PUBG is now using Azure for multiplayer rather than AWS

[AlTech]

PUBG is now using Microsoft Azure for game servers and online multiplayer rather than Amazon AWS.

 

This is quite interesting and was announced during Microsoft's quarterly earning call.

 

This is what Satya nadella had to say about it:

Quote

Gaming pushes the boundaries of hardware and software innovation, with some of the most CPU and GPU-intensive applications and content, giving us a huge opportunity in the cloud. As one example, PUBG Corp., with the hit game PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, is not only partnering to make Xbox the exclusive console at launch, but is also running on Azure.

 

Microsoft is hoping it'll be able to expand it's cloud business in the gaming sector.

 

As mentioned previously in a prior LTT Tech News by myself, the game will be enhanced for Xbox One X.

Quote

Additionally, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds is coming to Xbox One soon and is expected to be enhanced for Xbox One X. The title will launch in Xbox Game Preview. Xbox Game Preview allows developers to sell unfinished games to the Xbox community in exchange for valuable feedback which helps guide the development process

 

Interesting. Traditionally I would have thought that AWS was better for games but I guess we'll have to wait and see if the change is noticeable or not and if it affects Sony's platforms.

 

Source:

https://www.windowscentral.com/playerunknowns-battlegrounds-now-using-microsoft-azure-instead-amazon-web-services

[BrinkGG]

Interesting to see this switch. Any data on when this switch happened? 

 

[AlTech]

6 minutes ago, Brink2Three said:

Interesting to see this switch. Any data on when this switch happened? 

 

Probably pretty recently. Beyond that, I don't know.

[KuJoe]

When you start getting that sweet sweet MS money you spend it on MS services. 

[KuJoe]

Also for those asking what this means for your current lag on US servers? Don't expect a huge change. Just like AWS it's based in Virginia on the east coast and California on the west coast.

[BrinkGG]

23 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

Also for those asking what this means for your current lag on US servers? Don't expect a huge change. Just like AWS it's based in Virginia on the east coast and California on the west coast.

Yet we still don't know the hardware used per PUBG servers...

[Taf the Ghost]

Azure is one of Satya's big projects, and a lot of people are using it. It's interesting that it's shown up for a Gaming project, but it's a good "synergy" play. Microsoft can run the servers on their own products, which also should save them money on 1st party products.

[KuJoe]

8 minutes ago, Brink2Three said:

Yet we still don't know the hardware used per PUBG servers...

I'm sure it's a few cores and a few GB of RAM per server, nothing fancy. Hardware doesn't have any impact on the latency and multiplayer games don't need a lot of resources.

[mr moose]

I'd be quite interested to know how just how big gaming is when it comes to server market share.  I can't imagine it would be big enough to make a big deal over when addressing investors.

[KuJoe]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'd be quite interested to know how just how big gaming is when it comes to server market share.  I can't imagine it would be big enough to make a big deal over when addressing investors.

Just doing some quick math in the past 1 hour they spun up at least 20079 servers. That's a pretty significant number when you consider that's just within the last hour and that's assuming each game had 100 players in it, for each game that only had 99 or fewer players in it that server count goes up by one. 

[mr moose]

Just now, KuJoe said:

Just doing some quick math in the past 1 hour they spun up at least 20079 servers. That's a pretty significant number when you consider that's just within the last hour and that assuming each game had 100 players in it, for games that only had 99 or fewer players in it that server count goes up by one. 

How many servers per rack? and how does that compare to commercial business requirements? 

[KuJoe]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

How many servers per rack? and how does that compare to commercial business requirements? 

These aren't physical servers. Just like AWS, Azure is 100% virtual which is the reason why games like PUBG, H1Z1, and others use them. I don't specifically know how their infrastructure is setup, but the cheapest solution (and also the one with the best performance) is for each individual game to spin up a new VM for that specific game (i.e. 1 VM per ~100 players), when the game is over you delete it. This is also why they majority of games like this are using services that offer hourly billing instead monthly billing because it scales based on the popularity of the game and you only pay for what you use.

 

Now for games that don't have a specific time limit or end game condition (i.e. MMOs), dedicated hardware would be the better option. I also wouldn't doubt if Bluehole/PUBG Corp had dedicated hardware for their Asia location because it would be cheaper for them to build and maintain servers locally versus remotely (this is just my theory based on people claiming to have better performance on Asia servers in PUBG).

