Microsoft: 220,000 Servers, The Cost Of Running Live Service.

"In part of a video with Rob Bernard, Chief Environmental Strategist at MS it would seem as if some stats were flashed up regarding how Live is supported.

In January 2008, there were 15 datacenters hosting 148,357 servers on 17,406 racks consuming 72,500 KW of utility power.

However, it seems as if there is a growth rate of 10,000 servers per month and MS should hit nearly 220,000 servers by the end of this month!" - maxconsole.net

P.S. As usual, apologies if old.

edit: just to clarify; this is to host live services (not just xbox live.. i.e. live search, live mail, etc.. including xbox live).

Wow.

Most of you guys dont have an idea of how expensive that is, either. My friend's company has four servers with four backups in one data center and that cost his company $20,000. Of course Microsoft doesnt have to get top of the line computers, but even then...it makes more sense that they charge for live, because that would be a lot of money to eat.

Wow.

Most of you guys dont have an idea of how expensive that is, either. My friend's company has four servers with four backups in one data center and that cost his company $20,000. Of course Microsoft doesnt have to get top of the line computers, but even then...it makes more sense that they charge for live, because that would be a lot of money to eat.

NoLimitJay1

[QUOTE="NoLimitJay1"]

Wow.

Most of you guys dont have an idea of how expensive that is, either. My friend's company has four servers with four backups in one data center and that cost his company $20,000. Of course Microsoft doesnt have to get top of the line computers, but even then...it makes more sense that they charge for live, because that would be a lot of money to eat.

FirstDiscovery

What about the smaller PSN games? Don't they? (I don't own a PS3 so i wouldn't know).

[QUOTE="FirstDiscovery"][QUOTE="NoLimitJay1"]

Wow.

Most of you guys dont have an idea of how expensive that is, either. My friend's company has four servers with four backups in one data center and that cost his company $20,000. Of course Microsoft doesnt have to get top of the line computers, but even then...it makes more sense that they charge for live, because that would be a lot of money to eat.

meme378

What about the smaller PSN games? Don't they? (I don't own a PS3 so i wouldn't know).

[QUOTE="FirstDiscovery"][QUOTE="NoLimitJay1"]

Wow.

Most of you guys dont have an idea of how expensive that is, either. My friend's company has four servers with four backups in one data center and that cost his company $20,000. Of course Microsoft doesnt have to get top of the line computers, but even then...it makes more sense that they charge for live, because that would be a lot of money to eat.

meme378

What about the smaller PSN games? Don't they? (I don't own a PS3 so i wouldn't know).

They do. I don't know where people got this idea that PSN games don't have High Score/Leaderboards :lol: I'm starting to think Microsoft puts a bracket after one thing saying "(only we have this, not the other guy)" and the most gulluble people believe them.

And PS, those servers aren't used to host actual games, only DLC. Hell, to host dedicated servers, Sony just needs to get a PS3 to make it a server :lol:

[QUOTE="meme378"][QUOTE="FirstDiscovery"][QUOTE="NoLimitJay1"]

Wow.

Most of you guys dont have an idea of how expensive that is, either. My friend's company has four servers with four backups in one data center and that cost his company $20,000. Of course Microsoft doesnt have to get top of the line computers, but even then...it makes more sense that they charge for live, because that would be a lot of money to eat.

FirstDiscovery

What about the smaller PSN games? Don't they? (I don't own a PS3 so i wouldn't know).

what? which games dont?

"In part of a video with Rob Bernard, Chief Environmental Strategist at MS it would seem as if some stats were flashed up regarding how Live is supported.

In January 2008, there were 15 datacenters hosting 148,357 servers on 17,406 racks consuming 72,500 KW of utility power.

However, it seems as if there is a growth rate of 10,000 servers per month and MS should hit nearly 220,000 servers by the end of this month!" - maxconsole.net

P.S. As usual, apologies if old.

