I'm pretty sure that the 256 mb the Xbox can run the game with is already enough to play the PC edition. People can mod their Xbox to play the PC edition, and not have a problem with frames per second. The PC edition has infinite worlds, and double the sky limit. This is Is not impossible because of ram, just because not everyone has a hard drive that can support large saves. Double the world size is not impossible. Also, look at some of 4J's tweets from may 9th.
I'm pretty sure that the 256 mb the Xbox can run the game with is already enough to play the PC edition. People can mod their Xbox to play the PC edition, and not have a problem with frames per second. The PC edition has infinite worlds, and double the sky limit. This is Is not impossible because of ram, just because not everyone has a hard drive that can support large saves. Double the world size is not impossible. Also, look at some of 4J's tweets from may 9th.
Chunks are handled differently on the Xbox 360 than they are on the PC. When playing with only 256MB of RAM on the PC version, you constantly get the Out of Memory screen because the game crashed from lack of RAM.
On the PC, chunks unload when the player is no longer occupying them and has moved far enough away. On the Xbox 360 Edition, all the chunks in the world stay loaded. That is why you can have a redstone device that functions all the way across the map, unlike the PC version.
The reason chunks work this way on the Xbox 360 is to optimize the game to run on the Xbox 360. It lets us have our 60fps and incredibly fast chunk loading speed. If they were to change it to the PC chunk loading system, the fps would become erratic and chunks would load much slower. Probably to the point where you would have to wait a somewhat long period of time for the world to generate when first loading it.
It's a design choice by 4J/Mojang/Microsoft to best use the Xbox 360's hardware to its maximum.
Just gonna slip this in again...
Rentable servers.
Who loves em?
Who dislikes the idea? w reason why
i want severs where you can make/play hunger games with randoms. but i dont want it if he have to pay for each round
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do you like Minecraft? Do you like Pokemon? Click here then! ---->
Do you want Pictures to see what it's like? Click here then! ----> GameJolt
If you want information about the game but don't wanna click either links or you just want more information. then go to my profile Bio, Or send me a message.
I think they should just increase the size a little, I mean, I would LOVE huge (or infinate) maps. However, the worlds loaded in 1.6.6, (the release format) would get new features in the new chunks. Bigger maps = good.
i would but i dnt have twitteri want severs where you can make/play hunger games with randoms. but i dont want it if he have to pay for each round
Ever played battlefield 3?
The servers on that are great you can rent them for as long as a year or as short as a day and decide what maps and Gamemodes there are aswell as different custom features like health% and stuff.
They'd work great for minecraft and if they have bigger map sizes which they should, you should be able to save it onto your HD where it can remain unplayable until you rent another server out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
I think they should just increase the size a little, I mean, I would LOVE huge (or infinate) maps. However, the worlds loaded in 1.6.6, (the release format) would get new features in the new chunks. Bigger maps = good.
Ever played battlefield 3?
The servers on that are great you can rent them for as long as a year or as short as a day and decide what maps and Gamemodes there are aswell as different custom features like health% and stuff.
They'd work great for minecraft and if they have bigger map sizes which they should, you should be able to save it onto your HD where it can remain unplayable until you rent another server out.
i never played BF3 online because i dont want to get a EA account. and if i have to pay fur servers then forget it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do you like Minecraft? Do you like Pokemon? Click here then! ---->
Do you want Pictures to see what it's like? Click here then! ----> GameJolt
If you want information about the game but don't wanna click either links or you just want more information. then go to my profile Bio, Or send me a message.
i never played BF3 online because i dont want to get a EA account. and if i have to pay fur servers then forget it.
You don't have to pay for anything.
If you want to host a server then yes you have to pay.
But if you're cheap I'm sure lots of other people are happy to pay a few hundred Microsoft points to get a server for the month.
4J have said they're thinking about it...
I would say start servers now so they have experience( if they decided they're waiting for next gen minecraft or something.)
Edit: P.S if you got battlefield to only play single player you're missing out.
Aswell as thinking larger maps are pure bad with no reasoning behind it, you're making me start to wonder.
Making it so that the only way to get bigger worlds if you rent a server or play with someone who rents a server is not acceptable in my opinion. How would that be fair to people who either don't want to spend money on a server or can't afford a server?
Would everyone without rented servers be restricted to the current world size and only those who pay money would get bigger worlds? Sounds horrible to me. Either they find a way to make the worlds bigger for every single person that owns the game, or they don't do it at all.
Making it so that the only way to get bigger worlds if you rent a server or play with someone who rents a server is not acceptable in my opinion. How would that be fair to people who either don't want to spend money on a server or can't afford a server?
