hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
How is this thread 15 pages long?! What's going on in here guys?
Microsoft will always have a cost advantage, because they own the servers, and they set their prices.Does anybody in this thread have a fair idea on how much that would cost? I'm sure Sony could work out a partnership (just brand every game as 'Powered By Amazon') for a lower rate, but it still seems like a massive recurring cost to take on.
Sony doesn't have the infrastructure to offer this kind of experience on this kind of level.
First thing I can think of is: great, the destruction is cool, but the game turns into a crippled version of its former self the moment the servers are brought down or moved to use in some other game.
For me, the impressive bit is splitting a connected physics world, seamlessly across multiple servers.Its not a calculation thing, its a scope and scale.
No more than any other network multiplayer game.Wouldn't latency affect gameplay?
Well we can pop over to the Azure pricing page and have a guess with made up numbers?
Based on Dave's demo at Gamescon he explained that each multiplayer instance consists of a number of compute services processing chunks of the world. He also mentioned that the highest number of "Xbox like" instances they have utilised was 15.
Lets say that an average game uses 5 compute instances. Since they said that this would equal 5 times the power of an Xbox One, let's assume that each instance is an Azure A3 instance (4 cores, 7GB ram).
That would cost £1 an hour. Each game instance has 4 players. Now let's just say they have 100,000 players playing simultaneously that's £25,000 an hour for 4 player games using 5 compute services each game.
Now I have just made all the numbers up and plugged them into the Azure pricing calculator so almost certainly 99% of what I have said is probably bullshit but hey... until we get some more information on how exactly they are utilising the Azure platform - we will really never know the cost.
How is this thread 15 pages long?! What's going on in here guys?
While I threw that comment in half-jokingly, because the irony of Sony buying infrastructure from Microsoft would be really funny, you are assuming that Microsoft can use its own servers for free, or at least for a non-trivial amount of money. That is not the case. Building and running those data centers costs money, and every unit of server time that is used by Microsoft itself, is server time that cannot be sold to customers for profit anymore.
So, while they get their own server time for cheaper, they don't get it for free, or even for cheap.
persistent worlds, improved AI, better rendering and dedicated servers for every multiplayer game on the platform. And it's all being offered to developers for free.
Also to be clear. One of the benefits of publishing games on Xbox One ALL game developers get Dedicated Servers, Cloud Processing, and storage (for save games) free.
If you want to do dedicated servers on other platforms, you have to prop them yourself. But on Xbox One, while developers can choose to use their own methods, we make it available to everyone.
There should be no confusion on this point. We do not charge developers for Dedicated Servers.
Haven't we had full level destruction on Ps2's red faction already? Why is Crackdown the first next gen game to take it a step further?
Wouldn't latency affect gameplay?
Latency is the number one reason i have no interest in Playstation now or any other cloud based gaming solutions.
How is this thread 15 pages long?! What's going on in here guys?
Azure is a totally different business unit in Microsoft. They don't care who they sell it to. Same way how Samsung competes with Apple but happily sells them components for in their products.Microsoft will always have a cost advantage, because they own the servers, and they set their prices.
The question from me is, will anyone other than MS bother? If they do, will MS cloud price advantage transfer to a console sales advantage, or will they be happy just selling more Azure to third parties. Will they resist selling Azure to cross platform teams? Or will we see PS4 titles with "powered by Azure" on a splash screen?
I bet David Jones wants to sell Cloudgine to as many people as possible. Unless he's tilting for an MS buyout.
MS doesn't have a server farm for this game. Its all VMs that spool based on usage so they don't manually move games to other servers.
If XBL/Azure goes down you aren't playing online anyway.
It's exciting tech.
I've never heard of crackdown
apparently there's been 2 games before this one right,still it seems that
these building have physics like angry birds on steroids,my money is that
this will be just like Titan fall all over again, it's super hyped then everyone forgets about it.
Not to mention the lol glitches will be fun to watch with those building physics.
Also, Albert (Microsoft employee -....com/forum/showthread.php?t=697684&highlight=
Halo 2 multiplayer went down years ago and Live itself is still up. I just hate stuff that will inhibit enjoyment of a game, especially single player, years down the road.
Microsoft will always have a cost advantage, because they own the servers, and they set their prices.
The question from me is, will anyone other than MS bother? If they do, will MS cloud price advantage transfer to a console sales advantage, or will they be happy just selling more Azure to third parties. Will they resist selling Azure to cross platform teams? Or will we see PS4 titles with "powered by Azure" on a splash screen?
I bet David Jones wants to sell Cloudgine to as many people as possible. Unless he's tilting for an MS buyout.
Isn't it like $75 per hour per 100k users?
I thought I saw it mentioned in a thread.
