300k dedicated servers>a little bit more alledged power thus: X1>PS4

Well after much deliberation, research and thought, i'll be buying the X1 first his year and the PS4 in a year or two. Reason being is the dedicated servers we will have on X1. in 2013 the X1's computing power network is more than the entire worlds back in 1999. This is the shinning star with X1 IMHO. having slightly better performance on the PS4 isn't worth giving up the superiority of 300k servers cause if i wanted a power house id just buy a PC. Furthermore, X1 has a better line up of games that interest me. I'm an owner of both PS3/Xbox 360, but this goes out to all the dedicated cows trashing X1: You've lost, you just don't know it yet. Also, PS4 hasn't even shown it can do BF4 at 60 fps like X1, i smell history repeating itself with PS4. I'm sure they are getting set up for another upset.

PS4 has mow powa!

Sony wins again. Thank you Kaz. :cool:

All you points are opinions.

Opionions have a nice home called a BLOG.

All of PSN and PS4 games will run on dedicated servers. Sony just doesn't directly provide for 3rd parties like Microsoft is doing. That's it. Microsoft is only eliminating the middle man and making dedicated server avaiaible to everybody without having to go through a 3rd party to aquire the servers.

300k servers means nothing. It's just eliminating a middleman. Games themselves won't benifit that much. In the past if a developer wanted dedicated servers, they would get dedicated servers. Microsoft just wanted a more controlled environment. 

What do you think PSN is running on? Thin air? It's a big cloud network run on probably thousands of servers worldwide. It's so standard Sony isn't even making a big deal about it.

Sony wins again. Thank you Kaz. :cool:

speedfreak48t5p

All of PSN and PS4 games will run on dedicated servers. Sony just doesn't directly provide for 3rd parties like Microsoft is doing. That's it. Microsoft is only eliminating the middle man and making dedicated server avaiaible to everybody without having to go through a 3rd party to aquire the servers.

300k servers means nothing. It's just eliminating a middleman. Games themselves won't benifit that much. In the past if a developer wanted dedicated servers, they would get dedicated servers. Microsoft just wanted a more controlled environment. 

What do you think PSN is running on? Thin air? It's a big cloud network run on probably thousands of servers worldwide. It's so standard Sony isn't even making a big deal about it.

Wasdie

All of PSN and PS4 games will run on dedicated servers. Sony just doesn't directly provide for 3rd parties like Microsoft is doing. That's it. Microsoft is only eliminating the middle man and making dedicated server avaiaible to everybody without having to go through a 3rd party to aquire the servers.

300k servers means nothing. It's just eliminating a middleman. Games themselves won't benifit that much. In the past if a developer wanted dedicated servers, they would get dedicated servers. Microsoft just wanted a more controlled environment. 

What do you think PSN is running on? Thin air? It's a big cloud network run on probably thousands of servers worldwide. It's so standard Sony isn't even making a big deal about it.

Wasdie

:) unfortunately some ppl probably believe probably PSN & all PS3 (future PS4) exclusives are all running on a single server placed in a dark corner somewhere at SONY's HQ !!!

There is very little reason to chose a PS4 over the XB1, I can only think of price but $100 over 10 years is pips. Some may like the exclusives but I'm not a big fan. Grpahics wise the PS4 will have an edge perhaps 10% but picking a console just for this is dumb. The XB1 hands down is the better all round gaming and entertainment machine.

Well after much deliberation, research and thought, i'll be buying the X1 first his year and the PS4 in a year or two. Reason being is the dedicated servers we will have on X1. in 2013 the X1's computing power network is more than the entire worlds back in 1999. This is the shinning star with X1 IMHO. having slightly better performance on the PS4 isn't worth giving up the superiority of 300k servers cause if i wanted a power house id just buy a PC. Furthermore, X1 has a better line up of games that interest me. I'm an owner of both PS3/Xbox 360, but this goes out to all the dedicated cows trashing X1: You've lost, you just don't know it yet. Also, PS4 hasn't even shown it can do BF4 at 60 fps like X1, i smell history repeating itself with PS4. I'm sure they are getting set up for another upset.