Would everyone without rented servers be restricted to the current world size and only those who pay money would get bigger worlds? Sounds horrible to me. Either they find a way to make the worlds bigger for every single person that owns the game, or they don't do it at all.
Dice have public servers
4J could do that too
Why make the servers private that would just be silly.
Sure most people then wouldn't buy them but there's always people that don't like the way others are doing it and make their own.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
Since when does RAM not matter? Do you know what RAM does? Because if you said that in front of a game/software developer or anyone who has build a PC then they would probably get a pretty good laugh out of that comment. RAM is usually the biggest bottleneck in modern computers and devices and can have a major effect on gaming, hence the minimum RAM requirements on the package for computer software/games.
Dice also has the support of EA and a game that originally retailed for 60 dollars (compared to 20) not to mention continued income from multiple DLC packs and the option to buy skill upgrades bringing in even more money. I'm willing to bet that they also revamped a lot of server racks from previous games further offsetting hardware costs. As much as I love the idea of Minecraft Servers for Xbox you have to understand that running and maintaining servers is not cheap by any means. We're talking hardware purchases, software licenses (even a game server needs an operating system), constant power, backup systems, staff to keep everything running smoothly, regional facilities, dedicated ISP bandwidth, and more. Not even Halo has dedicated public servers and it is run by a Microsoft-owned subsidiary.
Since when does RAM not matter? Do you know what RAM does? Because if you said that in front of a game/software developer or anyone who has build a PC then they would probably get a pretty good laugh out of that comment. RAM is usually the biggest bottleneck in modern computers and devices and can have a major effect on gaming, hence the minimum RAM requirements on the package for computer software/games.
Dice also has the support of EA and a game that originally retailed for 60 dollars (compared to 20) not to mention continued income from multiple DLC packs and the option to buy skill upgrades bringing in even more money. I'm willing to bet that they also revamped a lot of server racks from previous games further offsetting hardware costs. As much as I love the idea of Minecraft Servers for Xbox you have to understand that running and maintaining servers is not cheap by any means. We're talking hardware purchases, software licenses (even a game server needs an operating system), constant power, backup systems, staff to keep everything running smoothly, regional facilities, dedicated ISP bandwidth, and more. Not even Halo has dedicated public servers and it is run by a Microsoft-owned subsidiary.
I'm not asking for as many servers as DICE and EA have given battlefield.
Heck even just start out with 10!
I don't care as long as the multiplayer sees an upgrade with rentable servers.
And If it works for them and they start bringing in profit, then bump them up a "Notch" ( pun intended )
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
I'm not asking for as many servers as DICE and EA have given battlefield.
Heck even just start out with 10!
I don't care as long as the multiplayer sees an upgrade with rentable servers.
And If it works for them and they start bringing in profit, then bump them up a "Notch" ( pun intended )
Rentable servers aren't really a big profit earner at the prices players would be willing to pay, if they did it the charge would be to offset costs not really generate piles of money. Although I admire your enthusiasm, they would still run into the problem of deciding where to set the servers up. Assuming they set aside the money to get started with 10 servers, where do they put them? They can't set them all up in the 4J Studios office considering how many players are in the US. Location is everything, which is why Dice/EA has East Coast, West Coast, and Central servers. Further away = Higher latency = More Lag. So the problem would be picking a location that wouldn't be unfair to the people renting them to ensure that they get their money's worth. That's why in many ways it is kind of an all-or-nothing situation, which sucks, but it is the reality of the technology.
You don't have to pay for anything.
If you want to host a server then yes you have to pay.
But if you're cheap I'm sure lots of other people are happy to pay a few hundred Microsoft points to get a server for the month.
4J have said they're thinking about it...
I would say start servers now so they have experience( if they decided they're waiting for next gen minecraft or something.)
Edit: P.S if you got battlefield to only play single player you're missing out.
Aswell as thinking larger maps are pure bad with no reasoning behind it, you're making me start to wonder.
i do have a reason. read the whole topic and u will find it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do you like Minecraft? Do you like Pokemon? Click here then! ---->
Do you want Pictures to see what it's like? Click here then! ----> GameJolt
If you want information about the game but don't wanna click either links or you just want more information. then go to my profile Bio, Or send me a message.
I'm not asking for as many servers as DICE and EA have given battlefield.
Heck even just start out with 10!
I don't care as long as the multiplayer sees an upgrade with rentable servers.
And If it works for them and they start bringing in profit, then bump them up a "Notch" ( pun intended )
10 Severs for over 5 million players....
That would go off without a hitch. Wouldn't be like Diablo 3 or SimCity all over again.
