LOL If no one noticed Microsoft is trying to turn their universe into an Apple knock off they are lost.
Subie_Greg said:
Thank you sir. I am not being biased at all. Simply saying I prefer a company to just tell the truth. Is the truth so bad now or something? We're making a game for this console because of... umm. Just say we signed a deal and are exclusive to the Xbox. |
Except that isn't why. You are being biased since you cannot comprehend the simplest sentences in that article. He pretty much openly stated Microsoft had taken care of the servers. No lying going on. With microsoft providing dedicated servers they saw that is the best platform to go on for their HEAVILY MULTIPLAYER GAME.
| Nsanity said: I don't know why people are only complaining about Microsoft money hatting, because Sony and Nintendo are doing the exact same thing. |
They moneyhat just not as much as Microsoft.
I think calling someone a liar is something you really should have some proof to back it up. Saying someone or a company is being paid off when it is just speculation is rather juvenile, to put it politely.
Support can come in a number of different ways. They don't need to throw actual cash, some of the focus on the Microsoft Platforms (Windows, Xbox One and X360) is easy to explain as they are all on the DirectX platforms. Microsoft could easily offer them plenty of support. Plus, some of this support seems to be the result of the dedicated servers - some people want to reject their value. But like a honey badger - dedicated servers don't care.
As with Pugsley, I too though calling a company, "The Apple of ..." was an insult. That would be how I would most likely use the term.
|
Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon! |
|
 |
Tell me a funny joke! |
| Zappykins said: I think calling someone a liar is something you really should have some proof to back it up. Saying someone or a company is being paid off when it is just speculation is rather juvenile, to put it politely. Support can come in a number of different ways. They don't need to throw actual cash, some of the focus on the Microsoft Platforms (Windows, Xbox One and X360) is easy to explain as they are all on the DirectX platforms. Microsoft could easily offer them plenty of support. Plus, some of this support seems to be the result of the dedicated servers - some people want to reject their value. But like a honey badger - dedicated servers don't care. As with Pugsley, I too though calling a company, "The Apple of ..." was an insult. That would be how I would most likely use the term. |
Thank you. Finally someone with common sense. Xbox 360, Xbox One, and PC all share that in common. As well as it seems Microsoft helped them in acquiring dedicated servers. Which people seem to skip over for some reason when reading this article. They also think the consoles hardware has more to do than servers in this particular case. I will make it simple
Respawn needs dedicated servers -> Respawn goes to Sony/Microsoft about it -> Microsoft gives them the most viable and cost effective solution for dedicated servers -> Respawn chooses Microsoft
How much more complicated can it get?
Whilst the Xbox One is future sent because it allows you to watch TV...,
The dev said the magic words= Sony Santa Monica former devs+ Infinity Ward devs = awesomeness. I cant wait to find out new things about this game.
| Zappykins said: I think calling someone a liar is something you really should have some proof to back it up. Saying someone or a company is being paid off when it is just speculation is rather juvenile, to put it politely. |
"we need to find a way to have potentially hundreds-of-thousands of dedicated servers"
That's posted verbatim from the OP. Did you miss it? Either this game is going to use the entirety of the cloud, or it's a simple oversight into what this game will actually utilize of MS servers. In other words, if MS had said "the cloud brings potentially 30,000 servers" this windbag would have said "potentially tens of thousands of servers" instead.
| errorpwns said: How much more complicated can it get? |
See above.
Honestly, to deny money changing hands here is to deny reality.
the-pi-guy said:
EA is paying for the game, pretty sure EA is not a small studio. It's actually a mutliplayer only game, I said servers can also be done on PS4. With the success of the game at E3, and the fact that they are already outsourcing the game for the other versions suggest they are positive of it's success. Yoshida said that "of course" PS4 developers will be able to take advantage of cloud-based computing for their titles. "Linking, matchmaking... there are already many computations being done on the cloud side," Yoshida said, adding that there are limitations to what processes can be offloaded to a remote computer, due to latency and bandwidth. http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/12/4424022/sony-shuhei-yoshida-says-ps4-cloud-computing-calculations Admittingly I did not fully read the article. "McClandlish also shed a bit more light on the decision to make Titanfall an Xbox exclusive (it'll launch for both Xbox One and Xbox 360 in Q1 2014). "We're a very small team, so we had to pick a platform if we were going to be on consoles," he said, "and Xbox made the most sense." This part though is lying. Even though they admit MS helped them with servers, MS is helping everyone with servers, that's the whole point of "Cloud" computing, they're doing that better than Sony it would seem. It's no reason for exclusivity though. Especially when EA is so sure of its success. It'd be very easy for them to move it over to PS4. PS3 not so much. Some big exclusives were ported by 2 or 3 people over only a few months. Watch_Dogs was supposedly using Cloud for stuff, I thought. MS helped them set that up of course if they did, and yet it's still coming to PS4, Xbox 360 and PS3. |
You completely took that out of context again. "Cloud computing" and "Dedicated servers" Are two entirely different beast. Cloud computing is offloading processor task to a server elsewhere. Dedicated servers have been around way before cloud computing started taking off. You keep arguing with me yet the only "evidence" you bring up has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I'm beginning to think you don't actually throughly read over the articles before you post it. Dedicated servers =/= Cloud computing. Also the titanfall team is a whole lot smaller than Ubisoft. Do you know how much money Ubisoft is most likely funding into Watch Dogs? I bet a lot more than Respawn can afford to put into Titanfall. Of course Ubisoft can afford to bring Watch Dogs to the PS4 and Wii U and PS3 and Xbox 360 and PC. Whereas Respawn has a lot less to work with. Once again I am going to stress that Cloud Computing and Dedicated servers are not the same.
dsgrue3 said:
That's posted verbatim from the OP. Did you miss it? Either this game is going to use the entirety of the cloud, or it's a simple oversight into what this game will actually utilize of MS servers. In other words, if MS had said "the cloud brings potentially 30,000 servers" this windbag would have said "potentially tens of thousands of servers" instead.
See above. Honestly, to deny money changing hands here is to deny reality. |
Oh please. The burden of proof is on you to prove that money changed hands and so far you've done a terrible job at it. The only money that might have changed hands was Microsoft helping them acquire servers. If Microsoft had paid them off they wouldn't consider making a PS4 game if Titanfall becomes a success. The only person denying reality is you and a few other people who admitted to not throughly reading the article. What a joke.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
