So if switching to Lumberyard to work on Amazon is such a brilliant move, why is it explicitly stated BY AMAZON that AWS is not intended for use with persistent universes?
Why don't we just replace this thread with a link to Derek Smart's Twitter if that's where we're going to get our "facts" from?
Why would Amazon sign an agreement with CIG if Amazon knows that CIG cannot use their services?
I like how you write "facts" as if what I'm talking about is from an unofficial source. I point out that there is a massive inconsistency with what's being presented, and suddenly we're all being compared to Derek friggin' Smart and his army of minions with pitchforks and torches. Good God, man, calm down. Though, obviously, I'm sure you refused to investigate Spoon's link purely because Spoon posted it. You don't find it the least bit odd that Amazon's only service is, by their own admission, suitable for anything but persistent universes? Unless they're keeping something hidden, which would be odd, because who wouldn't want to go "Hey guys we're supporting the biggest crowdfunded game in history!" and announce a special cloud-based service specifically for Star Citizen alongside CIG's acquisition of the Lumberyard engine?
I didn't refuse to investigate anything. I saw your post, which was directly after my post and quoted no other posts, and incorrectly assumed I could respond to it divorced from any other context. I did not see Spoon's post.
Further, your post references AWS, not GameLift like Spoon's post. AWS is an umbrella under which many services are offered at various prices. I am sure that some of the lower-tier offerings have disclaimers about unsupported uses. That does not mean that AWS as a whole offers no product that supports the intended usage. For example, you probably shouldn't host a website - or a persistent game - from the EBS on an EC2 instance. When that instance is no longer needed, your storage goes poof. Extrapolating "Hosting websites on AWS is not recommended!" from that would be foolish. You and Derek have both claimed that AWS is not recommended for MMO usage. The burden of proof is upon you, the maker of the claim, not upon me.
GameLift is indeed specifically marketed as a solution for session-based games. I've seen nothing from CIG specifically referencing their usage of GameLift, supported or unsupported. What have you seen that I haven't seen? Further, GameLift is hardly the only AWS-backed networking technology introduced with Lumberyard. It doesn't take much imagination to come up with potential uses of something like
GridMate.
I'm also at a loss for how GameLift is supposed to be useless to CIG. It wouldn't be suitable for a WoW-style MMO with a persistent server that all the users from a particular region connect to. However, from the beginning CIG has been talking about dynamically spinning up and standing down shards for subsets of users as they move about the universe. That kind of usage may not have the same kind of upper bound on instance lifetime that a DOTA 2 or CS:GO match might, but it's also a far cry from the kind of usage that Amazon is recommending against in the FAQ snippet that Spoon posted.
Finally, this should be the final nail in the coffin of any "AWS can't be used for MMOs!" argument.
Frontier Games uses AWS for their games, E:D among them. Any sin which you're accusing CIG of has already been committed by FD. Seems like it's working out pretty well for them. It's certainly working out well enough that Amazon has a video advertising the partnership on their site.
So if switching to Lumberyard to work on Amazon is such a brilliant move, why is it explicitly stated BY AMAZON that AWS is not intended for use with persistent universes?
Why don't we just replace this thread with a link to Derek Smart's Twitter if that's where we're going to get our "facts" from?
Why would Amazon sign an agreement with CIG if Amazon knows that CIG cannot use their services?
This just in, Derek Smart says that 1+1 equals 2. Therefore, 1+1 cannot equal 2. Mathematicians baffled by how they overlooked this.
Also, Chris Roberts (who has of course never exaggerated or lied about SC's development in any way) apparently knows more about Lumberyard's capabilities than Amazon does. That's why CIG's been working on Lumberyard for a year and only now informs its backers: Open Development.
So does David Braben! You better tell Amazon, so they can take that video down!
Just in case anyone is interested in hearing it from the horse's mouth, rather than speculating or trolling:
-snip-
Source: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/364217
Please resume your regularly scheduled 1440-minutes-hate.
The thing with this particular horse is that he has proven to be utterly unreliable and full of bull****.
Roberts's boundless optimism regarding future features and upcoming release dates is well-documented. Are there any recorded instances of him lying about or maliciously misconstruing the past?
If he tells me that 3.0 will be out in January or that exploration will be an incredibly engaging career in final SC, I'll take that with a truckload of salt. If he talks about an agreement that was hammered out six months ago, what reason do I have disbelieve him?