Trinitarian

Not all games will run on dedicated servers.

Not something very surpricing my Galaxy S 1 from 3 years ago was more powerful than a 1999 PC in both graphics and proccessing power as well,fewer PC on the market,and back then the average normal PC had Intel celeron like at 266mhz,so my phone from 3 years ago could basically out do several PC from 1999.

The whole server crap is if a developer want to use it,which mean pay MS like they would have to pay google or any other server owner,so expect a ton of game to be P2P on xbox one to,now games that interest you is a good excuse because that is what you like is your taste,but that imply that you would have buy the xbox one even if it has Snes graphics because is the games you like.

The X1 and the PS4 are both runing BF4 at 60FPS where have you been,by the way both are lower than 1080p.

Yes microsoft opened a massive server farm. But if you think that its all dedicated to xbox one you need some some reality pills.

Those server farms also opened up about the time that office 365 online came around, and it was also just before microsoft started talking about all of their TV and web apps like how you can live update fantasy football stats as nfl games play live through xbox one. That server farm is dedicated to those, not just the xb1. Xbox one requires so much dedicated server support just to run all of the advertising and application garbage for their tv service they had to add in new server functions to support all of. The gaming portion itself isnt changing at all really as evidenced by the games not really changing.

And if you think you can offload a ton of system horsepower to a server you also need reality pills. Yes you can do but you would require a dedicated t3 line to your house to do it properly. Not to mention, it cant possibly make that big of a difference because if it did then the xbox one wouldnt work because you wouldnt be able to play games without their cloud service.

Crazy Both Systems Still Cant Run BF4 At Optimal Performance Jamani

All of PSN and PS4 games will run on dedicated servers. Sony just doesn't directly provide for 3rd parties like Microsoft is doing. That's it. Microsoft is only eliminating the middle man and making dedicated server avaiaible to everybody without having to go through a 3rd party to aquire the servers.

300k servers means nothing. It's just eliminating a middleman. Games themselves won't benifit that much. In the past if a developer wanted dedicated servers, they would get dedicated servers. Microsoft just wanted a more controlled environment. 

What do you think PSN is running on? Thin air? It's a big cloud network run on probably thousands of servers worldwide. It's so standard Sony isn't even making a big deal about it.

Wasdie

Is the reason the whole server thing is not mandatory because Azure is basically MS own server product,so basically this generation MS is offering developer to rent them servers cheaper than google but developer still have to pay to run games on those servers is not free.

So you will see many games that are P2P.

I don't get what the hype is about dedicated servers for games had been part of sony games since Socom on 2002 when xbox live wasn't even launch yet,for 11 years and counting the xbox brand has been mostly P2P.

One of the advantages of the PS3 early on over xbox live was that dedicated servers for games,Resistance 20 vs 20 was epic on servers and was very smooth,but the one i had incredlible fun was Warhawk the servers and code was so good that you could even play it on 256kb connection and it was smooth for the most part.

Yes microsoft opened a massive server farm. But if you think that its all dedicated to xbox one you need some some reality pills.

 

Those server farms also opened up about the time that office 365 online came around, and it was also just before microsoft started talking about all of their TV and web apps like how you can live update fantasy football stats as nfl games play live through xbox one. That server farm is dedicated to those, not just the xb1. Xbox one requires so much dedicated server support just to run all of the advertising and application garbage for their tv service they had to add in new server functions to support all of. The gaming portion itself isnt changing at all really as evidenced by the games not really changing.

 

And if you think you can offload a ton of system horsepower to a server you also need reality pills. Yes you can do but you would require a dedicated t3 line to your house to do it properly. Not to mention, it cant possibly make that big of a difference because if it did then the xbox one wouldnt work because you wouldnt be able to play games without their cloud service.

