the-pi-guy said:
errorpwns said:
the-pi-guy said:
If Ubisoft can afford to bring Watch Dogs to PS4, etc. then EA can also. Azure has the advantage over Dedicated servers due only to cost. MS already has servers, they are just waiting for companies to use them. Azure can be used for dozens of different things, so MS has to keep all the servers going to be able to be used when they need to.
Titanfall is not an ambitious game. It's not doing anything online or offline that other games aren't already doing. Calculations or sending information, neither of which aren't impossible on current hardware.
|
Are you serious? Wow just wow. You do realize that EA doesn't give all their developers the same amount of cash to work with right? I guess not. Also current gen games have PLENTY of latency issues. Due to not having dedicated servers. It's actually pretty horrifying having to go from dedicated servers on the PC in some games to console versions that require cruddy match making and awful host.
|
"Which do we care more about: Latency or money?"
"Latency"
"You're fired".
EA may not give all their developers the same amount of cash, but having all next gen titles makes more sense, due to how similar the systems are. PS4 + One > One + 360. It'd be way cheaper that way. Companies care about money, not latency. You just said that current games have plenty of latency issues, why did they release them? If latency is such a big issue that it takes precedence before money, they shouldn't have released them.
|
You really don't get it do you? Also how would it be cheaper? The Xbox 360 and Xbox One both use directx. Both of them are owned by microsoft who covered the server cost most likely. They were going to need to pay for servers eventually and Microsoft covering the bill was as good of a reason as any. Microsoft covering the server cost most likely made it cheaper. Acquiring dedicated servers IS NOT REMOTELY CHEAP.
