already wrote about this several times, in my opinion, it's certainly a good thing, but the importance of this news seems greatly exaggerated by some people here. Titles like Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty: Ghosts will have dedicated servers on all platforms. And I think it's very likely that this will be true for most other titles. Having completely different network systems doesn't make sense from a development perspective imo. And things like cloud storage are also available on PSN.

 

[Zemm]

Is this going to be the latest naysayer's argument on GAF?

"They are virtual servers therefore they aren't REAL"

It will be a good way to spot people who have zero idea what they are talking about though.

 

[coldfoot]

I thought about something, this might actually be a way to get more cloud business with MS:

1. Developers have to provide servers for MP games regardless of platform.
2. MS gives them for free for XB1.
3. Devs don't want separate netcode for different platforms, so they write their code to use Azure for all platforms, not paying for XB1 version, but paying MS for other versions. Since this is still cheaper than paying for servers for ALL platforms.
4. MS gets more cloud business = profit.

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

Sony fanbitches am cry.

Classy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Penello tweet/post that this only applies to multiplayer games? I just want to know if it includes SP games or not (even though it makes relatively little sense for SP games to have dedicated servers, anyway). Thanks!

 

[Nightengale]

I thought about something, this might actually be a way to get more cloud business with MS:

1. Developers have to provide servers for MP games regardless of platform.
2. MS gives them for free for XB1.
3. Devs don't want separate netcode for different platforms, so they write their code to use Azure for all platforms, not paying for XB1 version, but paying MS for other versions. Since this is still cheaper than paying for servers for ALL platforms.
4. MS gets more cloud business = profit.

This is the win-win-win scenario. A possibility, surely, but we won't know if this will be how things develop at this stage of the console lifespan.

 

[jaypah]

Classy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Penello tweet/post that this only applies to multiplayer games? I just want to know if it includes SP games or not (even though it makes relatively little sense for SP games to have dedicated servers, anyway). Thanks!

What would a single player game use them for?

 

[operon]

Classy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Penello tweet/post that this only applies to multiplayer games? I just want to know if it includes SP games or not (even though it makes relatively little sense for SP games to have dedicated servers, anyway). Thanks!

Seriously, is this what this thread has come to now

 

[uncledonnie]

I thought about something, this might actually be a way to get more cloud business with MS:

1. Developers have to provide servers for MP games regardless of platform.
2. MS gives them for free for XB1.
3. Devs don't want separate netcode for different platforms, so they write their code to use Azure for all platforms, not paying for XB1 version, but paying MS for other versions. Since this is still cheaper than paying for servers for ALL platforms.
4. MS gets more cloud business = profit.

This seems unlikely. I would imagine the libraries used are specific to the X1.

 

[3rdamention]

What would a single player game use them for?

Offloading AI calculations and other calculations to the cloud to increase performance? The same reasons they have been pushing the cloud down our throats would work in single player too if offloading calculations really is a benefit of Microsoft's cloud.


Why wouldn't that work for single player? Unless the cloud really is just dedicated servers........

 

[TechnicPuppet]

It's not that, puppet's post just happened to really, genuinely sound like what a pr person would say. The others just sound like trolls and idiots.



You discovered my secret, I am the king of salt. Of course I did, silly. I like words!

Salty... Come on now

I still don't get how what I wrote sounds like PR. It was short and to the point with no big PR type words. I looked at your post history and that is the only reason I am asking you about this.

 

[CadetMahoney]

I joined this place due to the fact that I was expecting proper discussions and whatnot. Wasn't expecting this place to be infested with the same crowd as N4G.

heh

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.

Well I think it's pretty clear what will be better online.

They didn't include mandatory install times in their comparisons for PS3 and used no-install 360 games in their load-time comparisons so highly doubt dedicated servers will factor in their comparisons. Or was that that other comparison site, can't remember.

 

[venomous mindset]

Especially since we all know what Microsoft tried to do with the console gaming world back nearly half a year ago was appalling. What Microsoft did there was so terrible that it broke my trust for the company and I swore to never buy a product from them again unless they significantly changed the way they treated their customers (especially the gaming world). It will take a lot for me to consider buying an Xbox One this gen. Dedicated servers being free for all games that use it is a good start, but at best, it has changed my thoughts on the Xbox One from "never getting it" to "need to see more news like this before I consider buying". Especially if the PlayStation 4 were to also get dedicated servers for all games as well.