Gargus

it is for Office 365 and several other product i am sure more office 365 will use those servers and the cloud than the xbox one.

tldr is... X1 > PS4 and agreed.

[QUOTE="speedfreak48t5p"]

Sony wins again. Thank you Kaz. :cool:

Heil68

All of PSN and PS4 games will run on dedicated servers. Sony just doesn't directly provide for 3rd parties like Microsoft is doing. That's it. Microsoft is only eliminating the middle man and making dedicated server avaiaible to everybody without having to go through a 3rd party to aquire the servers.

300k servers means nothing. It's just eliminating a middleman. Games themselves won't benifit that much. In the past if a developer wanted dedicated servers, they would get dedicated servers. Microsoft just wanted a more controlled environment. 

What do you think PSN is running on? Thin air? It's a big cloud network run on probably thousands of servers worldwide. It's so standard Sony isn't even making a big deal about it.

Wasdie

BF runs on deticated servers for both 360 and ps3 AutoPilotOn

Is the reason the whole server thing is not mandatory because Azure is basically MS own server product,so basically this generation MS is offering developer to rent them servers cheaper than google but developer still have to pay to run games on those servers is not free.

So you will see many games that are P2P.

I don't get what the hype is about dedicated servers for games had been part of sony games since Socom on 2002 when xbox live wasn't even launch yet,for 11 years and counting the xbox brand has been mostly P2P.

One of the advantages of the PS3 early on over xbox live was that dedicated servers for games,Resistance 20 vs 20 was epic on servers and was very smooth,but the one i had incredlible fun was Warhawk the servers and code was so good that you could even play it on 256kb connection and it was smooth for the most part.

tormentos

If we see games going P2P it will be on the PS4 due to devs having to go get their own server providers. Microsoft is bascially freely hosting servers for all of the devs. Devs would be crazy not to utilize them.

My guess is that we've seen the end of P2P outside of co-op games. For anything competitive you need dedicated servers if the game is going to run well. We'll also see a major increase in "always online" kind of structures. You'll be able to play teh game without being online but you'll be missing out on 75% of the content. 

There was dedicated servers on the Xbox 360 as early as 2007 with Battlefield Bad Company. There was nothing stopping devs from utilizing dedicated servers. The reason they didn't use them is that the servers cost money and devs don't want to take on that overhead. Imagine hosting all of the servers for Call of Duty on the XBox 360 and PS3? Activision would never want to freely give up that profit margin. That's why it's been shitty P2P. 

Now that Microsoft is hosting the servers Activision has come out and said on the Xbox 360 and Xbox One they will be using dedicated servers. I wouldn't be suprised if the PS3 and PS4 versions of Ghost still use P2P because Activision is so cheap. It's one thing to host a small amount of official servers on the PC and another to have to host the servers for millions of gamers around the world. 

P2P was used because it doesn't require nearly as much investment and continued mantinance of the devs. That's about it. Microsoft saw that as an issue and took steps to fix it. 

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

All of PSN and PS4 games will run on dedicated servers. Sony just doesn't directly provide for 3rd parties like Microsoft is doing. That's it. Microsoft is only eliminating the middle man and making dedicated server avaiaible to everybody without having to go through a 3rd party to aquire the servers.

300k servers means nothing. It's just eliminating a middleman. Games themselves won't benifit that much. In the past if a developer wanted dedicated servers, they would get dedicated servers. Microsoft just wanted a more controlled environment. 

What do you think PSN is running on? Thin air? It's a big cloud network run on probably thousands of servers worldwide. It's so standard Sony isn't even making a big deal about it.

AD216

I don't know if most will. As I said before that CoD might because Activision hates investing money into their cash cow. However EA hosts dedicated servers for the PS3 versions of Bad Company 2 and BF3. They also allow people to rent servers like you would on the PC for the console versions.

