Superhub : Playstation 4 partnering with Virgin Media and 200mbit speeds this year?

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by ethan103

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

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:

At the end of the Xbox 101 presentation, Henshaw is asked whether the 300,000 servers that will be available when the Xbox One launches are all physical servers or a combination of virtual machines. "We haven't gone into that level of detail yet," is all he'll say, somewhat tellingly.

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.

Originally Posted by ethan103

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+

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.

Originally Posted by ethan103

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

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?

Originally Posted by ethan103

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" :/

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

I can spin up 10,000 virtual servers per host. They would just all suck. Saying 300k when they are virtual is a lie.

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

Originally Posted by ethan103

SONY cannot compete and will most likely not invest as much in servers as Microsoft can and has. That is evident or else they would also be championing their numbers of servers but instead they choose to stay quiet.

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.

[Chrysalis]

there is no way will be 300k servers.

if we assume 1 million online at once, then 300k servers is just 3 person per server, 10 million makes it 30 per server, thats ridicolous. 300k vm's across ALL microsoft services, believable, 300k physical machines for xbox live services, not.

Discussions about consoles tend to get silly as too many people are fanboys to one console.

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.

[ethan103]

Originally Posted by Kushan

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.

i don't know why you don't want to believe, I guess that's your problem.

MS explicitly has said 300K.

And SONY having a server in the Netherlands isn't the UK.

Clearly MS has the upper hand, I have played online on both consoles and Xbox always provides a much smoother experience.

The last online game for my PS3 was KillZone 3, and not did that have some dogey host selection & lag!

While I have never lagged on Halo.

Besides, dedicated servers don't always = smooth experience.

But SONY has always lagged behind in its offerings, most annoyingly with its slow download speeds from PSN.



---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

The fact that XBL is paid for makes it a better, smoother experience.

And SONY agrees with me:

"Charging for online, or at least bundling it within Plus, will mean that the service can more realistically approach the levels that Xbox Live does. Gara says that PSN will mirror “the social features you’ve seen demonstrated on more of a world-class network” and has seen Sony “investing in a higher performance network” that will offer “better performance and reliability”.

PlayStation Plus currently costs around £40 a year."

[Chrysalis]

sony just jumping on the bandwagon.

PC gamers think its all lunacy paying these fees.

[ethan103]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

sony just jumping on the bandwagon.

PC gamers think its all lunacy paying these fees.

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.

[Kushan]

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.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by ethan103

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.

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

Seems me and Kushan finally agree on something.

[ethan103]

Originally Posted by Kushan

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

Seems me and Kushan finally agree on something.

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 :/

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by ethan103

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 :/

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

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.

I'm going to point out that this is not an Xbox Versus PS4 thread but a discussion of a Sony announcement about some possible broadband usage by the PS4.
So let's please stick to the topic and not start an argument about the rival merits of consoles.
Thank you.

[MUD_Wizard]

So dull. Wish i'd unsubscribed from this thread 300,000 times earlier. Heh.

[ethan103]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

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.

First you say you don't understand why people pay a fee to play on XBL.

Then you say you don't play online.

Meaningless, yes.

I pay for gold to pay MP, not pay £6 a month to stream poor quality video and sound from Netflix.

You can't understand the whole XBL community situation.

People that connect their Box to the net and will have gold and so will have access to those "features" that are everywhere anyway, iPhone, iPad, laptop, PC etc.

So people aren't gullible, the know what they are paying for and if it wasn't good, they wouldn't carry on paying :/

I have met many new real life people from all over the country because of Live and also made friends around the world. Something other networks wouldn't allow.

And the Xbox 360 does feature dedicated servers too. It's not all p2p.

Finally I never said 300,000 Dedi servers, they will also use them for other reasons too.

I shall end it here as per the request of the mod.

[MaverickJesus]

Continuing to argue even when the mod has said to stop, followed by a closing comment so that nobody else can do the same. Child.

[Chrysalis]

yes my comment is already made and I already decided before the mod intervention to stop as I realised it would be another console debate going in a loop forever. so from me thats my final word on that issue.

I think the ps4 announcement is actually more to do with peering arrangements than VM making a package exclusive to ps4 owners.

[Kushan]

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.