I am pretty sure COD Ghost is on the dedicated server as well, they made that announcement not to long ago at gamecon
Dedicated Servers Or Not?
- Thread starter Hissatsu
- Start date
I am pretty sure COD Ghost is on the dedicated server as well, they made that announcement not to long ago at gamecon
I surely hope this turns out to be true for EA. In my experience their servers have been less than stellar.
They've stated it will be a mixture of dedicated and listen servers, without specifying platform. We'll have to see about X1.
I would bet there will still be some listen servers on X1, to cover areas that aren't getting good connections to the dedicated cloud servers.
Yes, because that's true. Azure is hosted on massive datacenters geo-dispersed throughout the world.
In fact, here is a map of their datacenters:
There is no magic ferry dust that creates a "local server" for users. Anything hosted on Azure will be physically located at one of a handful of datacenters, which will expand over time.
The only difference is they can more effectively dynamically scale REGIONALLY not "locally." If everyone is sleeping in North America few servers will be allocated there, if Europe is at peak, more servers will instantiate their.
To the end user, they are still connecting to servers that are geo-dispersed regionally. Whether these serves are dynamically allocated or statically allocated (or a combination of the 2) doesn't make the physics of the speed of light over wires change.
Latency is still just as much of an issue.
No.. the only difference is that their service can dynamically allocated a server in the best location per MS's datacenter locations.
There is no magic ferry dust that removes latency for people thousands of miles from each other. Your concept of a "local session" is nonsensical and flat out false. If multiple people are in "the same game" that is latency dependent, like a multi-player shooter, they are ON THE SAME SERVER INSTANCE.. that's if it's cloud based or not. Like I said.. no real difference to the end user other than a greater chance that a good server will be able to quickly be allocated.. as opposed to having to wait for a good server in Philly to be freed up.
But then again, MS doesn't necessarily have a datacenter in Philly.. hence why there will probably still be listen servers. If your group of friends doesn't happen to get a decent connection to the same datacenter, they'll end up on someones listen server.
In either scenario static dedicated or dynamic dedicated you could end up with the best possible game, or a crappy game.
No, it's a bunch of made up absolute crap. Honestly you are being pleasant and the rules here forbay insults, but you are getting to the point where you almost deserve it. Multiple people can't be "in the same game" without there being a centralized server of some sort.. and unless we are talking about playing Uno or something, that's going to be highly latency dependent.. so in the case of GTA or COD, etc. you are going to be playing on the same server just like last gen.
The cloud just makes it easier for the matchmaking to create a good dedicated server for you.
But like I said.. because of the indisputable fact that MS is still using regional datacenters for Azure, games might still choose to use a mixture of listen servers.
Very likely the last reply you'll get out of me, you are not actually explaining anything remotely technically accurate here, you are spouting off buzzwords and BS and it's too frustrating.
And none of this is even really that NEW.. all possible right now on last gen.. hell you could use Azure, or Amazon Cloud.. or any number of services.. build your own dynamic allocation, etc. Hardly anyone is using static servers anymore, and I'd be shocked if the current Xbox Live infrastructure wasn't using a whole lot of "cloud tech." MS would be idiotic not to dynamically allocate XBL servers for handling user load. The difference is compute space being given away for free to developers with an SDK built to make it all easy. If a dev wanted to use Amazon right now they'd be writing a lot of the management pieces and spending a lot of money.
Probably a lack of people using them making it not worth coding it into your game and supporting it.
There was also a general trend this gen away from the "server browser" concept and more towards "matchmaking where a server chooses the host which changes for fairness."
Yes, because that's true. Azure is hosted on massive datacenters geo-dispersed throughout the world.
In fact, here is a map of their datacenters:
There is no magic ferry dust that creates a "local server" for users. Anything hosted on Azure will be physically located at one of a handful of datacenters, which will expand over time.
You are flat out wrong about the "tries to stay localized." The only difference is they can more effectively dynamically scale. If everyone is sleeping in North America few servers will be allocated there, if Europe is at peak, more servers will instantiate their.
To the end user, they are still connecting to servers that are geo-dispersed regionally. Whether these serves are dynamically allocated or statically allocated (or a combination of the 2) doesn't make the physics of the speed of light over wires change.
Latency is still just as much of an issue.
No.. the only difference is that their service can dynamically allocated a server in the best location per MS's datacenter locations.
