Jump to content



Photo

Microsoft demonstrates Halo 4 streaming from the cloud

gaming microsoft cloud

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#16 vcfan

vcfan

    POP POP RET

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 27 September 2013 - 22:32

Because of the unrealistically low latency. Look up test on things like gaikai/onlive and you'll see why i say that.

 

just because gaikai/onlive are incompetent doesnt mean it cant be done. they dont have nearly close the resources and infrastructure microsoft has.




#17 madd-hatter

madd-hatter

    Crazy Hat Salesman

  • Joined: 17-January 07
  • Location: World Citizen

Posted 27 September 2013 - 23:39

I'm going to take this like I take 80% of my gaming news these days:

Vid or didn't happen.



#18 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 28 September 2013 - 00:12

just because gaikai/onlive are incompetent doesnt mean it cant be done. they dont have nearly close the resources and infrastructure microsoft has.

So we're supposed to take at face value that Microsoft has managed to eliminate latency in streaming games? Other services made the same claims and every time they have failed to live up to expectations. Don't forget that any latency claims will be in addition to the latency from the controller. And it's worth pointing out that Gaikai is owned by Sony, a company with resources to match Microsoft's.

 

If Microsoft could stream games with minimal latency and with high graphical fidelity then there wouldn't be any need for the Xbox One. What you'll find is that it's like OnLive, which is to say that it will be playable for some genres of game but with heavily compressed visuals and noticeable latency. That's fine for mobiles and tablets where it will be able to surpass the quality achievable locally but it won't be even close to a replacement for consoles themselves.



#19 OP kaotic

kaotic

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 20-June 04
  • Location: Asheville, NC

Posted 28 September 2013 - 00:19

And it's worth pointing out that Gaikai is owned by Sony, a company with resources to match Microsoft's.

 

 

Not even close.

 

And I doubt MS is looking at it as a replacement for consoles. They're probably looking at it as a way to play OG xbox, and xbox360 games on all platforms. There's been a lot of people who've wanted to play games like Halo 3 on PC and this is one way they could.



#20 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 28 September 2013 - 00:30

Not even close.

Please, do explain your reasoning.



#21 vcfan

vcfan

    POP POP RET

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 28 September 2013 - 02:16



So we're supposed to take at face value that Microsoft has managed to eliminate latency in streaming games? Other services made the same claims and every time they have failed to live up to expectations. Don't forget that any latency claims will be in addition to the latency from the controller. And it's worth pointing out that Gaikai is owned by Sony, a company with resources to match Microsoft's.

 

If Microsoft could stream games with minimal latency and with high graphical fidelity then there wouldn't be any need for the Xbox One. What you'll find is that it's like OnLive, which is to say that it will be playable for some genres of game but with heavily compressed visuals and noticeable latency. That's fine for mobiles and tablets where it will be able to surpass the quality achievable locally but it won't be even close to a replacement for consoles themselves.

 

let me know when they match the 300,000 xbox live servers. they couldnt even match the 15,000 used by the 360.



#22 siah1214

siah1214

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 09-April 12

Posted 28 September 2013 - 02:23

Microsoft's datacenters have over a million physical servers in Azure.   300,000 (I'm guessing virtual) servers for xbox live.  The idea that sony can match that is downright laughable and can only be attributed to fanboy bias. 



#23 Showan

Showan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 28-November 12
  • Location: Amurrika
  • OS: W7, W8
  • Phone: Lumia 521

Posted 28 September 2013 - 02:25

Please, do explain your reasoning.


OnLive & Gakai was decent for the time period they existed in. Sony has since purchased Gaikai and as it stood then vs now, I'm sure is night and day (and I mean this in a good way for Sony). But even with all that flushing out, OnLive and Gaikai (even if combined) doesnt have the infrastructure back end like Microsoft does.

With Azure server farms all over the Globe and growing, pings with be much better. And Microsoft has BILLIONS & BILLIONS of $$$ to throw at this... The only thing that would hold things are ISP's whose networks aren't up to par to handle...

#24 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:10

OnLive & Gakai was decent for the time period they existed in. Sony has since purchased Gaikai and as it stood then vs now, I'm sure is night and day (and I mean this in a good way for Sony). But even with all that flushing out, OnLive and Gaikai (even if combined) doesnt have the infrastructure back end like Microsoft does.