I think we'll see that more often. Also I think devs who care about the quality of their game will utilize dedicated servers more often. EA is already moving that direction for a lot of their big games because it's a huge advantage and makes the games better. 

I think the end of P2P gaming is upon us. We'll see it for 1v1 games or co-op games, but shooters and games over 5 players will probably get dedicated servers to smooth out the experience.

My GTX680 OC laughs...

My GTX680 OC laughs...

zekere

My GTX680 OC laughs...

zekere

[QUOTE="zekere"]

My GTX680 OC laughs...

FoxbatAlpha

[QUOTE="FoxbatAlpha"][QUOTE="zekere"]

My GTX680 OC laughs...

danjammer69

Eh, I'm not worried about it. I don't see that having any real noticeable advantage over experiences on PS4.

We will see the X1 console run BF4 this weekend. 64 players, 1080p @ 60 fps. Sony has yet to produce gameplay in public on their console. When they showed BF4 it was 16 players and so, so graphics. The X1 dedicated servers will be a major difference in online play. 64 players all day on X1.FoxbatAlpha

1080p @ 60fps? DICE has already confirmed it will be 720p at 60 FPS on the Xbox One and a bit higher resolution on the PS4.

The PS4 version will also use dedicated servers just like the PS3 version of BF3 did.

I really hope you don't believe anything you're writing here.

I'll be getting an Exbawks Juan on release too! Only 'cause all my friends will own one.

I'll purchase a PS4 for myself next Xmas though. Good times ahead.

[QUOTE="FoxbatAlpha"]We will see the X1 console run BF4 this weekend. 64 players, 1080p @ 60 fps. Sony has yet to produce gameplay in public on their console. When they showed BF4 it was 16 players and so, so graphics. The X1 dedicated servers will be a major difference in online play. 64 players all day on X1.Wasdie

1080p @ 60fps? DICE has already confirmed it will be 720p at 60 FPS on the Xbox One and a bit higher resolution on the PS4.

[QUOTE="FoxbatAlpha"]We will see the X1 console run BF4 this weekend. 64 players, 1080p @ 60 fps. Sony has yet to produce gameplay in public on their console. When they showed BF4 it was 16 players and so, so graphics. The X1 dedicated servers will be a major difference in online play. 64 players all day on X1.Wasdie

1080p @ 60fps? DICE has already confirmed it will be 720p at 60 FPS on the Xbox One and a bit higher resolution on the PS4.

The PS4 version will also use dedicated servers just like the PS3 version of BF3 did.

I really hope you don't believe anything you're writing here.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="FoxbatAlpha"]We will see the X1 console run BF4 this weekend. 64 players, 1080p @ 60 fps. Sony has yet to produce gameplay in public on their console. When they showed BF4 it was 16 players and so, so graphics. The X1 dedicated servers will be a major difference in online play. 64 players all day on X1.mitu123

1080p @ 60fps? DICE has already confirmed it will be 720p at 60 FPS on the Xbox One and a bit higher resolution on the PS4.

 

If we see games going P2P it will be on the PS4 due to devs having to go get their own server providers. Microsoft is bascially freely hosting servers for all of the devs. Devs would be crazy not to utilize them.

My guess is that we've seen the end of P2P outside of co-op games. For anything competitive you need dedicated servers if the game is going to run well. We'll also see a major increase in "always online" kind of structures. You'll be able to play teh game without being online but you'll be missing out on 75% of the content. 

There was dedicated servers on the Xbox 360 as early as 2007 with Battlefield Bad Company. There was nothing stopping devs from utilizing dedicated servers. The reason they didn't use them is that the servers cost money and devs don't want to take on that overhead. Imagine hosting all of the servers for Call of Duty on the XBox 360 and PS3? Activision would never want to freely give up that profit margin. That's why it's been shitty P2P. 