Rentable servers aren't really a big profit earner at the prices players would be willing to pay, if they did it the charge would be to offset costs not really generate piles of money. Although I admire your enthusiasm, they would still run into the problem of deciding where to set the servers up. Assuming they set aside the money to get started with 10 servers, where do they put them? They can't set them all up in the 4J Studios office considering how many players are in the US. Location is everything, which is why Dice/EA has East Coast, West Coast, and Central servers. Further away = Higher latency = More Lag. So the problem would be picking a location that wouldn't be unfair to the people renting them to ensure that they get their money's worth. That's why in many ways it is kind of an all-or-nothing situation, which sucks, but it is the reality of the technology.
Why they can put one in my house, your house, Mustache Guys house.
or they could just ask somebody with a lot of servers like dice If they can borrow some.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
Was meant to show that they can just quietly add more servers.
Ofcourse they would end up with more servers
Why they can put one in my house, your house, Mustache Guys house.
or they could just ask somebody with a lot of servers like dice If they can borrow some.
Once again I admire your enthusiasm, but unless you're paying $1500 a month for a T3 Connection there's no chance in heck that any of us have the Upstream bandwidth needed to support gaming servers. Even if you have a 100Mbps fiber connection that is just downstream and upstream is equally important in a server environment. The vast majority of servers are online using Symmetric Connections, meaning the Upstream and Downstream are equal; consumer connections are not even close, just check on SpeedTest.net and you'll see the difference between the two.
Additionally, "borrowing" servers isn't exactly feasible even if they somehow charmed Dice/EA into allowing it, we're not talking about borrowing a friend's laptop that runs Windows 7 so we can work on a Powerpoint presentation. Servers are built and software tuned for pretty specific needs so you can't just "turn off" BF3 and start up Minecraft like you're changing games on the Xbox, it is much more involved and servers are designed for specific purposes. I think at this point you're either grasping at straws or hopefully joking.
Once again I admire your enthusiasm, but unless you're paying $1500 a month for a T3 Connection there's no chance in heck that any of us have the Upstream bandwidth needed to support gaming servers. Even if you have a 100Mbps fiber connection that is just downstream and upstream is equally important in a server environment. The vast majority of servers are online using Symmetric Connections, meaning the Upstream and Downstream are equal; consumer connections are not even close, just check on SpeedTest.net and you'll see the difference between the two.
Additionally, "borrowing" servers isn't exactly feasible even if they somehow charmed Dice/EA into allowing it, we're not talking about borrowing a friend's laptop that runs Windows 7 so we can work on a Powerpoint presentation. Servers are built and software tuned for pretty specific needs so you can't just "turn off" BF3 and start up Minecraft like you're changing games on the Xbox, it is much more involved and servers are designed for specific purposes. I think at this point you're either grasping at straws or hopefully joking.
House thing was joke
But I learned something with servers, seems silly me thinking they wouldn't be built as cheaply as possible for running a single game perfectly.
However what of PC game servers maybe PC battlefield servers could be used a couple in every country able at support at least 24 or so players on the more powerful PC builds able to completely over power what is needed for minecraft?
I'm sure for a small fee Dice at least would be happy to lend some unless EA won't allow them to EA seems mean to me.
Hopefully if my argument isn't working 4J is at least seeing how badly I want some servers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
Everything done and run on a PC or consoles comes down to RAM.
When the PS4 was announced, Sony was happy to say that it had 8GB DDR5 RAM. They then went on to say "This is what developers have been asking for." RAM is the single most limiting thing about the Xbox 360 and PS3. If they had had more RAM when they launched they would have been much more powerful systems.
Hell, the minimum RAM required for PC Minecraft is 2GB and the recommended is 4GB.
On the PC, chunks unload when the player is no longer occupying them and has moved far enough away. On the Xbox 360 Edition, all the chunks in the world stay loaded. That is why you can have a redstone device that functions all the way across the map, unlike the PC version.
The reason chunks work this way on the Xbox 360 is to optimize the game to run on the Xbox 360. It lets us have our 60fps and incredibly fast chunk loading speed. If they were to change it to the PC chunk loading system, the fps would become erratic and chunks would load much slower. Probably to the point where you would have to wait a somewhat long period of time for the world to generate when first loading it.
It's a design choice by 4J/Mojang/Microsoft to best use the Xbox 360's hardware to its maximum.
Rentable servers.
Who loves em?
Who dislikes the idea? w reason why
Ever played battlefield 3?
The servers on that are great you can rent them for as long as a year or as short as a day and decide what maps and Gamemodes there are aswell as different custom features like health% and stuff.
They'd work great for minecraft and if they have bigger map sizes which they should, you should be able to save it onto your HD where it can remain unplayable until you rent another server out.
You don't have to pay for anything.
If you want to host a server then yes you have to pay.
But if you're cheap I'm sure lots of other people are happy to pay a few hundred Microsoft points to get a server for the month.
4J have said they're thinking about it...