There is no magic ferry dust that removes latency for people thousands of miles from each other. Your concept of a "local session" is nonsensical and flat out false. If multiple people are in "the same game" that is latency dependent, like a multi-player shooter, they are ON THE SAME SERVER INSTANCE.. that's if it's cloud based or not. Like I said.. no real difference to the end user other than a greater chance that a good server will be able to quickly be allocated.. as opposed to having to wait for a good server in Philly to be freed up.
But then again, MS doesn't necessarily have a datacenter in Philly.. hence why there will probably still be listen servers. If your group of friends doesn't happen to get a decent connection to the same datacenter, they'll end up on someones listen server.
In either scenario static dedicated or dynamic dedicated you could end up with the best possible game, or a crappy game.
No, it's a bunch of made up absolute crap. Honestly you are being pleasant and the rules here forbay insults, but you are getting to the point where you almost deserve it. Multiple people can't be "in the same game" without there being a centralized server of some sort.. and unless we are talking about playing Uno or something, that's going to be highly latency dependent.. so in the case of GTA or COD, etc. you are going to be playing on the same server just like last gen.
The cloud just makes it easier for the matchmaking to create a good dedicated server for you.
But like I said.. because of the indisputable fact that MS is still using regional datacenters for Azure, games might still choose to use a mixture of listen servers.
Very likely the last reply you'll get out of me, you are not actually explaining anything remotely technically accurate here, you are spouting off buzzwords and BS and it's too frustrating.
My examples weren't to back up my original description. My examples were to show the difference between the models. Well implemented cloud services work better. As I highlighted in my last post, I'm trying to stay focused on our original disagreement and I stand by my original point, which is what my examples (based off my own game play experience) were for. You seem hung upon my admittedly crude description and paticularly with my use of the phrase local.
I'm not going to argue technical implementation because my own experience comes from Oracle cloud which isn't the same thing as the Xbox cloud and even that is limited.
I don't know why you're getting all hot and bothered about it.
I flat out proved you wrong. You were flat out wrong about how somehow "cloud" doesn't involve centralized data-centers.
It has nothing to do with which description you were backing up, none of your descriptions were remotely technically accurate.. or even that technical really. Your entire point was to claim that somehow the cloud removes the need for more local "listen servers," when it flat out doesn't. All of your posts referenced this non-sensical magical cloud ferry dust...
No cloud.. LAG
Cloud.. NO LAG NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE ON EARTH!
It's made up nonsense. That's not me getting hot and bothered, I'm just being factual.
That's strange.. I could have sworn you just spent this thread attempting to tell me that my explanation of the technical implantation was wrong, and tell me that I was still "stuck int he days of physical servers."
In fact, this entire argument has been about technical implentation.
And yet you've repeatedly ascertained that I don't know what I'm talking about, and you do.
Just say you were wrong and have no business in this conversation, not that difficult.
It has nothing to do with which description you were backing up, none of your descriptions were remotely technically accurate.. or even that technical really. Your entire point was to claim that somehow the cloud removes the need for more local "listen servers," when it flat out doesn't. All of your posts referenced this non-sensical magical cloud ferry dust...
No cloud.. LAG
Cloud.. NO LAG NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE ON EARTH!
It's made up nonsense. That's not me getting hot and bothered, I'm just being factual.
D-V-ANT said:
That's strange.. I could have sworn you just spent this thread attempting to tell me that my explanation of the technical implantation was wrong, and tell me that I was still "stuck int he days of physical servers."
In fact, this entire argument has been about technical implentation.
And yet you've repeatedly ascertained that I don't know what I'm talking about, and you do.
Just say you were wrong and have no business in this conversation, not that difficult.
Man, reading comprehension is not your strong point. I never ever sad there was not centralized data centers. I said the implementation of the cloud service negates the centralized location of data centers when compared to current gaming match making. That's not an opinion either. That's a fact. Something which you've agreed with as well.
I never attempted to be technical. Right from the start I'd said my descriptions were crude at best. My original disagreement with you was to contradict your claim that there will be next to no difference unless you're close to a data center. I whole hardheartedly agree with that, and I still do.
Factual?? lol... Read the part I quoted above this and tell me that is not a gross over exaggeration of what I've been saying. Yeah... factual.... lol.
I've already answered this a few times. I disagree with your original assertion. You seem to be taking offense to that.
