If Azure ressources are free for X1 but need a payment for other versions (PC, PS4) Do you really think that devs will develop different MP game logics for their game (because the publisher doesn't want to pay anything at all) ?
Gamesindustry: Xbox Live Compute (Cloud Servers) offered free to devs
- Thread starter Tripp Daily
- Start date
If Azure ressources are free for X1 but need a payment for other versions (PC, PS4) Do you really think that devs will develop different MP game logics for their game (because the publisher doesn't want to pay anything at all) ?
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Oh god... are you actually serious?
This is some mental gymnastics there, Eric Cartman style.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Obviously...
wasn't this also the case in mw3? or was it black ops 2 or both I can't remember I only try the cod games on steam weekends
You could play on community servers and enjoy dedis (unranked, why unranked only? fuck if I know, guess they didn't want people to play on dedis together to boost eachother's ranks or some other bar filling stat keeping pointless endeavour)
or you could play in their walled garden of ranked servers and then you got forced into p2p
travisbickle
Member
Looks like MS found its weapon of choice for fans to use in the battle of hearts and minds. But which is more important for next gen gaming? Dedicated servers or native 1080p? There's only one way to find out ...
Well that's what we'll have to see. While I'm not sure, but where you host your server shouldn't matter that much. Even in current gen titles having a mixture of Dedi's and P2P isn't out of the ordinary. For now 3rd party wise the games seem to have parity dedicated server wise. So the advantage is only clear for exclusives atm. Hence I still have a preference for the PS4, since the major MP 3rd party titles have dedicated servers anyway and I do like SP gaming too. Who knows what happens in the future though. I'm personally very interested in what the deal will be with Fifa. Regardless what happens I'm pretty sure the PS4 will be my first next gen console. The question is what my 2nd one will be, I really want MS to deliver.
entremet
Member
Very little people in the mainstream care or know about these.
bleachrude
Banned
One on one fighters I think might be better. Specifically if player A is physically closer to player B compared to where the hypothetical server is located.
Same thing with sports games especially if it's not a twitch sports game primarily...for example American Football is more turn-based strategy than twitch gaming (civilization has no need of dedicated servers).
This of course changes if you have more than 2 players. The chances that everyone will be physically closer to each other than a central server drops rapidly the more players involved.
The point is that you don't know what exact amount of actual ressources is available, that the magic 300k number is meaningless, and that no, virtualization doesn't magically allow anything and everything. So have you read that article yet?
I'll point you to a very relevant part of it:
AI, rendering and even MP game logic are demanding. That's precisely why P2P (apart from the host advantage issue) generally affects the overall potential quality of MP, because devs have to make sure that there will be enough processing power in the host's console to handle the game logic. That was even one of MS' point regarding P2P vs dedicated.
We're talking about game that have to run code constantly. Not processing data sets, returning results to one guest, and moving onto the next task with big delays.
Read the whole conversation, maybe.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Bingo.
People need to stop acting like PS4 isn't going to have dedicated servers either. This doesn't mean PS4 won't have a great online service but reading some of the responses makes it seem like PS4 has no chance. I don't even ever recall anyone complaining about a game being p2p or on dedicated servers.
Uno Venova
Banned
Both camps now have their base talking points, threads are going to get real repetitive going forward.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Its just because we dont know if PS4 will have dedicated servers like this. Sony hasnt said anything like this.
Indeed, you can see how touchy people are getting about it already!
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
It has been a weapon the entire time, just not fully detailed...
I think for the vast majority of MP fans, dedicated servers are more important than native 1080p. As a PC gamer, I don't see the fuss about needing native 1080p tbh. I think the fuss is because people need one console to win in graphics over the other.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
I think that's mostly people being annoyed at Killzone. If that was using dedicated servers in the conventional sense people would have less to worry about in regards to the rest of Sony's first party
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Bingo to you too. I'm not worried about this but as I said, some are making this out like it's some game over type thing when I don't even recall ever talking about a games dedicated servers vs non dedicated.
There's absolutely no doubt that it's better to have them though.
Well time will tell won't it? I just don't see how you can dismiss it from the off set.
Who?
jordan0386
Member
*nods*
Dope shit.
Dope shit.
So true. Mainstream gamers aren't going to be comparing servers or resolutions. They're going to ask which console has Halo, Titanfall, Uncharted, Mario etc.
We do know that they wont have it like this. They won't have in-house servers that they completely control. If they offer devs dedicated servers for every multiplayer game, they'll need to pay a pretty penny to get it. Huge difference in logistics and financials between renting and owning.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Depending on he game I either hate p2p or don't mind it, naïve resolution is in more of that's nice category, but frame rate and ping and king.
jordan0386
Member
Millions care about servers, due to them playing COD online
Syphon Filter
Member
Then how come they don't make it standard just in case some dev tries to use p2p? They made several xbl featured standard for xbox 360.
How many of those kids playing CoD give a crap that the server they're on is P2P vs dedicated?
You can't mandate something like this. What if EA wants to run their own servers? They should be allowed to.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Have you been reading the thread? Game changer type comments as if PS4 doesn't have dedicated servers. I'm not reading over every response as I've been away for a couple of hours.