Mystery_Writer

Wait a minute though. That's all the LIVE servers- not just Xbox live servers (just to clarify that for everyone). So that includes Live search and hotmail as well. So Xbox live gold members are contributing to the costs of running them servers as well, if i'm not mistaken.

"On the same page there's also an interesting graph showing the distribution of servers per "property". Live Search is in the clear lead with approximately 75,000 (50%) of the servers pushing out those less-than-desirable search results, followed by Hotmail. The other notable property occupying a large chunk of the servers would be "other" (appropriately named), which one could assume be dedicated to XBOX Live services and the like."

Now I see were my moneys going towards :DGh0st_Of_0nyx

Exactly, MS handles EVERYTHING online related, from friends lists, to leaderboards, to gamerscore. Ordinarily the dev would have to foot this bill. but its better this way, because online is more fleshed out, and its more unified. Like the guy above me said, thats why EVERY XBLA title has some form of online component, and some of them have online play. It doesnt really cost the dev anything.

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

azad_champ

Thats the great thing about Xbox Live. Everything is set up and run by M$, which means even the smallest XBLA game coming from a independant developer can still have online with leaderboards; the whole package really without have to pay to host servers or anything. I did read an article somewhere that said it cost Microsoft $500 million to set up the initial servers at the Xbox Live launch, ill See if i can find it.-DrRobotnik-

Exactly, and one thing people dont understand is that it costs to run servers for online play. and remember at the beginning of this gen when PS2 developers were shutting down servers? well with P2P, if i wanna play Halo 3 in 10 years, it will still be available (assuming there are people still playing lol) heck its still 150,000 people playing halo 1 & 2 when i play. thats the down side to dedicated servers run by the developer, it could be shut down when it no longer becomes worth the dough

Wow.

Most of you guys dont have an idea of how expensive that is, either. My friend's company has four servers with four backups in one data center and that cost his company $20,000. Of course Microsoft doesnt have to get top of the line computers, but even then...it makes more sense that they charge for live, because that would be a lot of money to eat.

NoLimitJay1

[QUOTE="NoLimitJay1"]

Wow.

Most of you guys dont have an idea of how expensive that is, either. My friend's company has four servers with four backups in one data center and that cost his company $20,000. Of course Microsoft doesnt have to get top of the line computers, but even then...it makes more sense that they charge for live, because that would be a lot of money to eat.

Vandalvideo

The funny thing is, dedicated servers are very cheap for Sony, because they allow a user to create one, or they can use some of their many PS3s they have and let that one host as Incognito does. You save a lot more than just buying a standard server. I think that's where PSN is better than XBL at.

The fact that you buy DLC means that a small percentage of that should go to server fees. Plus, like another guy said, this is all of Live, not just XBOX Live. Their search engine uses a lot of those servers, along with GFW Live, etc.

[QUOTE="-DrRobotnik-"]Thats the great thing about Xbox Live. Everything is set up and run by M$, which means even the smallest XBLA game coming from a independant developer can still have online with leaderboards; the whole package really without have to pay to host servers or anything. I did read an article somewhere that said it cost Microsoft $500 million to set up the initial servers at the Xbox Live launch, ill See if i can find it.navyguy21

Exactly, and one thing people dont understand is that it costs to run servers for online play. and remember at the beginning of this gen when PS2 developers were shutting down servers? well with P2P, if i wanna play Halo 3 in 10 years, it will still be available (assuming there are people still playing lol) heck its still 150,000 people playing halo 1 & 2 when i play. thats the down side to dedicated servers run by the developer, it could be shut down when it no longer becomes worth the dough

If that's how servers work, then that's a fair point.

[QUOTE="azad_champ"]

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

angelkimne

Warhawk = 32 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

Resistance = 40 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

I wonder how they do it ;)

[QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="azad_champ"]

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

Albanian_Killa

Warhawk = 32 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

Resistance = 40 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

I wonder how they do it ;)

He said that PSN had no lag whatsoever.

