Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35613057)

Any link on this?.

Originally Posted by SnoopZ (Post 35613062)

Can we move this to the existing PS4 thread?

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35613076)

Sony is partnering with VM in some way, but the Virgin press release makes no mention of 200Mbit:

http://about.virginmedia.com/blog-po...h-virgin-media

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:11 ----------

Aha! Found a link mentioning 200Mbit:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...uk-isp-partner



Although it's out of context a bit, I'd really like to see the announcement myself when the stream goes up as I get the feeling "up to 200Mbps" was referencing all of the ISPs and not something specific to Virgin.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35613076)

Aha! Found a link mentioning 200Mbit:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...uk-isp-partner



Although it's out of context a bit, I'd really like to see the announcement myself when the stream goes up as I get the feeling "up to 200Mbps" was referencing all of the ISPs and not something specific to Virgin.

Originally Posted by Risco (Post 35613090)

None of the other mentioned ISP are capable of delivering those speeds. Virgin have already test @ 200mbps, it does not take a genius to work out that Virgin are the ones they are talking about.

Originally Posted by Risco (Post 35613090)

None of the other mentioned ISP are capable of delivering those speeds. Virgin have already test @ 200mbps, it does not take a genius to work out that Virgin are the ones they are talking about.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35613107)

FTTP does enable those other ISPs to offer it, though.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35613107)

I wouldn't look too much into this.

Originally Posted by v0id (Post 35613099)

It wouldn't surpise me if this 'exciting benefits' are that the PS4 can be used to watch VM channels, much in the same way you can use the Xbox to watch Sky


..but really, VM should just stop barking on about faster download speeds when they can't even keep their promises of 'double upload speeds' that they said we'd be getting

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35613101)

Actually you'll find Orange already has 200Mbps out and available to actual customers, while Virgin don't even have any public plans. Telekom.de (owners of the T-Mobile brand) also sells 200Mbps already. In fact, Telekom has had 200Mbps available since 2011. Virgin are the only company not already delivering those speeds, let alone "not capable". Not to mention BT already delivers 300Mbps to limited areas with coverage exceeding VM's of 300-1000Mbps due later this year*

Also EE's 4G network (built on top of T-Mobile's core) already does up to 150Mbps with upgrades to 450Mbps capability already underway.

It does not take a genius to work out that Virgin are not the ones they are talking about.

* Accompanied by extortionate install fees

Originally Posted by v0id (Post 35613099)

It wouldn't surpise me if this 'exciting benefits' are that the PS4 can be used to watch VM channels, much in the same way you can use the Xbox to watch Sky


..but really, VM should just stop barking on about faster download speeds when they can't even keep their promises of 'double upload speeds' that they said we'd be getting

Originally Posted by Risco (Post 35613132)

Post me a link to where the general public can buy those speeds.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613143)

A lot of people already have them and you can keep updated on the website.

As a free upgrade, you can't complain much.

Originally Posted by Another VM User (Post 35613147)

LOL free my arse. 2 speed increases followed by 2 price rises

Originally Posted by Another VM User (Post 35613147)

LOL free my arse. 2 speed increases followed by 2 price rises

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35613145)

Read the post you quoted. The links are already in there.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35613101)

Not to mention BT already delivers 300Mbps to limited areas with coverage exceeding VM's of 300-1000Mbps due later this year*

* Accompanied by extortionate install fees

Originally Posted by Risco (Post 35613185)

You linked two french sites that have nothing to do with the UK. You then mentioned EE as if it is a viable network to download at those speeds, which it is not in the slightest with the GB restrictions. The only tangible one is BT and the only way to get that is FTTP which costs stupid money to have installed. Try again. :D

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35613101)

Also EE's 4G network (built on top of T-Mobile's core) already does up to 150Mbps with upgrades to 450Mbps capability already underway.

Originally Posted by MUD_Wizard (Post 35613194)

You're quoting theoretical maximum communication speed of the network, as if it's the throughput speed a user gets ; it's not by a long shot at the moment.

Originally Posted by MUD_Wizard (Post 35613194)

Link please for BT infinity/FTTP/FTTPoD Gigabit?

Originally Posted by craigj2k12 (Post 35613217)

How about 10?

