Talking to Nowgamer, Executive Producer at Call of Duty: Ghosts developer Infinity Ward and Call Of Duty Mark Rubin has been discussing the game’s multiplayer servers.
Earlier this week at Microsoft’s Gamescom press event it was revealed, as we previously reported, that Xbox One will have PC-style dedicated servers – powered by the cloud – for the next-gen shooter, instead of the usual peer-to-peer setup of console games.
“I don’t have details on how dedicated servers are going to work on PC, partly because we’re still in development and still working on all those features.” Said Rubin, continuing “PC will be all dedicated servers, all of it.”
Where exactly this leaves PlayStation gamers is still a little unknown, however. Speaking (or not) to our very own Stefan out in Cologne, Activision were “unable to discuss” PS4 servers, which echoes Rubin’s earlier statements about dedicated servers being “on PC and it is on Xbox One, but I can’t talk about any other platforms.”
It’s worth noting that’s not a stonefaced “No” from Activision, but rather a “Maybe later, if we can sort out the intricacies” – although of course, with Microsoft throwing money at Call Of Duty for exclusive content year-after-year, perhaps the silence is in fact a “Yes, but we’re obliged to tout Xbox as the only option.”
So, what’re your thoughts? Will this sway your console of choice when Ghosts launches in November?
Starman
I assumed the dedicated servers for CoD would be running off the 300,000 server upgrade for xbox live that MS announced. I’ve not heard Sony make any announcement on their server numbers but I’m guessing they won’t be giving any up for CoD.
beeje13
I saw somebody say Sony had about 10k servers, no idea whether they were dedicated for multiplayer or everything PS (e.g. store). But a good reference either way.
TheShepanator
I’d be quite interested to know how microsoft’s cloud works. It sounds like all of their services, like hotmail, bing and xbox live, are running off this cloud instead of each having their own ring-fenced set of servers. That would mean the claims of xbox live having 300,000 servers are somewhat exaggerated, as that capacity is shared.
Starman
Don’t think its anything to do with their other services. They said it was the servers for xbox live, not Microsoft.
cc_star
I thought it was based on their Azure platform?
Anyone can use Azure for practically any cloud computing solution, even Sony could for a Sony exclusive unless a corporate decision blocks it.
What Microsoft do is provide the whole solution to developers, they probably give a great deal if the title is Xbox (and maybe Windows PC) exclusive. It’s the suite of tools that help devs leverage into their games.
Xbox Live will be using a ring-fenced part of Azure… but Azure hosts all sorts of things.
Starman
I’d presume the azure servers for live would already be allocated then? Be a bit risky to potentially lose cloud computing power etc..
beeje13
While, I think that hotmail, bing and other services are run on their own servers, Azure is by no means only for Xbox. Anybody (within reason) can rent server time from Azure for various applications, but Xbox One does have its own dedicated segment, called Thunderhead (according to Eurogamer).
There’s also an argument as to whether the 300k are just virtual servers (many virtual machines running on one hardware machine) or actually 300k Physical servers outright…
It’s a confusing situation and one of a few areas which Microsoft has not yet clarified. With Microsoft however, silence is usually a bad sign (e.g. ‘CPU speed’), while they trumpet the good news (‘8 CPU cores’).
Elike
Microsoft said the 300,000 is set aside strictly for the Xbox live service. What they didn’t specify was if that was 300,000 virtual servers or 300,000 physical servers.
xdarkmagician
I actually kinda like P2P servers for CoD. They’ve had their problems, host migration being the biggest and host bullets up there too, but its not like dedicated servers always run perfect. A huge majority of the time my Black Ops2 and BF3 online experience is pretty much identical in quality. I think that dedicated servers are nice, but if developers put some time into P2P servers, P2P can be just as good, but cheaper to operate. I guess what I’m saying is dedicated or not, the server type isn’t going to convince me one way or the other about buying CoD G.
