So the logical conclusion is to make it on another console that in eight years will be replaced (even though the hardware on it is already out-dated) and we'll be right back in the same situation?

The future of this game is dependent on expanding beyond the PS3/PS4.

PC is the next step to ensure the long term health of this game.

Almost every one of you people posting on these forums is a $150 graphics card away from having a rig capable of playing UE3/4 based games. Hell, many of you probably don't even need an upgrade, you can just dial the graphics down to the current PS3 fidelity and start playing.

So please, stop with the crying.

Is it logical to support hosed over clocked, virus infected winblows desktops, that with a litle C# will become hacked-up aimboting wall hacking hero machines?

Sorry, pet peeve, but I need to deflate some of the mysticism around "The Cloud".

Here's how to get on Amazon's Cloud:

1) Sign up for AWS
2) Spin up an EC2 instance

Tada, you are now a cybercloud e-pioneer. Dot Com.

Your other points are about as relevant as sony being in the cloud. Bottom line is that the PS3 has a bigger install base than the PS4, and PC has a bigger install base than the PS3. If Dust is close to death on the PS3, why go to a SMALLER install base? The next jump should be on the platform with the most players and the most profit.

Actually AWS's EC2 instances are pretty famous for having terrible performance and IO in general, especially for their smaller instances. It's so bad they actually started advertising "Fast Network" on their extra large instances, for the low price of $200 a month. A dedicated server or "Private Cloud" is a much better fit for game server hosting. I've tested EC2 myself, it's not that great, there are cheaper and faster options out there.

Also, Steam is trying very hard to transcend windows, and their populations are pretty healthy for being dead: http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

There's 8 million people online currently, never mind the people who have their machines off, or who have their Steam client closed, or the people who aren't using Steam for gaming...

An FPS game server is basically the most uncachable thing in the world, especially in Dust where there's no per-server unique game assets(maps, models, textures, and the rest are distributed with the game via PSN, not at connect time to a game server). Most of what a game server does is keep track of client locations and relay those locations to other clients. How the hell do you cache that?

Answer: You can't.

What you need for a good FPS game server is pure speed, and that is exactly what EC2 doesn't have. Even assuming you had an FPS game server that was deployable as a multi-node cluster, EC2 will still be terrible because the networking between EC2 instances is slow and unreliable. You'd have to get a special setup with Amazon to ensure all your instances spin up within the same physical location in their datacenter, and at that price point you're better off going with real hardware.

But all that is besides the point, as I said Dust using/not using AWS is a non factor( and if they ARE using AWS, it's probably the reason certain maps always stall at certain parts of the game....).

SteamOS, just like their Linux and Mac ports, are crucial to avoid letting Microsoft define PC gaming. This is good for everyone. Even if SteamOS fails, Valve isn't going out of business any time soon, as they are probably the world's single largest distributor of non-mobile games.

I'm happy that your family is playing your PS4, and I'd be happy for a PS4 port in the future, but in the meantime, and for ease of development/deployment/growth, PC is where Dust needs to go to grow up.