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/5...fttp-line.html

Originally Posted by MUD_Wizard (Post 35613194)

Link please for BT infinity/FTTP/FTTPoD Gigabit?

Originally Posted by Dukefever (Post 35613058)

No ps4 release date!

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35613231)

BT Infinity, for the third time:

http://www.productsandservices.bt.co...aster-internet

Widespread availability of FTTPoD due this year:
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/5...-roll-out.html

FTTPoD 1Gbps already possible, 10Gbps being tested:
http://recombu.com/digital/news/bt-1...rk_M10488.html
http://recombu.com/digital/news/bt-1...rd_M11068.html

Originally Posted by telfordcable (Post 35613358)

Virgin Media say 200Mb is only available to 40% in UK. Not everyone will get it.

Originally Posted by Martin Dee 11 (Post 35613390)

when did they say that

Originally Posted by SnoopZ (Post 35613056)

So what does this mean for someone buying a PS4?

Originally Posted by telfordcable (Post 35613358)

Virgin Media say 200Mb is only available to 40% in UK. Not everyone will get it.

Originally Posted by Another VM User (Post 35613499)

Sorry that's Bournemouth. My appologies

Originally Posted by gregbrighton (Post 35613466)

Hope I'm part of the 40%! Not sure I will get it though as the 120mb is fine for me.

Originally Posted by klabnix (Post 35613770)

Interesting, I reduced my internet speed this year, as the 60mb was ruining my gaming on the PS3, because of lag compensation in the Call of Duty games.

Hopefully on PS4 this will be sorted out.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35613911)

PS4 will have dedicated servers as well for many games, there's not much difference between them, Microsoft is just touting Azure a lot more.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613966)

Microsoft have something like 300,000 servers while SONY has around 20,000.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613966)

Also I'm sure Microsoft will have better quality ones and more around the world than SONY who will have to concentrate them in certain areas.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613966)

However I do now expect quality from SONY as they are charging £40 a year to play online, compared to Gold which can be picked up on eBay for around £25, and sometimes you even get a bonus month or two.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613966)

I have always found Microsofts online service much more robust than SONYs.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613966)

Also:

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/2051454...d_servers.html

While Microsoft has already confirmed Servers for other games too.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35613973)

Microsoft has 300,000 servers for their entire Azure platform. That includes EVERYTHING, from Xbox Live to even windows update, as well as all of the azure services that you can buy and rent. It's not 300,000 just for Xbox Live. Don't know where you got the 20,000 Sony servers from, so I can't comment.


nope, it's 300,000 for Xbox One as stated here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...velopers-think


Why will Sony have to concentrate them while Microsoft can distribute them around the world? What's your basis for this statement and why are Microsoft so special? Don't get me wrong, Azure is huge and sure has its advantages but I think you're overestimating things a bit here. That said, Microsoft has a better track record with this stuff.

because as MS has over 10x the severs they can spread them out more evenly around the world whereas SONY cannot, as logic would tell you they have fewer.


Why have you just compared the RRP for PS+ against the ebay price of Xbox Live? I've seen PS+ go for similar amounts to Xbox Live, the difference in price isn't anywhere near what you're making it out to be. PS+ does work out a little more expensive in general, but it's more like £5 per year more, not £15. And the games you get on PS+ have been historically better than the ones Microsoft has been giving out with Gold lately.

From my experience PSN+ and PSN cards are harder to get at a discount than XBL Points are and XBL Gold is.

Also I would disagree and say both companies haven't really offered any good games for free that aren't really old or I haven't already tried. I personally don't see the benefits of PS+.



Agreed. Live is a better service than PSN.

At least we agree here.


He hasn't given an answer one way or the other (I suspect that Sony is currently working on something they haven't announced yet). Even if CoD doesn't have dedicated servers on PS4 (Doesn't look like it'll have them on 360, either), that doesn't mean other games won't have them. The point is that both services are capable of using dedicated servers.

EDIT: http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/12/442...g-calculations

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613990)

nope, it's 300,000 for Xbox One as stated here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...velopers-think

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613990)

because as MS has over 10x the severs they can spread them out more evenly around the world whereas SONY cannot, as logic would tell you they have fewer.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613990)

[COLOR="red"]From my experience PSN+ and PSN cards are harder to get at a discount than XBL Points are and XBL Gold is.