Elike
I’ve played on dedicated servers for about 15 years with various games. P2P is just too variable, you can sometimes get a decent connection but it’s such a crapshoot. At least with dedicated servers you can control most of the variables and you will nearly always get a consistent experience. With P2P, sometimes it works fine, and many other times you want to smash the controller through the TV because the connection/lag is just unplayable.
cc_star
Wonder if this will end up using the same server system as Xbox. I can see Microsoft trying to bring Windows PC gaming & Xbox (along with Windows Phone) all under one roof & service… and really try & stick it to Steam, AppStore & Google Play with a pretty joined up service.
SLUMMO316
Cod has needed dedicated servers for years. I used to really enjoy cod and have played every cod released and enjoyed them but earlier this year I got sick of the host migration and random lag. I now play battlefield 3 if I wanna play a shooter. Much better game and no problems with lag and host problems
HunterGatherer
So when all the ps3 exclusives were all dedicated servers and Xbox was lumbered with p2p that wasn’t newsworthy, yet now, an Xbox game has dedicated servers that’s news? Good to see the hype machine in full swing…
Starman
Its because 1. CoD is regularly the highest selling game of the year, and 2. Its desperately needed dedicated servers for years.
cc_star
Lots was said at the time about Warhawk, Killzone 2 or whatever servers.
In fact, Warhawk’s servers must have been one of the most heavily reported on there has ever been.
Starman
You killed me many times on Warhawk Cc-Star! Despite that, probably my favourite online game ever.
HunterGatherer
Don’t try that one. For years we have had to endure the clueless gaming media ranting on about how Xbox Live was the better gaming network, despite the reality being it was sub-standard P2P network. Not only that, but PS3 multiplatform titles had to suffer the same fate, thanks to Microsoft’s cheapskating. The PS3 dedicated servers were never mentioned, it was always how great Xbox Live was.
Now a single Xbox title had dedicated server, and it’s getting press coverage. Can’t you see how messed up this is?
Starman
@HG I know you detest Microsoft but it’s a commonly accepted fact that xbox live is overall a better network than psn is. I’ve used both consoles for years and found live to be superior. I won’t list all the reasons why as I don’t think even Jesus could convince you!
cc_star
Microsoft’s platform is much more than dedicated servers. This is why it’s attracting attention. It is something that moves gaming on and at the moment Microsoft is the company that is providing the whole solution, not just the server leasing but the dev tools and the support for devs to build it into their games.
sections of the Titanfall interview on Eurogamer this morning hint at where things are going http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-respawn-the-titanfall-interview
To be honest dedicated multiplayer servers is the least interesting part about it when there’s a lot more going on and this is the reason for much of the coverage, as many gamers find this new area interesting
And you’re denying the fact that PS3 dedicated servers got any coverage, really? wow.
HunterGatherer
I don’t hate Microsoft, I dislike how Microsoft apply FUD and marketing to convince clueless gamers to pay for a cheap to run decentralised P2P network like Xbox live, over a free to play psn that uses dedicated servers.
Microsoft are cash rich and can pay the media to say anything they want. Last gen the message that was paid to be sent was that Xbox live was superior. And that may have been true for a couple of specific social features like party chat. However on the whole PSN was a better gaming network.
If you understand the technical difference between the two network types, you wouldn’t be claiming Xbox was better. P2P because of their decentralised nature slow all players to the slowest connected player. Dedicated servers do not. This is why I would play killzone, warhawk, resistance or uncharted online any day over anything on Xbox live.
Starman
HG, you don’t like MS because they use marketing to sell their products?!!! Ok…
Yes a few ps3 exclusives have dedicated servers, so do some 360 exclusives. Have you even used a 360 & xbox live for a long period? If not then your opinions are not based on experience like mine are.
ignorbert
Ok.. but if the PC version has it dedicated servers and Xbox One got there azure thunder dedicated servers.. would this not imply PS got their dedicated server because PC and Xbox are not on there :-)