So you come into a thread about a console you won't buy to complain about people who think this is a huge advantage?

 

[Tripp Daily]

I joined this place due to the fact that I was expecting proper discussions and whatnot. Wasn't expecting this place to be infested with the same crowd as N4G which try to downplay every positive thing to the Xbox One. Really sad to see this here also.

No matter how you put this, it is a positive thing for publishers and gamers alike.

The proper way to go about responding is to read only the titles of the threads and then react with whatever snap judgement you come to.

If someone accuses you of not reading the OP or the linked article, then and only then do you have the right to completely lie to them and say that you have and then heinously insult them.

Welcome

 

[nib95]

I thought about something, this might actually be a way to get more cloud business with MS:

1. Developers have to provide servers for MP games regardless of platform.
2. MS gives them for free for XB1.
3. Devs don't want separate netcode for different platforms, so they write their code to use Azure for all platforms, not paying for XB1 version, but paying MS for other versions. Since this is still cheaper than paying for servers for ALL platforms.
4. MS gets more cloud business = profit.

This basically. And if devs want more control or find it cheaper to buy and manage their own instead of paying Microsoft for theirs for other platforms, they will. Which is why Activision, Ubisoft, EA etc are usibg their own servers for the big tent pole releases instead of Microsofts cloud. I think COD is the only multplatform game using Microsoft's cloud servers no? But they're still offering dedicated servers to the other platforms.

 

[GameAddict411]

I am pretty sure that developers will start to demand the same from Sony.

 

[Pain]

Long post

If someone is interested in Killzone SF they'll buy it. Dedicated servers or not. It's really really not that big if a deal. People play for fun not money.

So yeah Dedis for all games on Xbox One would be awesome, but it's not a reason to buy it over the PS4. Pretty sure both COD Ghosts and BF4 will use the same servers on PS4/XB1. Many publishers are still choosing to manage their own servers.

 

[Pain]

I am pretty sure that developers will start to demand the same from Sony.

Why? Most publishers would still choose their own servers and manage them themselves. Is there really a need for Sony/MS to get in the middle of that?

Do we really want PS Plus money to go towards offering something many won't even use?

 

[TRios Zen]

This basically. And if devs want more control or find it cheaper to buy and manage their own instead of paying Microsoft for theirs for other platforms, they will. Which is why Activision, Ubisoft, EA etc are usibg their own servers for the big tent pole releases instead of Microsofts cloud. I think COD is the only multplatform game using Microsoft's cloud servers no? But they're still offering dedicated servers to the other platforms.

Why not defray the costs of using true dedicated servers for all platforms by taking advantage of azure for the Xbox One and a hybrid solution for all others? This would seem like the most cost-effective approach.

 

[Bsigg12]

If someone is interested in Killzone SF they'll buy it. Dedicated servers or not. It's really really not that big if a deal. People play for fun not money.

So yeah Dedis for all games on Xbox One would be awesome, but it's not a reason to buy it over the PS4. Pretty sure both COD Ghosts and BF4 will use the same servers on PS4/XB1. Many publishers are still choosing to manage their own servers.

Keep on fighting the good fight.

 

[FranXico]

They didn't include mandatory install times in their comparisons for PS3 and used no-install 360 games in their load-time comparisons so highly doubt dedicated servers will factor in their comparisons. Or was that that other comparison site, can't remember.

DF will always include anything that objectively favors the XBox platform in their analysis. I expect dedicated servers to be emphasized on every face-off from now on. Which actually is fine, because it is a real advantage.

They used to show those differences (sound, installation size) in a comparison table.

 

[venomous mindset]

Why? Most publishers would still choose their own servers and manage them themselves. Is there really a need for Sony/MS to get in the middle of that?

Do we really want PS Plus money to go towards offering something many won't even use?

wow

 

[Dunlop]

I am pretty sure that developers will start to demand the same from Sony.

yup, this is why competition is grand

 

[Nightengale]

Why? Most publishers would still choose their own servers and manage them themselves. Is there really a need for Sony/MS to get in the middle of that?

At the moment, where having their own servers make sense, since it's not free for PS3, PS4, X360 and PC.

