Support NeoGAF

[BrokenSymmetry]

I think it's great that as a console player you can easily set up your own server with this. And the price is really decent.

 

[Striek]

BTW no one is angry here bro! I see now it was a sarcastic post directed at the OP, you were stating how ridiculous it was to think that azure was being used for BF4, like how I posted earlier (only with less sarcasm)... I get it now, sorry!

Nah, thats not right either. Less wrong though. Can something be less wrong actually? I'm not sure. Either way I could clarify but...I won't.

 

[Synth]

Nothing wrong with providing servers for users who want them.

Do you actually believe MS lets publishers use Azure for free? If so, how many servers per game? Hundreds, thousands of instances? Hundreds of thousands?

Something something bridge something something sale.

You've bought into the PR machine.

To be fair, I don't think it's that unrealistic to assume that MS would actually allow games to use as much server resource as is required for the game to work well online. Games like Titanfall and CoD:Ghosts are possibly given free reign to use whatever they need, as they are considered the most important online experiences on the console. If any other game suddenly began requiring similar server resources for online play, then the chances are that's because this game is now roughly equivalent in importance to Xbox Live (let's say, something like Minecraft). Anything else wouldn't consume anywhere near the same resources, simply because they would have nowhere near the number of users playing the game. So as long as a game isn't doing anything silly like reserving an entire server for each player, just so a building can be destroyed with nice physics, I don't think there would be any real concerns. So, let's say the limit may be that you're allowed X amount of server usage for Y amount of unique players.

In regards to EA and Battlefield... I'd imagine the two most likely reasons for them not using the MS servers are:
- They already have an online infrastructure in place that works with all other consoles, and didn't want to create a new one separate, for just the Xbox One (or they didn't have enough time left by the time the server offer was made).
- They've done the math, and hosting their own servers is actually a better option for them than taking the free servers, because the server rentals make significantly more back than their servers cost to run anyway, and they wouldn't be able to monetize MS' servers.

I think offering to rent out private servers is better than not offering this option at all, but I would prefer that they simply use MS' servers for future games and allow players to create private sessions, as in Titanfall. Being able to create private instance on MS' servers kinda fulfils the main reasons for renting out a private server anyway, doesn't cost the players anything extra, and has more flexibility (if I'm only going to need a custom game for one or two matches, renting a server when I'm only going to need it for about an hour seems like a waste).

We'll probably see them stick with this model throughout the generation though...

 

[VibratingDonkey]

It's sad that running your own server is an option that has disappeared. Been that way for probably a decade, but still. And mods.

 

[Joni]

Games like Titanfall and CoD:Ghosts are possibly given free reign to use whatever they need, as they are considered the most important online experiences on the console.

Is your game hosted in the Xbox Cloud?

Before we begin troubleshooting your NAT, we should first check where the game you are playing is being hosted. NAT will not affect your ability to play multiplayer if the game you are playing is taking advantage of the Xbox Cloud. NAT will only affect peer-to-peer gaming.

The following Xbox One games are currently taking advantage of the Xbox Cloud for multiplayer hosting:
- Forza Motorsport 5
- Titanfall

http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/networking/nat-error-solution

 

[JoJo UK]

Nah, thats not right either. Less wrong though. Can something be less wrong actually? I'm not sure. Either way I could clarify but...I won't.

OK then, also I didn't realise the MS PR had said they were giving Azure out for free, wow!?!

TIn regards to EA and Battlefield... I'd imagine the two most likely reasons for them not using the MS servers are:
- They already have an online infrastructure in place that works with all other consoles, and didn't want to create a new one separate, for just the Xbox One (or they didn't have enough time left by the time the server offer was made).
- They've done the math, and hosting their own servers is actually a better option for them than taking the free servers, because the server rentals make significantly more back than their servers cost to run anyway, and they wouldn't be able to monetize MS' servers.

I'm sure I read that EA wanted more access to user data than MS was going to provide with if they went down the Azure route, I could be totally wrong though. Also was there something to do with the way a user logs into battlelog MS wasn't happy with? Again I really can't remember and it all could be a brain fart.

I can't see MS giving away dedicated servers for free to developers, unless the game was an XB1 exclusive perhaps?

 

[Synth]

http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/networking/nat-error-solution

Hmm... strange. I'm certain I saw something about Ghosts using MS' server on X1. I may be mistaken though (I don't own it).

OK then, also I didn't realise the MS PR had said they were giving Azure out for free, wow!?!
I'm sure I read that EA wanted more access to user data than MS was going to provide with if they went down the Azure route, I could be totally wrong though. Also was there something to do with the way a user logs into battlelog MS wasn't happy with? Again I really can't remember and it all could be a brain fart.

I can't see MS giving away dedicated servers for free to developers, unless the game was an XB1 exclusive perhaps?