Also I would disagree and say both companies haven't really offered any good games for free that aren't really old or I haven't already tried. I personally don't see the benefits of PS+.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613990)

[COLOR="red"]Like I said SONY will be more stretched with offer a quality server experience. Just because they have them dosent mean they will be close or located in the UK especially when they have 20K-30K compared to MS with 300K for the Xbox One.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613990)

And of course having severs on the most played MP game on console is a massive plus and MS will, it looks like, support many more games with them.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35613990)

As regards to your article,

That just states PS4 will sometime in 2014 offer some graphics streaming/processes via the cloud.

Again they may not be able to match MS and their quality and it isn't a 'day 1' feature.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35614004)

Ugh, I hate when people don't quote properly.

well pardon me for having to make do on my iPhone 5 :/


From that very article:



They don't have 300,000 servers from Xbox Live..



Except, as stated above, Microsoft doesn't have 300,000 servers just for Xbox live, those servers are virtualised. They have about 10 datacentres around the world (some not operational yet), here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Azure#Datacenters

They combine that with a bunch of CDNs, something that Sony is also cable of doing but that doesn't help with dedicated servers or gaming, just downloads.

I don't know why you can't accept Xbox One has 300,000 http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/a...00000-servers/


See this is where I know you're being biased. I found a thread that lists all of the games given away so far, keeping in mind that it only started last November so it's not even a full year

I've highlighted a few that really stand out as not "old" or "****".
Even if you exclude all of the Vita games, you got all of that for a single 12 month subscription - even at £40, that's ridiculous value. And I say this as a big PC gamer who's used to his steam sales.

Like I said, look at when they are available. Most games are mediocre / can be found for a £5 on eBay with resale value too. The 'good' ones have been already out for a very long time. You might as well wait a year and sign up to a games renting site for £10-15 and get whatever games you like rather than playing the lottery with PS+



Once again, look up those 300,000 servers and it's clear they're not all real servers, nor have they distributed them as widely as you think.
Your claim about Sony not being able to put servers near the UK has been pulled out of thin air. Go and find a source to back that up.

Go read my article I posted and it's clear, as stated in E3 that MS will have 300,000 severs for the X1.

Please find me a source that shows SONY has set up severs for the UK :/

It looks more like Sony hasn't announced anything yet. It wouldn't be a suprirse for Microsoft to have the better online service, but the gap is narrowing rather than widening.


300K vs 20-30k?

The gap is still wide open. SONY and Nintendo have always lagged behind.

And SONY has announced it's plans for cloud computing "sometime in 2014" :/



Once again, speculating on what Sony can and cannot do. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft has invested heavily into the cloud but ultimately they're not doing anything that's impossible for Sony to do. Dedicated servers are not new, not even for the PS3, let alone the PS4.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35614117)

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35614117)

I don't know why you can't accept Xbox One has 300,000

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35614117)

Like I said, look at when they are available. Most games are mediocre / can be found for a £5 on eBay with resale value too. The 'good' ones have been already out for a very long time. You might as well wait a year and sign up to a games renting site for £10-15 and get whatever games you like rather than playing the lottery with PS+

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35614117)

Go read my article I posted and it's clear, as stated in E3 that MS will have 300,000 severs for the X1.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35614117)

300K vs 20-30k?

The gap is still wide open. SONY and Nintendo have always lagged behind.

And SONY has announced it's plans for cloud computing "sometime in 2014" :/

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35614117)

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35614142)

Because it doesn't. It just doesn't. Azure has 300,000 but Xbox one does not. the 300,000 number refers to the virtualised servers, not actual servers. That second article you posted is dated May 23 and refers to the same quote you're getting that 300,000 number from. The eurogamer article you also posted is much more recent and directly addresses it. Perhaps you should read this quote again:



If they really did have 300,000 servers JUST for Xbox One at LAUNCH, why wouldn't they just say? Also have you any idea how much money that many servers costs to buy and run? Of course they're virtualised, it ludicrous to think otherwise. Show me a single source that unoquivecally states that Microsoft has 300,000 actual, real servers and not a single one is Virtualised. Because that's what Azure is - virtualisation. You buy virtual machines to run on it. You never, ever get control of an azure server directly because that's not the cloud, that's just hosted servers. That's why Azure is so good, because it scales linearly.
You need to understand what Azure actually is and how it works for you to realise why the 300,000 dedicated servers is rediculous. Once again, I implore you to find a concrete source that actually states that those servers are real, dedicated servers and not virtualised across the Azure platform.