See, from you're point of view, it has. From my point of view I'm talking about the service and how it's better that either dedicated or listen service and how I think most people will get the benefit, despite physical location.
I said you had a fundamental misunderstanding of cloud in one of my first replies. After that I never asserted you did not know what you are talking about. I also never claimed to be expert or that I was any kind of authority. I refer you back to my reading comprehension comment earlier. I will give you this though... you do know what you're talking so I'll happily take that 'fundamental misunderstanding' back. Maybe that's what got you so annoyed.
I've as much business in this thread as anybody else, amigo.
Dude people were even repeating your misinformation.
SevenDeadlySin for instance.
You implied that Azure meant "more local".. when it flat out doesn't.
Whether dynamically allocated or not we are still all talking about data-centers.. and only a few world wide.
Here is an example of your absolute made up crap:
This is nonsense.
You then said:
What?
We still have datacenters.
Only a few in the world.
Physical distance to the nearest datacenter still matters. You said it didn't.
The rest is just completely made up.
Like this:
No, not a basic example of anything but made up nonsense.
You very clearly were saying that data center locations don't matter... that somehow "the cloud" is "more local".. when it isn't.
Listen servers are as local as it gets.. this gen.. last gen.. next gen.
SevenDeadlySin for instance.
You implied that Azure meant "more local".. when it flat out doesn't.
Whether dynamically allocated or not we are still all talking about data-centers.. and only a few world wide.
Here is an example of your absolute made up crap:
D-V-ANT said:
This is nonsense.
You then said:
D-V-ANT said:
What?
We still have datacenters.
Only a few in the world.
Physical distance to the nearest datacenter still matters. You said it didn't.
The rest is just completely made up.
Like this:
No, not a basic example of anything but made up nonsense.
You very clearly were saying that data center locations don't matter... that somehow "the cloud" is "more local".. when it isn't.
Listen servers are as local as it gets.. this gen.. last gen.. next gen.
Cloud does work but putting you as local as it can. That is not wrong.
I said that cloud based services negate the issue of physical distance. And it does.
The game play examples I've given you are from existing infrastructure in place now (uplay and whatever it is that gta online uses). It's not made up nonsense at all.
It matters less, yes. It will seem to the player that it's 'more local' than the other match making methods because of the way cloud works with scaling. 'Local' might not be the best word to describe it but never the less, players may have that perception.
So does non-cloud based services. You think matchmaking to static servers doesn't attempt to put you as local as possible?
It's why your explanation is so off.. or why you telling me I don't understand it is so off. Dynamic allocation doesn't negate that.. it simply makes it so that it's more likely it can actually create a "local as possible" server for users.
If a static dedicated server is available at the same location as a dynamically allocated one, the end users wouldn't know the difference.
And this is your outright nonsense you keep repeating. Cloud services don't negate the speed of light over copper.
I thought just a few sentences ago it negates the issue?
No, it simply optimizes the process of always making sure the "most local possible" server is available.
However they only have a handful of locations worldwide to create these servers...
So...
Physical distance to the data-center still matters.. and if a group of users are all getting bad connections to MS's nearest datacenter, the matchmaking would be better off creating a listen server on one of those users XBO's, and having those people connect to the listen server.
Which was the point of my first post in this thread.. the one where you told me I didn't understand how cloud services work.
Here was my first post in this thread.. the one where you replied claiming somehow that the cloud would make the servers "more local".
I didn't mention the cloud because... it doesn't do that.. because we still rely on datacenters.. and because the fact that cloud can dynamically create servers at these datacenters doesn't really change the fact that a listen server would be more desirable in some scenarios.
You argued against this repeatedly and DID imply that we weren't relying on datacenters anymore.
Now you are backtracking majorly.
/done
I didn't mention the cloud because... it doesn't do that.. because we still rely on datacenters.. and because the fact that cloud can dynamically create servers at these datacenters doesn't really change the fact that a listen server would be more desirable in some scenarios.
You argued against this repeatedly and DID imply that we weren't relying on datacenters anymore.
Now you are backtracking majorly.
/done
Honestly, I think you guys are beginning to miss the forest through the trees.
Cloud = better than peer-to-peer, and better than traditional dedicated servers. That much is widely agreed on.
It's generally a much better user experience, it's a much more economical model (so dev houses can actually use it worry-free), and it's far less likely to encounter major load balancing issues/scalability issues/resilience issues...
We can all agree on that, right?