Maybe. That would mean they were lying about the servers being available to all games... but I guess that's not the most unlikely scenario in the world. They said something along the lines that multiplats could use their servers for the X1 version, but for other versions the publisher would have to sort out for themselves.

The data usage is something I hadn't considered though, and would make a decent amount of sense.

 

[IISANDERII]

You don't have to pay, You can play on Official EA servers for free.

Nothing free about it. Still gotta pay for Gold and the game itself. Seems highballing is what they do to fool people into calling it free.

 

[yurinka]

But the Cloud...

This is what I thought when I saw the title

 

[JoJo UK]

Hmm... strange. I'm certain I saw something about Ghosts using MS' server on X1. I may be mistaken though (I don't own it).



Maybe. That would mean they were lying about the servers being available to all games... but I guess that's not the most unlikely scenario in the world. They said something along the lines that multiplats could use their servers for the X1 version, but for other versions the publisher would have to sort out for themselves.

The data usage is something I hadn't considered though, and would make a decent amount of sense.

Fair point regarding servers being available to all games actually, I didn't think of that. If I'm right about all the data usage I take full credit, otherwise your crazy and I don't know what your talking about!

 

[Tunesmith]

OK then, also I didn't realise the MS PR had said they were giving Azure out for free, wow!?!
I'm sure I read that EA wanted more access to user data than MS was going to provide with if they went down the Azure route, I could be totally wrong though. Also was there something to do with the way a user logs into battlelog MS wasn't happy with? Again I really can't remember and it all could be a brain fart.

I can't see MS giving away dedicated servers for free to developers, unless the game was an XB1 exclusive perhaps?

EA didn't use Azure for BF4 because building two infrastructures, one for Xbox and another for PC, PS4 makes absolutely no sense. BF as it stands uses the exact same servers for all platforms, it's just server settings that determine which platform client that uses them dynamically. The server that you happen to play on once on Xbox or PS4 may be a PC server next week depending on the session requirements etc.

 

[Synth]

Fair point regarding servers being available to all games actually, I didn't think of that. If I'm right about all the data usage I take full credit, otherwise your crazy and I don't know what your talking about!

That doesn't sound incredibly fair... but I don't care enough to bother negotiating, so we'll just go with that.
Nope... you probably have no idea what you're talking about!

I did have a quick look in regards to Ghosts though, and there is various bits of info claiming that it does actually use Azure on X1. Maybe this changed at some point, but I'm definitely not just making it up!

Eurogamer: Call of Duty: Ghosts dedicated servers confirmed for Xbox One and PC, but what about PlayStation and Xbox 360?

"Information comes in batches. They don't necessarily know everything all at once. And one of those meetings was the talk of the Xbox Live Cloud. We perked up at that. They weren't prepared to answer all our questions, but we were grilling them, asking, what does it mean? What does it do? What's the coverage? How many servers? What's the throughput? We just kept going and going and going, and they were like, we have no idea how to answer those questions. It doesn't exist yet. We'll get back to you.

"So we dropped it for a while. Then it came back, and we had details on Xbox Live servers and the cloud. Then we sat with that information and studied it, and tried to figure if this was something that could work for us. We felt, yes, this will help us. We can do dedicated servers off of it and we think it will make for a better experience for people.

"We ended up pulling the trigger probably only a couple of months ago. The cloud service they're offering hadn't completely formed yet. But we pulled the trigger, and now I've announced it so now I have to do it."

So at the very least, it doesn't seem like exclusivity is a requirement.

 

[Thanati]

Don't buy it, if no one buys it, they will discontinue it. Simple AS that.

This!!!

Just don't give your money to them!

 

[FyreWulff]

It's sad that running your own server is an option that has disappeared. Been that way for probably a decade, but still. And mods.

I'm very sure that very few people have the bandwidth available to run these games off their home connection. As for rates on good connections, these ones are actually pretty good.

 

[Skeleton]

Does it fix the game if you rent a server?

 

[JoJo UK]

That doesn't sound incredibly fair... but I don't care enough to bother negotiating, so we'll just go with that.

I did have a quick look in regards to Ghosts though, and there is various bits of info claiming that it does actually use Azure on X1. Maybe this changed at some point, but I'm definitely not just making it up!

Eurogamer: Call of Duty: Ghosts dedicated servers confirmed for Xbox One and PC, but what about PlayStation and Xbox 360?


So at the very least, it doesn't seem like exclusivity is a requirement.

Good doing business with you! I might have been thinking about the stuff in Polygons (don't groan) The birth of Xbox live when talking about 'owning customer data'.

 

[KageMaru]

I doubt renting out servers would have been an option if they used Azure, so that was probably never a consideration. I much rather have the option to rent than not to rent.

 

[Synth]

Good doing business with you! I might have been thinking about the stuff in Polygons (don't groan) The birth of Xbox live when talking about 'own customer data'.

Edited too late...

 

[JoJo UK]

Edited too late...

SO CLOSE!

Never trust a junior I suppose.