More tweets -
Age of Ascent paying $75per hour for 100,000 users
https://twitter.com/lee_stott/status/486437448348860417
It's already confirmed to not be free or at least for most devs will have to pay because it's only free for a set amount of users see the leaked SDK. Also Albert says lots of stuff....http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-15-the-difference-engine
This is a link to an article I posted a thread around the time when the Xbone was first released. In this article Microsoft employees clearly state that
Also, Albert (Microsoft employee - forgot his last name) stated in another thread this tidbit.
Link to the thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=697684&highlight=
So did you watch the below video or are you just coming into troll because you can?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFWIpAPvF-Q&feature=youtu.be
See above. Why waste GPU power on something that can be done externally?
You go play the campaign instead.
Halo 2 multiplayer went down years ago and Live itself is still up. I just hate stuff that will inhibit enjoyment of a game, especially single player, years down the road.
Man, this tech is so exciting. I can't wait to see what else people do with it.
We've already heard from multiple developer sources that this is not true.
On Xbox One, we provide Xbox Live Compute to developers/publishers who are already using Xbox Live services. The use of the service without charge is predicated upon following the policies mentioned below. We currently offer a dedicated amount of computation per game session based on the size of the session or player count.
Hey, now both have a (not so) secret sauce. But yeah, of course the one of ps4 is better, gpgpu is worth dozens of servers ;-)
Seriously, what makes you think gpgpu could do it better?
It wont be wasting Gpu power thats why they are there General purpose GPU cores something that are not really being utilised yet by devs.
It is true, there are just caveats to it.
Taken straight from the xdk:
There should be no confusion on this point. We do not charge developers for Dedicated Servers.
It wont be wasting Gpu power thats why they are there General purpose GPU cores something that are not really being utilised yet by devs.
Historically that's not always been the case. Under Gates/Ballmer there was cross unit strategy aimed at always protecting Windows. Word would come down from on high that you could not do that, because it harmed Windows / Office.Azure is a totally different business unit in Microsoft. They don't care who they sell it to.
First thing I can think of is: great, the destruction is cool, but the game turns into a crippled version of its former self the moment the servers are brought down or moved to use in some other game.
Man, this tech is so exciting. I can't wait to see what else people do with it.
We've already heard from multiple developer sources that this is not true.
Nothing Albert says on GAF should be taken on face value.
Yeah, I know he was banned, but even Kampfheld was saying it wasn't free. It IS free DURING development, though. That's probably what Penello was referring to.
Yes for one dev but we can't use that as a definitive pricing + given it's MS's own infrastructure it won't be as much as they're are charging people as they are trying to make a profit.
Who knows what another company could make with this, given the time?
The fact that this is limited to MP really really annoys me.
I mean, why not allow people to use it in single player? I would GLADLY connect online in single player to have this, yet they are just like "nah, we can't let people do that!"
Regardless, absolutely none of his comments on GAF should be taken at face value. They are clearly and purposefully misleading.
It was more a comment on what one developer is paying. AoA was developed with Azure in mind, so I assume they got a discount. Knowing what the developer is paying, or was paying last year, gives us an idea of the cost of using Azure.
It could be more for other developers, it could be less.
No different from any other game with an online MP component...
Will I then be unable to destroy the buildings?
No it doesn't. See above.It's very different, because it affects single player.
But, if what others have said is true, it sounds like the current version of Live isn't at risk of being brought down anytime soon.
Not this PR cloud crap again... You don't need servers for physics calculation in games, our modern CPUs are fast enough to do it themselves.
I highly highly doubt the same would happen here, its not like when Crackdowns player count drops to zero, they're wasting money on servers dedicated to the game. These are servers which are used by over 50% of the fortune 50.Halo 2 multiplayer went down years ago and Live itself is still up. I just hate stuff that will inhibit enjoyment of a game, especially single player, years down the road.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-15-the-difference-engine
This is a link to an article I posted a thread around the time when the Xbone was first released. In this article Microsoft employees clearly state that
Also, Albert (Microsoft employee - forgot his last name) stated in another thread this tidbit.
Link to the thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=697684&highlight=
It sounds like Microsoft isn't charging developers too high a price for access to Azure, either. "Microsoft priced it so that it's far more affordable than other hosting options," Shiring said. "Their goal here is to get more awesome games, not to nickel-and-dime developers. So because of this, dedicated servers are much more of a realistic option for developers who don't want to make compromises on their player experience, and it opens up a lot more things that we can do in an online game."
Many posters here talking about the cost of Microsoft using Azure for cloud computing have no idea what they're talking about. ...
Not all of them. But yes, some of them were pretty misleading.
Clickbait title aside, I'll believe it when I see it.
Blast processing eat your heart out.
Yeah, I know he was banned, but even Kampfheld was saying it wasn't free. It IS free DURING development, though. That's probably what Penello was referring to.