I don't have specifics, but Microsoft was rather strict in regards to what external servers were allowed to be connected to Xbox Live, which added significant overhead (in regards to the hardware used, datacenters where servers could be hosted, and so on). I suspect that is still true today but it matters a lot less since Microsoft has rolled out Azure servers specifically for use on Xbox Live.Dr. Caroll said:
Here's what I've never quite understood. The less a service is used, the less is costs to run. Generally speaking. If only people a month are using a service, just stick the server on a bleeding Raspberry Pi somewhere. Oh, sure it's more complex than that in a big business, but sometimes I think they overcomplicate these things.
Click to expand
Click to shrink
I think the videogame industry's relatively slow uptake on cloud technology is going to hurt games, especially from the last generation. If this was set up as a properly run AWS or Google Compute instance, then if it was only being used by a few players than the actual usage bill would come out to a rounding error. Whereas if they actually have to have a colocated server somewhere running this thing, the baseline overhead for keeping the server up and running would be much more significant. Yeah, an indie developer could just shove a box in a closet somewhere and call it a day but Microsoft and Sony don't let you do that (or didn't, at least).
Источник: [diseinuak4web.net]
-
-
-