You really think all those casuals ask whether or not CoD has certain types of servers? I doubt it. They just want to pop in the game and play.
It still costs money to run the servers. Some devs have their own server providers. Some MP games don't really work with dedi's (like fighters), etc. I don't really see the merit in forcing this as standard.
Yes, people are positive not that it's over for the PS4. It's huge in the sense that a console platform holder is actually providing dedicated servers for free, this is unprecedented.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Eh it's feature that costs them money, if free, is actually free, it's not exactly top of the list on features you want to mandate devs to use.
TBf if the quality of online is noticeably improved they'll probably recommend it. Much like how everyone loves how smooth COD is without knowing what 60 fps actually means
NullPointer
Member
How many of them bitch about lag or host migrations? That's how many.
jordan0386
Member
Many people who dont post on boards care about 'lag'. Thats what Im saying.
If MS can get word of mouth of a 'lag less experience', that should sell some systems.
If MS can get word of mouth of a 'lag less experience', that should sell some systems.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
True, but now its known better believe it will be talked about. Mainstream do not care about a few extra shadows and some nicer looking textures but truth be told if a ps4 game has that edge over xbone it will be talked about. Thats how things are now days.
Arkam
Member
When they can FEEL the difference... all of them.
Dedicated servers are a HUGE difference in FPS games.
Yep. Gamers of all types are familiar with that.
I think in a few years it will be. Just the idea that they're putting what they're saying is 3x Xbox Ones per user available from launch for devs is a huge foreshadow that this is what is going to evolve the most over the life of the Xbox One. You know how they say it's future proof? It's because cloud based computing gets better every year and internet is expanding in speeds and availability. Microsoft has a long term roadmap and by all signs it heavily points at the Azure platform being the key to the Xbox One's growth.
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
Huge news and great stuff. Look forward to online play on Live.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
It's almost hilarious how much better lagless multiplayer would have gone down PR wise than the infinite power of the cloud. Man some sections of MS PR department for XB1 are completely terrible.
I have, I still don't get your problem. But I agree that number is pretty meaningless. If it turns out they didn't allocate enough resources, they'll just add another 100k (or whatever) to the xbox live pool. They have some 1-2MM servers just for azure and they have more dc locations worldwide than even AWS. My point being, they aren't going to run out of servers.
Metalmurphy
Member
All the information that needs to travel between clients goes through the dedicated server (call it proxy server if you want), and that server distributes it to other clients. That's not P2P.
TheGreyHulk
Member
free dedicated servers!!!
now that's worth clapping for.
now that's worth clapping for.
All of my CoD playing friends all despise host switching and lag, they know what it is. They just probably don't know the tech jargon behind it(dedicated vs. p2p).
Being in the Gears community has shed a lot of light on this too. Heard it all the time over chats in Gears 2/Gears 3 beta when it was a night and day difference.
UpUpDownDown
Member
Its almost uncomforting to know how much they work to cultivate the message the community wants. Microsoft has been bouncing messages of gaf for months....maybe this will get traction here for them.
God knows theyre trying.
regarding cost, since some where questioning the financials/profitability:
a medium vm (2x 1.6 ghz, 4gb) shold be more than enough for 10 player games. Assuming 30% utilization (imo way on the high end), you're looking at $720 yearly (based on their regular pricing) and $1800 in live subscriptions. Ignoring everything else, it seems to me they wouldn't touch it if it takes off. And if it doesn't, the cost aspect is moot.
So win-win either way.
a medium vm (2x 1.6 ghz, 4gb) shold be more than enough for 10 player games. Assuming 30% utilization (imo way on the high end), you're looking at $720 yearly (based on their regular pricing) and $1800 in live subscriptions. Ignoring everything else, it seems to me they wouldn't touch it if it takes off. And if it doesn't, the cost aspect is moot.
So win-win either way.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
No doubt I think the core stem of their issue was the initial proposal wasn't a good proposal for the consumer, we knew it they knew it and probably a lot of them didn't even like it but it's their job, which was probably why it was so half assed. Now that all that's been overturned they're stuck trying to rescue the rescue the wreckage that came about which was always going to be an uphill battle. A lot of consumers are jaded and have already long ago made a choice about which console to buy and so don't particularly want to change.
But still somebody at some level must have stood up and said this quote takes the consumers for idiots we really should be using it. TBF that's probably the story of the Xb1 console as a whole until the decision changes.
I agree that it would have been better.
Madden and COD gamers of all ages know what lag is. Can't say the same when it comes to "cloud connectivity".
Garrett 2U
Member
Seriously haha, they should have just came out and said free dedicated servers for games
Oh well
Louis Cyphre
Banned
EA is likely to use their own servers, which is not a good thing IMO.
They have to get 3rd partys on board first, provide the tools. I dont think there will be many games taking advantage of this at launch.
bleachrude
Banned
That hamster wheel?
If MS is offering this for free, why wouldn't EA simply switch over...less cost is always good to the bottom line.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
EA was the major hold-out when XBox Live was launched. They wanted control of their games which is why EA games get shut down over time. EA also has their own sign-in process, an overlay where you create your own EA account. Ubisoft does this too because of U-Play.