Decline PS4 wins the console war against XboxONE, yet it is a hollow victory as Consolesdämmerung is upon us

[Average Manatee]

Afaik, none of those are hosted on a cloud

So now we've reached the "no true scotsman" point of the debate.

I've seen the "No true Scotsman" fallacy misapplied in many different ways, but that there's one of the worst.

No?

IDtenT says that servers will never go offline because magical cloud. When shown a large list of servers that have gone offline he then retorts that they weren't on the cloud.

 

[Average Manatee]

http://www.destructoid.com/an-industry-that-needs-xbox-one-drm-is-a-failed-industry-256643.phtml

That's a good one.

 

[felipepepe]

I don't usually like Jim Sterling, but that was one damn nice piece.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Prove you deserve to survive. It's a business ... and that means you're not fucking entitled to your existence.

It's a business when it benefits them to be a business. When it doesn't, it's "plz think of use we need moneyz to make billion dollar gaemz. why don't you suck this big fat cock just so we give you the opportunity of playing the next 5 hour blockbuster? hmm? ok, i knew you'll see that our happiness is more important than yours".

to this Sterling dude, whoever he is.

 

[IDtenT]

Afaik, none of those are hosted on a cloud

So now we've reached the "no true scotsman" point of the debate.

I've seen the "No true Scotsman" fallacy misapplied in many different ways, but that there's one of the worst.

No?

IDtenT says that servers will never go offline because magical cloud. When shown a large list of servers that have gone offline he then retorts that they weren't on the cloud.

Because they weren't. It's a fucking strawman for you to compare dedicated servers to the cloud.

 

[evdk]

The Kwans are conquering through war, while the Chinks are conquering through business acquisitions.

Chinks win.

That would mean that Rex is winning and that would be just wrong.

 

[IDtenT]

http://www.destructoid.com/an-industry-that-needs-xbox-one-drm-is-a-failed-industry-256643.phtml

Another person that fails to see that game copies cost nothing to manufacture.

 

[Spectacle]

"More studios WILL close and you’ll see more PC and mobile games," warned Bleszinski

Afaik, none of those are hosted on a cloud

So now we've reached the "no true scotsman" point of the debate.

I've seen the "No true Scotsman" fallacy misapplied in many different ways, but that there's one of the worst.

No?

IDtenT says that servers will never go offline because magical cloud. When shown a large list of servers that have gone offline he then retorts that they weren't on the cloud.

Yes exactly. Your listing of non-cloud servers that have gone offline does nothing to refute his position that could servers will not go offline.
If you want to turn your statement into a valid argument you need supporting arguments to show that the cloud is not "magical" and that cloud servers can and will be taken offline the same way as non-cloud servers. You can't simply shout "fallacy" and expect that the rest of your argument will take care of itself.

Futhermore, the essence of the "No true Scotsman" informal fallacy is that the speaker attempts to post-hoc narrow the scope of a statement that has been proven false by a counter-example. IDtenT has done no such thing, he has been talking about cloud servers the whole time and so the conversation does not resemble the NTS fallacy.

 

[J_C]

This is pathetic. These people should be fucked in the ass with a huge dildo.

 

[Average Manatee]

"More studios WILL close and you’ll see more PC and mobile games," warned Bleszinski

Afaik, none of those are hosted on a cloud

So now we've reached the "no true scotsman" point of the debate.

I've seen the "No true Scotsman" fallacy misapplied in many different ways, but that there's one of the worst.

No?

IDtenT says that servers will never go offline because magical cloud. When shown a large list of servers that have gone offline he then retorts that they weren't on the cloud.

Yes exactly. Your listing of non-cloud servers that have gone offline does nothing to refute his position that could servers will not go offline.
If you want to turn your statement into a valid argument you need supporting arguments to show that the cloud is not "magical" and that cloud servers can and will be taken offline the same way as non-cloud servers. You can't simply shout "fallacy" and expect that the rest of your argument will take care of itself.

"Cloud" does not exist. There is no technical difference between cloud servers or non-cloud servers, it is merely a marketing euphemism to sell services. Anyone who thinks differently is a marketing tool. IDtenT is saying that cloud servers never go offline and yet all of these servers were cloud servers and they are now offline. That is all.

Futhermore, the essence of the "No true Scotsman" informal fallacy is that the speaker attempts to post-hoc narrow the scope of a statement that has been proven false by a counter-example. IDtenT has done no such thing, he has been talking about cloud servers the whole time and so the conversation does not resemble the NTS fallacy.