"Microsoft also detailed changes that are coming to Xbox Live. The outfit has increased to 300,000 servers to power Xbox One users -- up from 15,000 that handle the Xbox 360"

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/21/m...es-xbox-live-/

Go watch the E3 Presrntation, they explicitly say so too.


And how many games did you get with your £25 subscription to Xbox Live? Sure, it's a better service, but it's not £25 better. You can disagree about the games all you want, it's clearly great value and you're now just arguing for the sake of it.

i don't pay for XBL to get old games that I've played already / can be picked up cheaply / don't expire when my sub stops.

I pay to game on the best online network with all my friends and others around the works who actually talk online. Unlike on PS3 where people have fogey Bluetooth headsets that echo, are too loud, too quiet and are littered with French kids.

I don't see PS+ as value. I would rather spend £10 a month and get disc based access to any game available on the platform rather than wait and see what they will offer and have to continue to subscribe to keep the games.


It's as clear as mud. One guy quoted 300,000 servers and since then, Microsoft has been evasive about how many of those 300,000 servers are actually dedicated hardware or virtualised. It makes sense to Virtualise them, then you don't have to have a bunch of expensive, hot, power-hungry servers sitting on all the time on the off-chance someone wants to play an old game. You just have what you need and scale as necessary.

Please find me a source that shows SONY has set up severs for the UK :/

There's very little information on the PSN servers, but you forget that Sony is a huge company. They run a few MMO's and have servers dedicated for Europe (== UK). I believe Planetside 2's servers are all in the Netherlands, as is DCU:O so chances are that's where the European PSN servers are.

Have a look at the various MMO's that Sony runs: https://www.soe.com/status/ and notice how most have EU dedicated servers.
So when you're claiming that Sony CAN'T or WON'T have servers for the UK, then explain why they can for MMO's that have a much smaller subscriber base than PSN?



Give up on the 300,000 figure, it's meaningless number without some additional information. Jonathon Blow said it best:



That's an actual game developer, albeit one who's a bit up his own arse.



Once again, this is raw speculation on your part. You're also blindsided by the fact that Microsoft runs Azure for a whole bunch of stuff, so of course they're going to invest a buttload into servers. Even if they cancelled the Xbox One tomorrow, Azure would still be there and still be going strong and those 300,000 servers would still be around.
Once again though, "numbers" of servers is meaningless, especially when you consider that some are virtualised and some aren't.

I'm not saying that Sony isn't behind or that Microsoft won't have the better service here, but you're saying that Sony flat out won't even try to compete and won't have any kind of solution. I'm saying that you're mistaken - games will still have dedicated servers, because they did on the PS3 (Unless you're saying that games like MAG ran on a peer-to-peer system....), dedicated servers are nothing new. You seem to keep missing that point.

And just so we're clear, I'm saying this as someone who owns about 4 Xbox 360's and only one PS3 that's very much gathering dust. I have a gamerscore of about 28,000 yet I've only got about 10 trophies to my name. I firmly believe that the 360 was the better console this generation in almost every way. I just don't think you're being fair to Sony here and you've been taken in by Microsoft's 300,000 number that has been given with very little context.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35614151)

We also have the people as well trying to justify the fees for xbox gold as if it makes it better quality or something, whilst I agree xbox live is better than psn, I think its nothing to do with the fees.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35614175)

sony just jumping on the bandwagon.

PC gamers think its all lunacy paying these fees.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35614177)

I am also a PC gamer but Xbox Live has a great community that the PC cannot replicate, nor can PlayStation.

In addition, only a few friends have a PC that can handle graphic intensive applications but who wants to play on their own?

Xbox Live is just a lot more fun.

Even if it doesn't support my Dell 256x160.