Cloud = better than peer-to-peer, and better than traditional dedicated servers. That much is widely agreed on.
It's generally a much better user experience, it's a much more economical model (so dev houses can actually use it worry-free), and it's far less likely to encounter major load balancing issues/scalability issues/resilience issues...
We can all agree on that, right?
In general, of course.
But this conversation was started because the trees still exist
For some users in some locations a matchmaking service wanting to create the best experience might create an ad-hoc listen server.
I was told I flat out misunderstand the cloud because I made that statement, when it's a technically accurate statement.
That's where the "in general" comes in. It makes everything more economical.. which increases the viability of having more dedicated servers (dynamic > static for that).. but it doesn't magically solve the inherent problems of latcency, and MS doesn't have a datacenter in every town in the world.
I'm not missing that at all, it's just that it doesn't solve all issues or completely negate listen servers.
Listen servers can essentially become a part of the cloud.. in fact really, they are "last gens cloud." They solved the cost issue of dedicated servers.. it's what allowed for COD to have multiple millions playing at once last gen.
This gen a higher percentage of those users can be on servers ad-hoc instantiated on MS's servers, rather than running in the background of an Xbox console.
That doesn't mean that "all dedicated" is necessarily a good design decision for a developer.
Well, if a dynamically allocated cloud service as the ability to scale quickly on demand and a dedicated box is stuck with its defined resources, surely the service provided by the cloud is better?
If the service can scale to your need then you have an apparent faster connection as far the end user is concerned even though the physical medium remains the same.
Which is what Ive been saying.
D-V-ANT said:
Of course it is.. nowhere did I argue that it isn't a good solution, or a better solution.
My comments about the "end user experience" relate to.. when a server is available. You are still talking about code being executed on fairly centralized datacenters. It doesn't completely negate that issue.
Hence why local listen servers might still be used.
You simply more often get the best connection "to the datacenter." It doesn't speed up that connection.. and if the users connection to that datacenter is inherently slow....
Still would be better off with a more local listen server.
Which was all my first post said.. the one you claimed showed my fundamental misunderstanding of the cloud.
Mixed in with flat out wrong hyperbole. You can't in one sentence say it completely negates an issue, that datacenters and physical locations no longer matter.. and then in another sentence claim it just "makes it better" and suddenly be right. You repeated outright false claims multiple times.
And it still doesn't explain why you think 2 people who are across the world will suddenly be able to only use a "local session" to play a game together. That just isn't how it works. There IS a centralized game server for any latency dependent operation. We are talking about games where the other player might be on your screen.. where you shoot at them and expect it to have accurate hit detection, etc. That stuff is just confusing and made up.
I'll boil down my statements: The only change to the end user is that "the best dedicated server is always an option" (assuming MS never maxes out capacity at a given regional data-center.) That doesn't mean that "the best dedicated server" is always a better connection than a listen server more locally might be.
That could be accomplished with or without dynamic allocation of server resources.. that's just how it's done feesibly and economically. Hence why I kept saying it's not really that different to the end user.. there is no magical fairy dust that makes 2 people across the world be able to always connect and somehow maintain a "local connection." If you are playing a latency dependent game with someone, you are both likely connecting to a centralized server.. instantiated dynamically.. statically built.. doesn't matter to you other than the availability of said resource.
Literally everything I've been talking about is end user experience. Cloud is meant to make sure a server is always available, and is the best set for you.
Crude and poorly explained examples. But I stand by it's not wrong.
I didn't say it 'completely' negates anything. Reading comprehension strikes again.
I know there is centralized servers. If the cloud works as it should each players session should act as a local one (as local as possible is what i said) for performance as far as the player is concerned. Maybe its confusing to you, but its not made up. We're only rehashing and repeating at this stage. You think I'm making flat false assumptions. I know I'm not. Maybe its a misunderstanding based off my crappy description at the start or maybe you're all upset I questioned your knowledge on the subject (you have referred to that three times now). Either way there is nothing more for us to hammer out on this so rather than risk the thread getting locked, I'll drop it. If you want to get the last word in with more comments that I am 'flat out' wrong, then go right ahead.
We can leave it at that.
You were repeatedly flat out wrong. And you said it negates it.. you typed those words. No you didn't use the word "complete".. doesn't require it.
If something negates something.. it negates it. You were wrong, and that wasn't your only wrong statement.
