By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Titanfall designer on Xbox exclusivity: "Microsoft is like the Apple of videogames"

errorpwns on 19 August 2013
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.



Around the Network
ethomaz on 19 August 2013

errorpwns said:

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.

Sorry but by definition every chunck of "Dedicated servers" are "Cloud computing" and every "Cloud computing" are a chunck of "Dedicated servers".

Just because the "Dedicated servers" are being used for different tasks didn't make them different.

You can say the MS Azure have more power (more shared "Dedicated servers") but they are yet "Dedicated servers"... "Cloud computing" exists since the term server was created.



errorpwns on 19 August 2013
the-pi-guy said:
errorpwns said:
the-pi-guy said:

"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.

No, I don't get it.  What is your problem? The Crew that was moved over to PS4 in 6 months by 2 to 3 people.  That's ridiculously cheap, and there's more ways for multiplayer than just dedicated servers.  A lot of current gen games didn't even use dedicated servers.  They could've easily had player hosted servers.  It's about money.  Dedicated servers  are preferred, but if a company wants to make money, but can't do dedicated servers, they are going to do player hosted servers.  It's about money, that's why anybody sells anything.  


Oh please. There was money to be made by Microsoft covering the cost of dedicated servers. They figured it'd sell more of their consoles. Secondly player hosted servers are garbage. You also seem to know more about Titanfall than the developers do. AMAZING isn't it? So what posistion to you hold on the titanfall development team? Wait none so you really have no comment on what is the truth or what is lying. As far as evidence would suggest it seems as if the only reason Titanfall is on the Microsoft ecosystem would be due to Microsoft picking up the dedicated server cost. You seem to ignore the importance of dedicated servers. Some games suffer greatly with matchmaking. One of the biggest problems with console games to date is the matchmaking as stated by the titanfall dev. It isn't like the game is exclusive to just one system. Heck if Microsoft had went full on bribe mode the game wouldn't have made it onto the PC. I believe Microsoft now owns the complete development rights to Halo and now it is no longer on the PC anymore. Same with GoW. Also you state that pointless content is different, but you've brought up the COD DLC which was pointless and only a limited period timed. If we're bringing up timed exclusives look at Battlefield 3 and the PS3. Sony bought timed exclusive DLC.



errorpwns on 19 August 2013
ethomaz said:

errorpwns said:

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.

Sorry but by definition every chunck of "Dedicated servers" are "Cloud computing" and every "Cloud computing" are a chunck of "Dedicated servers".

Just because the "Dedicated servers" are being used for different tasks didn't make them different.

You can say the MS Azure have more power (more shared "Dedicated servers") but they are yet "Dedicated servers"... "Cloud computing" exists since the term server was created.


Cloud computing and Cloud servers are entirely different things. I also attempted to word it in such a way that would erase any questions, but apparently I failed. I am aware cloud computing has been around and suggested that. I was referring to the modern definition of "cloud". Dedicated servers back then had seperate task than servers set up specifically for cloud computing. Cloud computing has been in research for a while, but due to latency limitations it hasn't always been relevant/ready for commercial usage. 



ethomaz on 19 August 2013

errorpwns said:

Cloud computing and Cloud servers are entirely different things. I also attempted to word it in such a way that would erase any questions, but apparently I failed. I am aware cloud computing has been around and suggested that. I was referring to the modern definition of "cloud". Dedicated servers back then had seperate task than servers set up specifically for cloud computing. Cloud computing has been in research for a while, but due to latency limitations it hasn't always been relevant/ready for commercial usage.

Every server can do cloud computing... Cloud Computing is a lot of Server together doing tasks for the client host.

There is no modern definition.

Just that the Server power and tech reach a level that you can use it to do more taks than they did before... so for the marketing purpose they started to use the word "Cloud" but even the word is old in computer world.

There is no difference after all and nobody in the world can say an difference example because they are the same thing.



Around the Network
errorpwns on 19 August 2013
ethomaz said:

errorpwns said:

Cloud computing and Cloud servers are entirely different things. I also attempted to word it in such a way that would erase any questions, but apparently I failed. I am aware cloud computing has been around and suggested that. I was referring to the modern definition of "cloud". Dedicated servers back then had seperate task than servers set up specifically for cloud computing. Cloud computing has been in research for a while, but due to latency limitations it hasn't always been relevant/ready for commercial usage.

Every server can do cloud computing... Cloud Computing is a lot of Server together doing tasks for the client host.

There is no modern definition.

Just that the Server power and tech reach a level that you can use it to do more taks than they did before... so for the marketing purpose they started to use the word "Cloud" but even the word is old in computer world.

There is no difference after all and nobody in the world can say an difference example because they are the same thing.

No not really. Not every server can do cloud computing in the sense microsoft/sony are going to use cloud computing for. Cloud computing requires software and hardware. A dedicated server by itself isn't automatically able to do cloud computing by itself. 



Subie_Greg on 19 August 2013
ethomaz said:

errorpwns said:

Cloud computing and Cloud servers are entirely different things. I also attempted to word it in such a way that would erase any questions, but apparently I failed. I am aware cloud computing has been around and suggested that. I was referring to the modern definition of "cloud". Dedicated servers back then had seperate task than servers set up specifically for cloud computing. Cloud computing has been in research for a while, but due to latency limitations it hasn't always been relevant/ready for commercial usage.

Every server can do cloud computing... Cloud Computing is a lot of Server together doing tasks for the client host.

There is no modern definition.

Just that the Server power and tech reach a level that you can use it to do more taks than they did before... so for the marketing purpose they started to use the word "Cloud" but even the word is old in computer world.

There is no difference after all and nobody in the world can say an difference example because they are the same thing.


I wouldn't even bother with him. This isn't the first thread he's done this in lol



ethomaz on 19 August 2013

errorpwns said:

No not really. Not every server can do cloud computing in the sense microsoft/sony are going to use cloud computing for. Cloud computing requires software and hardware. A dedicated server by itself isn't automatically able to do cloud computing by itself.

Ok. So if you put the right software in a farm of dedicated servers it "magically" changes to Cloud Computing.

Like I said... it is the same thing... you are just citing different ways to use dedicated servers.



Nsanity on 19 August 2013
Subie_Greg said:
ethomaz said:

errorpwns said:

Cloud computing and Cloud servers are entirely different things. I also attempted to word it in such a way that would erase any questions, but apparently I failed. I am aware cloud computing has been around and suggested that. I was referring to the modern definition of "cloud". Dedicated servers back then had seperate task than servers set up specifically for cloud computing. Cloud computing has been in research for a while, but due to latency limitations it hasn't always been relevant/ready for commercial usage.

Every server can do cloud computing... Cloud Computing is a lot of Server together doing tasks for the client host.

There is no modern definition.

Just that the Server power and tech reach a level that you can use it to do more taks than they did before... so for the marketing purpose they started to use the word "Cloud" but even the word is old in computer world.

There is no difference after all and nobody in the world can say an difference example because they are the same thing.


I wouldn't even bother with him. This isn't the first thread he's done this in lol

What do you know about Cloud computing?



ethomaz on 19 August 2013

Subie_Greg said:

I wouldn't even bother with him. This isn't the first thread he's done this in lol

I know but people says here Cloud is something new or different but it is not.

The way you use the servers are different but the servers are the same.

I can list the beneficies of the MS Azure over some others servers farms (like cost because MS uses it for multiplus purposes) but there is no limitation like one can do that and another not.