Yeah sure they have... 220,000 servers just for achievements, leaderboards and DLC. :roll: What are they running there, Commodore64s?mr_mozilla

They're also running their LIVE Search Engine, GFW Live, and everything else in the LIVE brand name such as LIVE Mail, etc.

[QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]Yeah sure they have... 220,000 servers just for achievements, leaderboards and DLC. :roll: What are they running there, Commodore64s?Albanian_Killa

They're also running their LIVE Search Engine, GFW Live, and everything else in the LIVE brand name such as LIVE Mail, etc.

[QUOTE="Albanian_Killa"][QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="azad_champ"]

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

angelkimne

Warhawk = 32 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

Resistance = 40 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

I wonder how they do it ;)

He said that PSN had no lag whatsoever.

No, but many first party games that do is nice to have. Games that have large amounts of players use dedicated servers, while those that don't use host connections. It's as simple as that.

Yeah sure they have... 220,000 servers just for achievements, leaderboards and DLC. :roll: What are they running there, Commodore64s?mr_mozilla

heh yeah, I agree with you that make 0 sense. Steam has a 15 million fanbase downloading their game (not just small 150mb dlc) over and over again for free+hosting master server mp/achievement server and I doubt they have more than 30 servers...

[QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="azad_champ"]

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

Albanian_Killa

Warhawk = 32 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

Resistance = 40 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

I wonder how they do it ;)

How come i can play COD4 online with people from all corners of the earth without dedicated servers and get no lag? Then if i go to play the PS3 version which also has no dedicated servers, im only permitted to play people from my own region (Europe)

[QUOTE="Albanian_Killa"][QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="azad_champ"]

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

angelkimne

Warhawk = 32 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

Resistance = 40 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

I wonder how they do it ;)

He said that PSN had no lag whatsoever.

[QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="Albanian_Killa"][QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="azad_champ"]

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

Albanian_Killa

Warhawk = 32 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

Resistance = 40 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

I wonder how they do it ;)

He said that PSN had no lag whatsoever.

No, but many first party games that do is nice to have. Games that have large amounts of players use dedicated servers, while those that don't use host connections. It's as simple as that.

[QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]Yeah sure they have... 220,000 servers just for achievements, leaderboards and DLC. :roll: What are they running there, Commodore64s?Franko_3

heh yeah, I agree with you that make 0 sense. Steam has a 15 million fanbase downloading their game (not just small 150mb dlc) over and over again for free+hosting mp/achievement server and I doubt they have more than 30 servers...

[QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]Yeah sure they have... 220,000 servers just for achievements, leaderboards and DLC. :roll: What are they running there, Commodore64s?Franko_3

heh yeah, I agree with you that make 0 sense. Steam has a 15 million fanbase downloading their game (not just small 150mb dlc) over and over again for free+hosting master server mp/achievement server and I doubt they have more than 30 servers...

The irony is that lot of this stuff is free...so basically lemmings are paying for my MSN Messenger. :lol:

[QUOTE="Albanian_Killa"][QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="azad_champ"]

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

-DrRobotnik-

Warhawk = 32 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

Resistance = 40 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

I wonder how they do it ;)

How come i can play COD4 online with people from all corners of the earth without dedicated servers and get no lag? Then if i go to play the PS3 version which also has no dedicated servers, im only permitted to play people from my own region (Europe)

What? :lol: I live in Canada and I've played with many people from France, Italy, and Spain in COD4. COD4 finds the best connections, that's why you most likely always play in Europe. COD4 also doesn't have a large amount of players per game, but if the game didn't use matchmaking and went with server lists, and premitted dedicated servers, you could have a lot more players in a room without lag from all around the world. The only time I experience lag on COD4 is if the host is dl'ing pr0n. Remember, COD4 on the 360 also runs from host connections, not Live servers.

[QUOTE="Albanian_Killa"][QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="Albanian_Killa"][QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="azad_champ"]

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

angelkimne

Warhawk = 32 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

Resistance = 40 players on a dedicated server from all corners of the world, no lag.