 

 

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

These aren't physical servers. Just like AWS, Azure is 100% virtual which is the reason why games like PUBG, H1Z1, and others use them. I don't specifically know how their infrastructure is setup, but the cheapest solution (and also the one with the best performance) is for each individual game to spin up a new VM for that specific game (i.e. 1 VM per ~100 players), when the game is over you delete it. This is also why they majority of games like this are using services that offer hourly billing instead monthly billing because it scales based on the popularity of the game and you only pay for what you use.

 

Now for games that don't have a specific time limit or end game condition (i.e. MMOs), dedicated hardware would be the better option. I also wouldn't doubt if Bluehole/PUBG Corp had dedicated hardware for their Asia location because it would be cheaper for them to build and maintain servers locally versus remotely (this is just my theory based on people claiming to have better performance on Asia servers in PUBG).

 

 

 

Maybe I should user simpler words, how much server resources does gaming currently use compared to the rest of the business world?

[KuJoe]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Maybe I should user simpler words, how much server resources does gaming currently use compared to the rest of the business world?

That's a good question, but you'd probably be comparing apples or oranges. Most businesses will run the same VMs 24x7 for months at a time whereas gaming companies the amount of resources in use varies based on the time of day. I guess if you looked at it within a specific time frame it might be somewhat comparable. It would be interesting to see a report on how many CPU hours each company used, but not all of those CPU hours would be specific to one task.

[captain cactus]

This means diddly jack if it's still running with a tickrate of less than 20 for most of the time.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, KuJoe said:

That's a good question, but you'd probably be comparing apples or oranges. Most businesses will run the same VMs 24x7 for months at a time whereas gaming companies the amount of resources in use varies based on the time of day. I guess if you looked at it within a specific time frame it might be somewhat comparable. It would be interesting to see a report on how many CPU hours each company used, but not all of those CPU hours would be specific to one task.

 

Just comparing physical load (a commodity that MS or Amazon can sell).   I mean if gaming is a demand that has $$ in it for cloud services, then I can see why MS might talk about it during an earning call, but if not then I have to wonder if gaming is some thing MS are starting to take seriously again? 

[KuJoe]

Just now, mr moose said:

Just comparing physical load (a commodity that MS or Amazon can sell).   I mean if gaming is a demand that has $$ in it for cloud services, then I can see why MS might talk about it during an earning call, but if not then I have to wonder if gaming is some thing MS are starting to take seriously again? 

I think PUBG is the first game that I'm aware of to use Azure (and to switch away from AWS is a huge deal). It sounds like MS is trying to steal some of the gaming market away from AWS where a lot of the big titles are hosted.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

I think PUBG is the first game that I'm aware of to use Azure (and to switch away from AWS is a huge deal). It sounds like MS is trying to steal some of the gaming market away from AWS where a lot of the big titles are hosted.

I hope you're right. Because that's the sort of competition that actually has an effect on customers. 

[KuJoe]

Just now, mr moose said:

I hope you're right. Because that's the sort of competition that actually has an effect on customers. 

Agreed. Cheaper servers = lower queue times.

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

but if not then I have to wonder if gaming is some thing MS are starting to take seriously again? 

Bahaha good one.

My guess is that Microsoft wants to steal some marketshare from AWS and offered them extra help or some special pricing deal in order to make PUBG change platform.

 

AWS is currently much, much bigger than Azure in terms of revenue (I think about 5 times as big) but in terms of actual users they are far more even (with AWS still leading by a significant margin but not anywhere near as big). My guess is that Microsoft are currently using very appealing deals to snatch users away from other providers, and once those expires their customer:revenue ration should go up too, to be more similar to Amazon's.

[KuJoe]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

My guess is that Microsoft wants to steal some marketshare from AWS and offered them extra help or some special pricing deal in order to make PUBG change platform.

That's what I interpreted from the article also. Based on the fact that MS convinced them to make PUBG an Xbox exclusive when launched on console I'm willing to bet either a ton of Azure credits were provided in addition to whatever they paid them or they just paid them a boat load of money and the contract required them to move to Azure also. Either way, MS wrote a check and PUBG switched servers. Hopefully it doesn't kill PUBG's momentum.

[laminutederire]

Who cares about the servers? It's not like the servers were holding back the game before, but rather their awful netcode..

[KuJoe]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Who cares about the servers? It's not like the servers were holding back the game before, but rather their awful netcode..

The servers aren't the big story here, I think the change in platform is.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Brink2Three said:

Yet we still don't know the hardware used per PUBG servers...

It's all the same hardware, AWS and Azure just use servers like anyone else does. The biggest difference is what the customer is prepared to pay for resource wise.

[laminutederire]

3 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

The servers aren't the big story here, I think the change in platform is.

Well it depends what they do with said platform. If they sit on their asses, it won't change anything or will even be worse