Not at all. Let me break it down for you nice and simple.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Then you are not a true Scotsman."

IDtenT: "No cloud server would ever go offline"
Everyone else: "These (fuck huge list) went offline"
IDtenT: "Those weren't really cloud servers. Cloud servers never go offline"

 

[DarthBehemoth]

Al this butthurt over DRM, Kinect and used games just makes me happy that I have a nice, powerful PC next to me
PC elitism aside, I really think this is the last generation of (high-end) consoles. In the next gen, everyone will probably try to emulate the succes of the WIi (Make cheaper and shorter games) while true gamers will resort to PC or gaming tablets.

 

[IDtenT]

Average Manatee, you're being a moron. There is a huge difference between cloud servers and dedicated servers. The name should even give you a hint. A dedicated server is dedicated to a few functions, if those functions are not being used anymore that server is retired. A cloud server is one in a collection of many servers that all serve to host the cloud. The collection of servers, or cloud, then address ALL server needs that eligible users might want to offload onto the cloud. That is, the cloud manages all server task, the cloud does self-management between its servers to maximise performance across the board. Retiring one of these servers does not in fact retire the cloud as there are many other servers hosting the cloud. The only way a service of the cloud is retired is if MS thinks its use of resources are disproportionate to the income it generates - this is highly unlikely for older games, especially given that Live Gold is a subscription service. The only likely way you'll lose ability to play an online game is if MS retired the entire cloud - which is an absurd notion.

Cloud servers will go offline. The cloud will not. Virtual servers will be created on the cloud as needed. The dedicated servers that were retired was retired because of the physical reality, just like cloud servers will be retired. It's got nothing to do with virtual dedicated servers. Your argument is a strawman. Unless you have proof that EA hosted those services on a cloud, which EA does not posses, your argument is nonsense.

 

[Dexter]

Yes exactly. Your listing of non-cloud servers that have gone offline does nothing to refute his position that could servers will not go offline.
If you want to turn your statement into a valid argument you need supporting arguments to show that the cloud is not "magical" and that cloud servers can and will be taken offline the same way as non-cloud servers. You can't simply shout "fallacy" and expect that the rest of your argument will take care of itself.

Futhermore, the essence of the "No true Scotsman" informal fallacy is that the speaker attempts to post-hoc narrow the scope of a statement that has been proven false by a counter-example. IDtenT has done no such thing, he has been talking about cloud servers the whole time and so the conversation does not resemble the NTS fallacy.

You can't prove something that doesn't exist. "Cloud" is a marketing term nowadays e.g. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing

Cloud computing is a colloquial expression used to describe a variety of different computing concepts that involve a large number of computers that are connected through a real-time communication network (typically the Internet). Cloud computing is a jargon term without a commonly accepted non-ambiguous scientific or technical definition. In science, cloud computing is a synonym for distributed computing over a network and means the ability to run a program on many connected computers at the same time. The popularity of the term can be attributed to its use in marketing to sell hosted services in the sense of application service provisioning that run client server software on a remote location.

In its initial meaning it was close to grid computing, which is basically what applications like SETI@Home or Folding@Home did by distributing data sets and letting various PCs in their network compute them for them to offer back results.

Nowadays it's basically used for anything because saying "magic" is easier than reffering to what is actually happening and explaining it similar to how you could reply to anything happening around you with "physics".

Saving data remotely or even File hosting services like Megaupload? Cloud.
Video streaming something that runs remotely? Cloud.
Dedicated server (virtualized or not)? Cloud.
MMO master servers? Cloud.
Saving save games / Screenshots / specific players states etc. remotely? Cloud.

For instance, I was running a Left4Dead server on a VMWare machine a few years back that was also running some webservers/websites and mail servers. Was I suddenly running a "cloud service"?

It's bullshit that Marketing people love and people like IDtenT that don't know what they are talking about love to use. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[Average Manatee]

Average Manatee, you're being a moron. There is a huge difference between cloud servers and dedicated servers. The name should even give you a hint. A dedicated server is dedicated to a few functions, if those functions are not being used anymore that server is retired. A cloud server is one in a collection of many servers that all serve to host the cloud. The collection of servers, or cloud, then address ALL server needs that eligible users might want to offload onto the cloud. That is, the cloud manages all server task, the cloud does self-management between its servers to maximise performance across the board. Retiring one of these servers does not in fact retire the cloud as there are many other servers hosting the cloud. The only way a service of the cloud is retired is if MS thinks its use of resources are disproportionate to the income it generates - this is highly unlikely for older games, especially given that Live Gold is a subscription service. The only likely way you'll lose ability to play an online game is if MS retired the entire cloud - which is an absurd notion.