But in two years, as transitions to next-gen happens, and more games have a major online component ( it's happening, like it or not ), things may change.

Publishers may still choose to own their own servers, who knows. But maybe they'll open up to MS's offerings.

Regardless, Sony needs their own answer to this, one way or another. The good part for them is that because the transition to full-on next-gen won't happen for at least 2 years, ( publishers will still use their own servers if they want to support 5+ platforms), Sony has time to ink out their solution.

Nintendo is...eh. They'll do their own stuff.

 

[Pain]

Keep on fighting the good fight.

That's just me. I'll buy a game I like no matter what kind of servers it's using. I don't play competitively.

With that being said I'm buying Ghosts on PS4. I decided this before dedicated servers were announced.

Not fighting any fight here. Those who demand dedicated servers are though and it seems they won.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

If someone is interested in Killzone SF they'll buy it. Dedicated servers or not. It's really really not that big if a deal. People play for fun not money.

So yeah Dedis for all games on Xbox One would be awesome, but it's not a reason to buy it over the PS4. Pretty sure both COD Ghosts and BF4 will use the same servers on PS4/XB1. Many publishers are still choosing to manage their own servers.

I have now seen denial... it is a beautiful yet terrifying river.

 

[Pain]

At the moment, where having their own servers make sense, since it's not free for PS3, PS4, X360 and PC.

But in two years, as transitions to next-gen happens, and more games have a major online component ( it's happening, like it or not ), things may change.

Publishers may still choose to own their own servers, who knows. But maybe they'll open up to MS's offerings.

Regardless, Sony needs their own answer to this, one way or another. The good part for them is that because the transition to full-on next-gen won't happen for at least 2 years, ( publishers will still use their own servers if they want to support 5+ platforms), Sony has time to ink out their solution.

Nintendo is...eh. They'll do their own stuff.

Worst case scenario, what if Sony doesn't match MS on this?

I don't see publishers using Dedicated servers on one and not the other.

 

[venomous mindset]

Worst case scenario, what if Sony doesn't match MS on this?

I don't see publishers using Dedicated servers on one and not the other.

So you looking for platform parity in your games right?

 

[jaypah]

Offloading AI calculations and other calculations to the cloud to increase performance? The same reasons they have been pushing the cloud down our throats would work in single player too if offloading calculations really is a benefit of Microsoft's cloud.


Why wouldn't that work for single player? Unless the cloud really is just dedicated servers........

Oh, I was thinking about dedis in the traditional sense.

 

[Gen.Grievous]

All the major releases will have dedicated servers on both platforms (we already see this at launch). I doubt it will be any different for the future. I do see a big advantage for continued support of MP components though. When player numbers drop and developers/publishers are working on their next big title they might drop support for older ones. They don't want to keep pouring money into older games. If it's free of cost to keep hosting them these older games might be available to play online for longer. On the other hand we see online support for flagship first party titles being dropped in this current generation. Meh we'll see what happens.

 

[Nightengale]

Worst case scenario, what if Sony doesn't match MS on this?

I don't see publishers using Dedicated servers on one and not the other.

Then we deal with an inferior online experience. Sucks on that aspect.

I have the benefit of being in Asia, so it's Playstation Land here regardless of dedicated servers or not. ( where Xbox has poor online infrastructure to begin with )

 

[Pain]

I have now seen denial... it is a beautiful yet terrifying river.

Not denying anything.

Dedicated > P2P
That is an absolute fact but...saying something like "dedicated servers or no buy" is ridiculous. Most games this gen used P2P. Did we not have fun? Are our expectations really that high for next gen? Should we also implement a 1080p 60fps or no buy clause?

 

[Pain]

So you looking for platform parity in your games right?

I don't really understand the question...it's Sony that I would expect to demand parity, not me. That's what we're getting if games like COD Ghosts are any indication.

Then we deal with an inferior online experience. Sucks on that aspect.

I have the benefit of being in Asia, so it's Playstation Land here regardless of dedicated servers or not. ( where Xbox has poor online infrastructure to begin with )

Yeah we deal. Or we can buy an Xbox One for multiplayer if that scenario ever arrives.

 

[von zipp]

Dedicated servers or not. It's really really not that big if a deal.