Here's another one:
D-V-ANT said:
Another unqualified hyperbolic statement.
Totally false. If you are in a party with someone across the world, you'll still be connecting to a best possible server.. and that server is unlikely to be local to either of you.
Particularly because you seemed to have completely not realized that MS's cloud relies on datacenters that are only "local" to a percentage of it's userbase.
Which was made obvious when you typed this nonsense:
D-V-ANT said:
Yes.. because.. you have to think that way. Because that's how reality works.. not.. not reality.. made up BS is not how it works.
It is completely made up. 2 people in the same game aren't going to each be using a server local to them.
That entire part of your posting is nonsensical and made up.. it's not "confusing to me" it's confusing to the conversation because it's false, based on lies, not true.. totally wrong.. not in any way correct.. do I need to explain it any further?
The cloud doesn't change the fact that 2 people in the same multi-player game will be on the same server.. and if those 2 people are across the world, that server can't be local to both of them.
I will because you are flat out wrong.
And I'm making a big deal out of it because this forum's users have a habit of for some reason believing the person who has it wrong.... you already have multiple people in this thread repeating this mis-understanding.
Multiplayer gaming is latency dependent.. MS's entire cloud shpeel is to talk about how it benefits things that AREN'T latency dependent.. their cloud for "dedicated servers" doesn't benefit someone who doesn't have a good connection to any of their datacenters. FACT.. indisputable fact. Which is why we'll likely still see listen servers implemented.
Because you generally want to play as local as possible.. and a series of centralized servers can't compete with "servers" deployed to 10's of millions of homes (server = software, my Xbox 360 runs servers all the time) in all scenarios. MS's dedicated cloud will compliment listen servers well and allow for a greater percentage of games to be played on dedicated servers.. it doesn't replace them.
Hell.. you multiple times in this conversations back tracked in ways that 100% contradict other statements you've made in the thread.. you went from claiming that the cloud somehow makes it so that 2 players both get "local servers" in the same game to agreeing with me that it simply increases the availability of dedicated centralized servers.. lol.
Last edited:
There is an argument here that goes like this... A server hosted at a data center will have the exact same back bone connectivity as a server hosted on someones cable modem endpoint router.
They will not. The argument is laughably wrong. No, this argument does not raise to the low standard of simply being wrong. This argument is down there in "not even wrong".
A server at a backbone data center, like the ones in an Azure facility for example, will have a round trip to back bone some where in the <10ms range. Your cable modem router duo will be at something like 150ms.
Games hosted on Azure servers will ~ALWAYS~ have less lag than games hosted on your cable modem router.
They will not. The argument is laughably wrong. No, this argument does not raise to the low standard of simply being wrong. This argument is down there in "not even wrong".
A server at a backbone data center, like the ones in an Azure facility for example, will have a round trip to back bone some where in the <10ms range. Your cable modem router duo will be at something like 150ms.
Games hosted on Azure servers will ~ALWAYS~ have less lag than games hosted on your cable modem router.
since we are talking about Azure:
edit: and just to be clear, this graphic covers storage, not service response times to async tasks.
edit: and just to be clear, this graphic covers storage, not service response times to async tasks.
since we are talking about Azure:
There it is... Goes to see why MS is so invested. Sweet!
Is it me, or is anyone else beginning to see why Sony revealed first back in Feb, without an actual box no less? Not a fanboy comment. No versus crap. Genuinely....
Last edited:
It really is impressive. Azure is an amazing platform, and ensuring game devs can use it for free for X1 development is genius. It'll hugely pay off long term, and mark my words - there will be experiences and features which are only possible through the cloud, and once more and more of those kinds of things come online, we'll see an even bigger divide between our platform and the competitors.
since we are talking about Azure:
edit: and just to be clear, this graphic covers storage, not service response times to async tasks.
That's fairly impressive. That response time might be based on storage but it's still very very fast. Some of the servlet response times on the Web apps we have aren't even that fast, and their hosted on physical Solaris clusters
Always? That can't be the case. If two people are in the same city in Alaska and are playing killer instinct, it would be faster for it to have one of the two xboxs setup ad a listen server. Otherwise it will have to send the info to the datacenter, that is thousands of miles away, and then back again. Even if it is traveling on a faster back bone, it will still be faster to just have the two xboxs send their info directly to each other.
While it will be better to have the dedicated servers in most cases, there are situations where a listen server will be better.