Cloud servers will go offline. The cloud will not. Virtual servers will be created on the cloud as needed. The dedicated servers that were retired was retired because of the physical reality, just like cloud servers will be retired. It's got nothing to do with virtual dedicated servers. Your argument is a strawman. Unless you have proof that EA hosted those services on a cloud, which EA does not posses, your argument is nonsense.

No, you are a moron. I can take all 40-odd servers that I maintain and set up a bunch of VMs for them in a few hours so that they all run off the same machine. This is all that "cloud" is, piling multiple servers on a single machine, which has been done for decades. You can do this to ANY server. It's literally the standard practice of any competent server admin.

There is no need to prove that one is on a dedicated server and the other is on a VM because there is no difference, they are interchangeable. Every since the term moved beyond distributed/grid computing (as dexter states) Cloud merely became vague marketing speak for anything involving servers to impress clueless suits into buying stuff they don't need.

Microsoft flat out retired XBox live for the original XBox. Are you telling me that microsoft is too incompetent to virtualize their servers? No, it gets retired because they don't want to maintain it, don't want to offer support for it, don't want customers playing old games, and don't want customers playing on old systems. That is why it ended, and the exact same thing will happen with XB360 and will also happen with XBOne regardless of magical fairy dust computing.

 

[Spectacle]

"Cloud" does not exist. There is no technical difference between cloud servers or non-cloud servers, it is merely a marketing euphemism to sell services. Anyone who thinks differently is a marketing tool. IDtenT is saying that cloud servers never go offline and yet all of these servers were cloud servers and they are now offline. That is all.

Now we're getting there, with the above statement included you have a valid argument. The onus is now on IDenT to show that the argument is false by disproving the premise that there is no technical difference between cloud servers or non-cloud servers. Let's see if he can do it, a single counterexample would be enough.

Futhermore, the essence of the "No true Scotsman" informal fallacy is that the speaker attempts to post-hoc narrow the scope of a statement that has been proven false by a counter-example. IDtenT has done no such thing, he has been talking about cloud servers the whole time and so the conversation does not resemble the NTS fallacy.

Not at all. Let me break it down for you nice and simple.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Then you are not a true Scotsman."

IDtenT: "No cloud server would ever go offline"
Everyone else: "These (fuck huge list) went offline"
IDtenT: "Those weren't really cloud servers. Cloud servers never go offline"

Except that is not what was said. This was:

IDtenT: "No cloud server would ever go offline"
Everyone else: "These (fuck huge list of non cloud servers) went offline"
IDtenT: "Those weren't cloud servers"

Superficially similar, but essentially different.

 

[IDtenT]

No, you are a moron. I can take all 40-odd servers that I maintain and set up a bunch of VMs for them in a few hours so that they all run off the same machine. This is all that "cloud" is, piling multiple servers on a single machine, which has been done for decades. You can do this to ANY server. It's literally the standard practice of any competent server admin.

There is no need to prove that one is on a dedicated server and the other is on a VM because there is no difference, they are interchangeable. Every since the term moved beyond distributed/grid computing (as dexter states) Cloud merely became vague marketing speak for anything involving servers to impress clueless suits into buying stuff they don't need.

The difference is scale. Both in functions and hardware. 40-odd servers is not close to the kind of capacities that Google, Amazon or MS has.

 

[Average Manatee]

Now we're getting there, with the above statement included you have a valid argument.

It's been stated multiple times in the thread. I can't repeat everything everyone has stated in every post I make just for the sake of making every side of the entire argument within a single post.

No, you are a moron. I can take all 40-odd servers that I maintain and set up a bunch of VMs for them in a few hours so that they all run off the same machine. This is all that "cloud" is, piling multiple servers on a single machine, which has been done for decades. You can do this to ANY server. It's literally the standard practice of any competent server admin.

There is no need to prove that one is on a dedicated server and the other is on a VM because there is no difference, they are interchangeable. Every since the term moved beyond distributed/grid computing (as dexter states) Cloud merely became vague marketing speak for anything involving servers to impress clueless suits into buying stuff they don't need.