I would say start servers now so they have experience( if they decided they're waiting for next gen minecraft or something.)
Edit: P.S if you got battlefield to only play single player you're missing out.
Aswell as thinking larger maps are pure bad with no reasoning behind it, you're making me start to wonder.
Making it so that the only way to get bigger worlds if you rent a server or play with someone who rents a server is not acceptable in my opinion. How would that be fair to people who either don't want to spend money on a server or can't afford a server?
Would everyone without rented servers be restricted to the current world size and only those who pay money would get bigger worlds? Sounds horrible to me. Either they find a way to make the worlds bigger for every single person that owns the game, or they don't do it at all.
Dice have public servers
4J could do that too
Why make the servers private that would just be silly.
Sure most people then wouldn't buy them but there's always people that don't like the way others are doing it and make their own.
Since when does RAM not matter? Do you know what RAM does? Because if you said that in front of a game/software developer or anyone who has build a PC then they would probably get a pretty good laugh out of that comment. RAM is usually the biggest bottleneck in modern computers and devices and can have a major effect on gaming, hence the minimum RAM requirements on the package for computer software/games.
Dice also has the support of EA and a game that originally retailed for 60 dollars (compared to 20) not to mention continued income from multiple DLC packs and the option to buy skill upgrades bringing in even more money. I'm willing to bet that they also revamped a lot of server racks from previous games further offsetting hardware costs. As much as I love the idea of Minecraft Servers for Xbox you have to understand that running and maintaining servers is not cheap by any means. We're talking hardware purchases, software licenses (even a game server needs an operating system), constant power, backup systems, staff to keep everything running smoothly, regional facilities, dedicated ISP bandwidth, and more. Not even Halo has dedicated public servers and it is run by a Microsoft-owned subsidiary.
I'm not asking for as many servers as DICE and EA have given battlefield.
Heck even just start out with 10!
I don't care as long as the multiplayer sees an upgrade with rentable servers.
And If it works for them and they start bringing in profit, then bump them up a "Notch" ( pun intended )
Rentable servers aren't really a big profit earner at the prices players would be willing to pay, if they did it the charge would be to offset costs not really generate piles of money. Although I admire your enthusiasm, they would still run into the problem of deciding where to set the servers up. Assuming they set aside the money to get started with 10 servers, where do they put them? They can't set them all up in the 4J Studios office considering how many players are in the US. Location is everything, which is why Dice/EA has East Coast, West Coast, and Central servers. Further away = Higher latency = More Lag. So the problem would be picking a location that wouldn't be unfair to the people renting them to ensure that they get their money's worth. That's why in many ways it is kind of an all-or-nothing situation, which sucks, but it is the reality of the technology.
That would go off without a hitch. Wouldn't be like Diablo 3 or SimCity all over again.
Was meant to show that they can just quietly add more servers.
Ofcourse they would end up with more servers
Why they can put one in my house, your house, Mustache Guys house.
or they could just ask somebody with a lot of servers like dice If they can borrow some.
Once again I admire your enthusiasm, but unless you're paying $1500 a month for a T3 Connection there's no chance in heck that any of us have the Upstream bandwidth needed to support gaming servers. Even if you have a 100Mbps fiber connection that is just downstream and upstream is equally important in a server environment. The vast majority of servers are online using Symmetric Connections, meaning the Upstream and Downstream are equal; consumer connections are not even close, just check on SpeedTest.net and you'll see the difference between the two.
Additionally, "borrowing" servers isn't exactly feasible even if they somehow charmed Dice/EA into allowing it, we're not talking about borrowing a friend's laptop that runs Windows 7 so we can work on a Powerpoint presentation. Servers are built and software tuned for pretty specific needs so you can't just "turn off" BF3 and start up Minecraft like you're changing games on the Xbox, it is much more involved and servers are designed for specific purposes. I think at this point you're either grasping at straws or hopefully joking.
House thing was joke
But I learned something with servers, seems silly me thinking they wouldn't be built as cheaply as possible for running a single game perfectly.
However what of PC game servers maybe PC battlefield servers could be used a couple in every country able at support at least 24 or so players on the more powerful PC builds able to completely over power what is needed for minecraft?
I'm sure for a small fee Dice at least would be happy to lend some unless EA won't allow them to EA seems mean to me.
Hopefully if my argument isn't working 4J is at least seeing how badly I want some servers.
When the PS4 was announced, Sony was happy to say that it had 8GB DDR5 RAM. They then went on to say "This is what developers have been asking for." RAM is the single most limiting thing about the Xbox 360 and PS3. If they had had more RAM when they launched they would have been much more powerful systems.
Hell, the minimum RAM required for PC Minecraft is 2GB and the recommended is 4GB.