Now that Microsoft is hosting the servers Activision has come out and said on the Xbox 360 and Xbox One they will be using dedicated servers. I wouldn't be suprised if the PS3 and PS4 versions of Ghost still use P2P because Activision is so cheap. It's one thing to host a small amount of official servers on the PC and another to have to host the servers for millions of gamers around the world. 

P2P was used because it doesn't require nearly as much investment and continued mantinance of the devs. That's about it. Microsoft saw that as an issue and took steps to fix it. 

Wasdie

No dude is not free.

Most importantly to us, Microsoft priced it so that its far more affordable than other hosting options their goal here is to get more awesome games.

http://www.respawn.com/news/lets-talk-about-the-xbox-live-cloud/

Look this is all PR is MS pushing their own servers over other servers,look at the PR from Respawn their goal is to get more awesome games,so now we most pretend that MS just recently knwe that dedicated servers was better than P2P,funny enough it just in time to where their own server busyness is been advertise to.

Who knows what deals MS has,this is the same company who charged people for online play and also charged developers for patches of games,and now they act like they are the biggest charity organisation for developers.

Azure = MS own server hosting servers and is not free.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

 

If we see games going P2P it will be on the PS4 due to devs having to go get their own server providers. Microsoft is bascially freely hosting servers for all of the devs. Devs would be crazy not to utilize them.

My guess is that we've seen the end of P2P outside of co-op games. For anything competitive you need dedicated servers if the game is going to run well. We'll also see a major increase in "always online" kind of structures. You'll be able to play teh game without being online but you'll be missing out on 75% of the content. 

There was dedicated servers on the Xbox 360 as early as 2007 with Battlefield Bad Company. There was nothing stopping devs from utilizing dedicated servers. The reason they didn't use them is that the servers cost money and devs don't want to take on that overhead. Imagine hosting all of the servers for Call of Duty on the XBox 360 and PS3? Activision would never want to freely give up that profit margin. That's why it's been shitty P2P. 

Now that Microsoft is hosting the servers Activision has come out and said on the Xbox 360 and Xbox One they will be using dedicated servers. I wouldn't be suprised if the PS3 and PS4 versions of Ghost still use P2P because Activision is so cheap. It's one thing to host a small amount of official servers on the PC and another to have to host the servers for millions of gamers around the world. 

P2P was used because it doesn't require nearly as much investment and continued mantinance of the devs. That's about it. Microsoft saw that as an issue and took steps to fix it. 

tormentos

No dude is not free.

Most importantly to us, Microsoft priced it so that its far more affordable than other hosting options their goal here is to get more awesome games.

http://www.respawn.com/news/lets-talk-about-the-xbox-live-cloud/

Look this is all PR is MS pushing their own servers over other servers,look at the PR from Respawn their goal is to get more awesome games,so now we most pretend that MS just recently knwe that dedicated servers was better than P2P,funny enough it just in time to where their own server busyness is been advertise to.

Who knows what deals MS has,this is the same company who charged people for online play and also charged developers for patches of games,and now they act like they are the biggest charity organisation for developers.

Azure = MS own server hosting servers and is not free.

and they also charged for patches

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2012/02/15/it-costs-40000-to-patch-a-game-on-home-consoles/

Sony even charges publishers for psn bandwidth

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/45640/Sony-Charging-Publishers-For-PSN-Bandwidth

This place really disappoint me sometimes just read and listen THUNDERBOLT is 300,000 servers that are ONLY I SAID ONLY FOR THE XBOX ONE. not even the 360 use these serversTighaman

Earlier, during his fireside chat with Om, Nadella stressed that point. If youre in the infrastructure business, the thing you really need is apps and we have perhaps the biggest collection of first-party apps Bing, Xbox Live, Office 365, Skype and Dynamics. Cloud providers, he said, need to have many types of apps running because no one cloud will fit all. The thinking here is that Google is all about search, Amazon is all about e-commerce while Microsoft is all about everything.

http://gigaom.com/2013/06/23/why-microsofts-cloud-matters-hint-the-reason-begins-with-a-but-it-aint-azure/

Azure is not i repeat not for xbox one alone period,is for several MS product.i already quote 4 outside of xbox live including office 365,Bing and skype to.