I can assure you, it is a pretty big deal. Years of struggling through almost unplayable lag due to State-side host (I live in Australia), this is a huge deal.

 

[venomous mindset]

All the major releases will have dedicated servers on both platforms (we already see this at launch). I doubt it will be any different for the future. I do see a big advantage for continued support of MP components though. When player numbers drop and developers/publishers are working on their next big title they might drop support for older ones. They don't want to keep pouring money into older games. If it's free of cost to keep hosting them these older games might be available to play online for longer. On the other hand we see online support for flagship first party titles being dropped in this current generation. Meh we'll see what happens.

That's a big deal. There were a lot of PS3 games that had online dropped not nearly as many on the xbox and it was usually some random 3rd party or Ea strictly to force upgrade cycles.

 

[szaromir]

I don't really understand the question...it's Sony that I would expect to demand parity, not me.

If they want to demand parity, they should offer the same services MS does for the same price.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Dedicated servers are awesome and all, but will the majority of the game-buying public understand what this translates to? How much of the gaming population exactly does a lot of multiplayer gaming anyway? I'm mostly a single-player gaming type of guy. So, I may be out of the loop here. Any stats for each current gen platform (ps3 and xbox360)?

 

[BajiRav]

If someone is interested in Ryse:SoR they'll buy it. 1080p or not. It's really really not that big if a deal. People play for fun not pixels.

Spoiler

I agree.

 

[Lynn616]

I thought about something, this might actually be a way to get more cloud business with MS:

1. Developers have to provide servers for MP games regardless of platform.
2. MS gives them for free for XB1.
3. Devs don't want separate netcode for different platforms, so they write their code to use Azure for all platforms, not paying for XB1 version, but paying MS for other versions. Since this is still cheaper than paying for servers for ALL platforms.
4. MS gets more cloud business = profit.

Which is cheaper? Writing different net code or paying for dedicated servers.

 

[venomous mindset]

I don't really understand the question...it's Sony that I would expect to demand parity, not me. That's what we're getting if games like COD Ghosts are any indication.


Yeah we deal. Or we can buy an Xbox One for multiplayer if that scenario ever arrives.

On one hand you downplaying the advantage on another hand you saying there won't be an advantage then you turn around say dedis for all is a bad idea????

We'll just wait and see. But I remember how this gen started with damn near every big multiplayer release having issues on the PS3.

Will wait to see how it plays out.

 

[EvB]

Dedicated servers are awesome and all, but will the majority of the game-buying public understand what this translates to? How much of the gaming population exactly does a lot of multiplayer gaming anyway? I'm mostly a single-player gaming type of guy. So, I may be out of the loop here. Any stats for each current gen platform (ps3 and xbox360)?

At the start of 2012 a stat was released that said there were 40million active players across the franchise

 

[astarisborn94]

So you come into a thread about a console you won't buy to complain about people who think this is a huge advantage?

I came here to give my thoughts on this recent development. I said that the Xbox One allowing free dedicated servers to all multiplayer games that uses Xbox Live if the developers choose so is a good thing and it does have me starting to reconsider my stance on the Xbox One since it is an advantage. But I am not going to jump the gun and say this will be a huge advantage over the PlayStation 4 because we don't know the impact this will have yet nor does this alone make a total 180 stance on me getting an Xbox One.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Which is cheaper? Writing different net code or paying for dedicated servers.

It's not only engineering new code, they also have to maintain two different versions through the life of the game and its updates. Just paying for those servers is much less complicated.

 

[SwiftDeath]

At the start of 2012 a stat was released that said there were 40million active players across the franchise

Evb you think MS will ever give the stats of what is available to devs for free cloud compute/dedicated servers etc.?

Are we to assume that 3 times the XB1's power is available for free or do you think the free part would be a part of that and then devs can pay for more?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this in a more objective fashion than a binary "yes they have dedicated servers" or "no they don't"

I've always disliked server talk because it never seemed easily quantifiable

 

[Gestault]

And thus marks the glorious return of "The Cloud" being the secret sauce.

Secret sauce doesn't list ingredients.

 

[UNCMark]

Secret sauce doesn't list ingredients.

pinch of salt
half cup of tears
lots of win

 

[Gestault]

Sony fanbitches am cry.

That right there, ladies and gentlemen, is where the line was crossed.