Well worth £25 a year.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35614178)

Ok you're obviously not letting this one go, despite the fact that Microsoft has been directly questioned on the 300,000 servers and didn't actually give an answer. So let me ask you this:

How much do you think a server costs?

Seriously. How much. I'm going to level with you, they're not cheap. A decent server is going to be several thousand pounds. They don't come cheap because enterprise-grade hardware never is. For the hell of it though, let's just say that each server costs £2,500 - keep in mind that £2,500 is actually pretty cheap for a server, especially one that's going to be offloading lots of gaming calculations (have you seen how much TESLA costs?). £2,500. Now multiply that by 300,000.

How much?

£750,000,000

That's £750 MILLION. That's before you count building the datacentre to hold them, powering them, maintaining them, etc. Do you seriously think Microsoft has spent that amount of money for the LAUNCH of the Xbox One?

It's absurd. Now say £100,000,000 and ab unch of virtualisation? Even that's a little excessive, but probably a lot more realistic. Or you know, they've just leveraged what they already had with Azure.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35614252)

I play on my own, dont dish those not into multiplayer.

Seems me and Kushan finally agree on something.

Originally Posted by ethan103 (Post 35614260)

You can believe what you want.

Microsoft has stated it's 300,000 severs for the Xbox One.

"The outfit has increased to 300,000 servers to power Xbox One users -- up from 15,000 that handle the Xbox 360"

I don't know how much more plain and simple it can be said.

Maybe you should go watch their e3 conference when they announce it.

As regards to costs,

Xbox Live makes billions,

SONY is expected to make $1.2bn from PS Plus per year.

So a one off cost to have a great infrastructure is there.

Of course currently Microsoft makes a lot more as well.

---------- Post added at 01:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 ----------




If your not into multiplayer then I wouldn't expect you to understand why XBL members pay a fee to play online with friends and family.

So I guess your original point was meaningless :/

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35614267)

Not meaningless, on the 360 microsoft are simply a middleman for online play, a mere portal for services such as netflix yet have the nerve to charge a monthly fee to be that portal.

I dont have to pay a monthly fee to watch iplayer on my ps3 or pc, no monthly fee to microsoft to run netflix on my pc. The word to sum it up is people who think its good value on the 360 are simply gullible. To top it off for this monthly fee multiplayer games use a p2p system where a player is a host.

Its got so silly to the point people like youself think microsoft have 300k dedicated servers for console gaming :LOL:

Most of the live resources will be in hosting files,, game patches, marketplace, dashboard updates and so on. Those will be where most of their investment is gone, and they are all things that are supplied to xbox silver members who pay no subs.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35614464)

I agree with this (Second time today? What are the odds!), it'll be a CDN on Virgin's network or something like that. There MAY be a PS+ offer for new customers as well, much like spotify and such but I don't think it'll go beyond that.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35615444)

We all know how well VM's Youtube CDN works... :erm:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35615444)

We all know how well VM's Youtube CDN works... :erm:

Originally Posted by craigj2k12 (Post 35617020)

How is it not Virgins?

Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 35617730)

VM have admitted on several occasions that the Youtube problems were down to them not having a big enough pipe to the CDN. Even if the Youtube issue is down to VM's choice of partners the bottom line is their customers have problems streaming which shows that local caching can cause more problems than going directly to the real servers. The theory is it should be better the VM experience says otherwise.

Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 35672857)

So, six months after this was announced and three months after the PS4 launch, where is this partnership?

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35674479)

I think it has something to do with PS Now.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35706434)

I think it's about time Virgin Media or Sony let us know exactly what is going on.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35707279)

Its "coming soon".

Originally Posted by G4v1n (Post 35707278)

That would seem logical - a streaming service like PS Now would be the ideal thing to partner with a fast broadband service. Maybe some sort of free/discounted PS Now subscriptions for Virgin BB users as apparently it will require a monthly sub.

BT did something similar a few years back with OnLive. It was a really good idea - they promoted OnLive with free memberships for three months and no extra tarrifs on OnLive data traffic during that time (i.e. It didn't count towards monthly download limits). BT also owned a stake in Onlive, but then Onlive 'restructured' and essentially BTs investment went out the window, so no further partnership. A shame, because it seemed like a great idea for both companies.