The difference is scale. Both in functions and hardware. 40-odd servers is not close to the kind of capacities that Google, Amazon or MS has.

Except it isn't. At all. Why would it be? Old games that a few dozen people a week play don't NEED that scale. Even if they did, you can easily deploy VMs across multiple systems at once, scaling to any amount of hardware you like.

 

[IDtenT]

Microsoft flat out retired XBox live for the original XBox. Are you telling me that microsoft is too incompetent to virtualize their servers? No, it gets retired because they don't want to maintain it, don't want to offer support for it, don't want customers playing old games, and don't want customers playing on old systems. That is why it ended, and the exact same thing will happen with XB360 and will also happen with XBOne regardless of magical fairy dust computing.

The scale was different back then. Azure did not exist (at least to my knowledge). The stress of the XBO EOL will be a lot less on the system (which I'm not sure existed back then, likely it was a bunch of servers purely dedicated to the XB) than the original XB was.

I can remember killing every single non-essential process in Windows 95, because there was a significant loss in performance for other tasks. Today I happily run anti-virus software, web browsers with multiple tabs and a game all at the same time and I couldn't give a fuck. (Bad analogy? Maybe, but it gives an indication of how insignificant old processes become over time.)

 

[LeStryfe79]

 

[Average Manatee]

Microsoft flat out retired XBox live for the original XBox. Are you telling me that microsoft is too incompetent to virtualize their servers? No, it gets retired because they don't want to maintain it, don't want to offer support for it, don't want customers playing old games, and don't want customers playing on old systems. That is why it ended, and the exact same thing will happen with XB360 and will also happen with XBOne regardless of magical fairy dust computing.

The scale was different back then. Azure did not exist (at least to my knowledge). The stress of the XBO EOL will be a lot less on the system (which I'm not sure existed back then, likely it was a bunch of servers purely dedicated to the XB) than the original XB was.

lol, no. Please, get a clue. Quit drinking marketing kool-aid. You are again invoking magical fairy dust to pretend that two things that are exactly the same have wildly different performance characteristics due to what term the marketing division slaps on it.

The fact of the matter is that servers are relatively cheap for any major company. Bandwidth is cheap too. What isn't is the flat cost of maintainence, support, and the opportunity costs of lost products elsewhere (from people busy playing old games instead of buying new ones). None of those go away no matter how much magic fairy dust you wave around. They spell doom for any continued online support for old Xbox games.

I can remember killing every single non-essential process in Windows 95, because there was a significant loss in performance for other tasks. Today I happily run anti-virus software, web browsers with multiple tabs and a game all at the same time and I couldn't give a fuck.

What are you even talking about? OS overhead on servers has never been more than a few percent.

 

[IDtenT]

Except it isn't. At all. Why would it be? Old games that a few dozen people a week play don't NEED that scale.

You're exactly correct and that's my entire point. MS didn't have that scale back then. They do have it now. Is that really so difficult to take it into account?

 

[IDtenT]

lol, no. Please, get a clue. Quit drinking marketing kool-aid. You are again invoking magical fairy dust to pretend that two things that are exactly the same have wildly different performance characteristics due to what term the marketing division slaps on it.

Scale bro scale. You refuse to accept that the scale is different.

 

[Spectacle]

Now we're getting there, with the above statement included you have a valid argument.

It's been stated multiple times in the thread. I can't repeat everything everyone has stated in every post I make just for the sake of making every side of the entire argument within a single post.

Hmm, just read through all the last pages I see you have actually in stated that the cloud is just regular servers, while IDtenT has said that they're not. Neither have provided any real facts to back these statements, so I guess it's just a bullshitting contest at this point.

Still no excuse for abusing No True Scotsman

 

[Average Manatee]

Except it isn't. At all. Why would it be? Old games that a few dozen people a week play don't NEED that scale.

You're exactly correct and that's my entire point. MS didn't have that scale back then. They do have it now. Is that really so difficult to take it into account?

IDtenT is becoming entirely incomprehensible to me. Can anyone else decipher the point he is trying to make?

lol, no. Please, get a clue. Quit drinking marketing kool-aid. You are again invoking magical fairy dust to pretend that two things that are exactly the same have wildly different performance characteristics due to what term the marketing division slaps on it.

Scale bro scale. You refuse to accept that the scale is different.

All I can think of is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs

 

[trais]

ITT I learned that cloud is magic because of scale. Thank you codex!
*You lost: 10 WIS, 5 SAN*