I wonder how they do it ;)

He said that PSN had no lag whatsoever.

No, but many first party games that do is nice to have. Games that have large amounts of players use dedicated servers, while those that don't use host connections. It's as simple as that.

Oh, alrighty then, we're good :)

very true actually if there are only 10 million on xbox live and 220 000 servers what the hell do they need 1 server for like just 45 people............. that makes no sense at all what a bunch of ****[QUOTE="Franko_3"]

[QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]Yeah sure they have... 220,000 servers just for achievements, leaderboards and DLC. :roll: What are they running there, Commodore64s?bigLLL

heh yeah, I agree with you that make 0 sense. Steam has a 15 million fanbase downloading their game (not just small 150mb dlc) over and over again for free+hosting mp/achievement server and I doubt they have more than 30 servers...

As i commented on the first page of this thread, I think they mean 220,000 servers for not just Xbox live but also for Windows live search and also hotmail.

Oh, alrighty then, we're good :)

Albanian_Killa

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

azad_champ

exactly, dont try to justify paying for live. it's not worth it no matter how you try to spin it

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

"In part of a video with Rob Bernard, Chief Environmental Strategist at MS it would seem as if some stats were flashed up regarding how Live is supported.

In January 2008, there were 15 datacenters hosting 148,357 servers on 17,406 racks consuming 72,500 KW of utility power.

However, it seems as if there is a growth rate of 10,000 servers per month and MS should hit nearly 220,000 servers by the end of this month!" - maxconsole.net

P.S. As usual, apologies if old.

meme378

Wait a minute though. That's all the LIVE servers- not just Xbox live servers (just to clarify that for everyone). So that includes Live search and hotmail as well. So Xbox live gold members are contributing to the costs of running them servers as well, if i'm not mistaken.

"On the same page there's also an interesting graph showing the distribution of servers per "property". Live Search is in the clear lead with approximately 75,000 (50%) of the servers pushing out those less-than-desirable search results, followed by Hotmail. The other notable property occupying a large chunk of the servers would be "other" (appropriately named), which one could assume be dedicated to XBOX Live services and the like."

Stop ignoring this post people!

[QUOTE="azad_champ"]

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

patrickjw333

exactly, dont try to justify paying for live. it's not worth it no matter how you try to spin it

+

+

=

me paying for it

finally noobs will shut up, you see why we pay for xblnow?

XBL doesn't use servers..Everything is peer to peer and there is no cost to maintaining XBL, we are all getting ripped off.Nobody works there and it's just littled elves keeping stuff online. Last time I checked all 10 million gamertags were being kept in a cardboard box and the lemmings were all making the online stuff up.

PSN FTW.

[QUOTE="patrickjw333"][QUOTE="azad_champ"]

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

angelkimne

exactly, dont try to justify paying for live. it's not worth it no matter how you try to spin it

+

+

=

me paying for it

sweet you pay for a pending friend list. The 220 000 servers must be too busy to handle your request

finally noobs will shut up, you see why we pay for xblnow?

mingo123

Yet PS3 offers free online play without any lag whatsoever....

azad_champ

*Points to you.*

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="NoLimitJay1"]

Wow.

Most of you guys dont have an idea of how expensive that is, either. My friend's company has four servers with four backups in one data center and that cost his company $20,000. Of course Microsoft doesnt have to get top of the line computers, but even then...it makes more sense that they charge for live, because that would be a lot of money to eat.

Albanian_Killa

The funny thing is, dedicated servers are very cheap for Sony, because they allow a user to create one, or they can use some of their many PS3s they have and let that one host as Incognito does. You save a lot more than just buying a standard server. I think that's where PSN is better than XBL at.

The fact that you buy DLC means that a small percentage of that should go to server fees. Plus, like another guy said, this is all of Live, not just XBOX Live. Their search engine uses a lot of those servers, along with GFW Live, etc.