 

Sony is charging for online play also

and they also charged for patches

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2012/02/15/it-costs-40000-to-patch-a-game-on-home-consoles/

Sony even charges publishers for psn bandwidth

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/45640/Sony-Charging-Publishers-For-PSN-Bandwidth

CanYouDiglt

Sony will charge for online play,as of now it does't.

Sony does not charge a fee for title updates, we've learned following word that Microsoft had lifted its own fees on game patches. "For independent developers, there is no cost associated with issuing patch updates," a representative told Shacknews.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/79944/sony-does-not-charge-fee-for-patches

The dude apparently did not wanted to get in problems so it speaked in plural.

But sony did charge for bandwidth to developers which in nothing hurt me,since games cost the same on both consoles $60 and online was free on PS3 contrary to xbox live where MS has been wining millions for years and also charged developers,so sony had to pull from some where,oh and funny enough most games tend to be cheaper on PSN than on xbox live to.

But what does that had to do with my post.?

[QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"]

 

Sony is charging for online play also

and they also charged for patches

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2012/02/15/it-costs-40000-to-patch-a-game-on-home-consoles/

Sony even charges publishers for psn bandwidth

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/45640/Sony-Charging-Publishers-For-PSN-Bandwidth

tormentos

Sony will charge for online play,as of now it does't.

Sony does not charge a fee for title updates, we've learned following word that Microsoft had lifted its own fees on game patches. "For independent developers, there is no cost associated with issuing patch updates," a representative told Shacknews.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/79944/sony-does-not-charge-fee-for-patches

The dude apparently did not wanted to get in problems so it speaked in plural.

But sony did charge for bandwidth to developers which in nothing hurt me,since games cost the same on both consoles $60 and online was free on PS3 contrary to xbox live where MS has been wining millions for years and also charged developers,so sony had to pull from some where,oh and funny enough most games tend to be cheaper on PSN than on xbox live to.

But what does that had to do with my post.?

[QUOTE="Tighaman"]This place really disappoint me sometimes just read and listen THUNDERBOLT is 300,000 servers that are ONLY I SAID ONLY FOR THE XBOX ONE. not even the 360 use these serverstormentos

Earlier, during his fireside chat with Om, Nadella stressed that point. If youre in the infrastructure business, the thing you really need is apps and we have perhaps the biggest collection of first-party apps Bing, Xbox Live, Office 365, Skype and Dynamics. Cloud providers, he said, need to have many types of apps running because no one cloud will fit all. The thinking here is that Google is all about search, Amazon is all about e-commerce while Microsoft is all about everything.

http://gigaom.com/2013/06/23/why-microsofts-cloud-matters-hint-the-reason-begins-with-a-but-it-aint-azure/

Azure is not i repeat not for xbox one alone period,is for several MS product.i already quote 4 outside of xbox live including office 365,Bing and skype to.

 

No dude is not free.

 

Most importantly to us, Microsoft priced it so that its far more affordable than other hosting options their goal here is to get more awesome games.tormentos

http://www.respawn.com/news/lets-talk-about-the-xbox-live-cloud/

 

Look this is all PR is MS pushing their own servers over other servers,look at the PR from Respawn their goal is to get more awesome games,so now we most pretend that MS just recently knwe that dedicated servers was better than P2P,funny enough it just in time to where their own server busyness is been advertise to.

Who knows what deals MS has,this is the same company who charged people for online play and also charged developers for patches of games,and now they act like they are the biggest charity organisation for developers.

Azure = MS own server hosting servers and is not free.

Whatever. It still eliminates the middle man and should save a lot of costs in worrying about dealing with 3rd party providers.