With Azure server farms all over the Globe and growing, pings with be much better. And Microsoft has BILLIONS & BILLIONS of $$$ to throw at this... The only thing that would hold things are ISP's whose networks aren't up to par to handle...

But as you point out, a lot of the difference relates to networks which are beyond Microsoft's control. Microsoft hasn't suddenly eliminated that. Further, while Microsoft does have an advantage when it comes to cloud computing it can't simply dedicate all of that to its Xbox division—afterall, it's trying to leverage that to make money—and Sony can simply outsource its cloud computing to third parties with more experience.

 

I just don't find it plausible that Microsoft has suddenly perfected streaming technology, not at a time when people still have trouble streaming 1080p YouTube videos on connections that are theoretically more than adequate. I simply doubt that Microsoft can get real-world latency anywhere near as low as it is claiming and that it is profitable to provide such a service to gamers without additional cost.



#25 JonnyLH

JonnyLH

    I say things.

  • Joined: 15-February 13
  • Location: UK
  • OS: W8, W7, WP8, iOS, Ubuntu
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:29

But as you point out, a lot of the difference relates to networks which are beyond Microsoft's control. Microsoft hasn't suddenly eliminated that. Further, while Microsoft does have an advantage when it comes to cloud computing it can't simply dedicate all of that to its Xbox division—afterall, it's trying to leverage that to make money—and Sony can simply outsource its cloud computing to third parties with more experience.

I just don't find it plausible that Microsoft has suddenly perfected streaming technology, not at a time when people still have trouble streaming 1080p YouTube videos on connections that are theoretically more than adequate. I simply doubt that Microsoft can get real-world latency anywhere near as low as it is claiming and that it is profitable to provide such a service to gamers without additional cost.

Tell that to the financial 50.

People dismissing articles like this purely based on their personal opinion of a company is ridiculous. You've got the most competent server farming platform in the world which can effeciently deploy any application and scale based on usage resources using a lot of the HyperVM technology. Its very very good stuff.

Also people need to understand latency doesn't equal distance away, latency is based on throughput and hops.

#26 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:47

People dismissing articles like this purely based on their personal opinion of a company is ridiculous. You've got the most competent server farming platform in the world which can effeciently deploy any application and scale based on usage resources using a lot of the HyperVM technology. Its very very good stuff.

Also people need to understand latency doesn't equal distance away, latency is based on throughput and hops.

What I understand is that I have a 40Mbps internet connection and I can still have issues streaming 1080p YouTube videos and while I should have a fast enough connection for 4K I've never been able to stream it properly. What I also understand is that processing information locally has less latency than connecting to remote servers. What I understand is that Outlook.com has been more unreliable than competing email services, despite all the technology and expertise that Microsoft has.

 

I'm not critical of this purely because of my "personal opinion of a company" but because of my experience with OnLive, my knowledge of computing and an awareness that company's often wildly exaggerate their claims for marketing purposes. I honestly hope that Microsoft is able to overcome all of the issues and produce a streaming service that lives up to expectations but a test conducted under ideal circumstance is a far cry from the real world environment it needs to operate in.



#27 Showan

Showan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 28-November 12
  • Location: Amurrika
  • OS: W7, W8
  • Phone: Lumia 521

Posted 28 September 2013 - 14:02

But as you point out, a lot of the difference relates to networks which are beyond Microsoft's control. Microsoft hasn't suddenly eliminated that. Further, while Microsoft does have an advantage when it comes to cloud computing it can't simply dedicate all of that to its Xbox division—afterall, it's trying to leverage that to make money—and Sony can simply outsource its cloud computing to third parties with more experience.
 
I just don't find it plausible that Microsoft has suddenly perfected streaming technology, not at a time when people still have trouble streaming 1080p YouTube videos on connections that are theoretically more than adequate. I simply doubt that Microsoft can get real-world latency anywhere near as low as it is claiming and that it is profitable to provide such a service to gamers without additional cost.


I kinda see where you are coming from.. Microsoft test labs are beyond ideal situations where it just better work when they do things...
This has to be at the average home and tested there to see if things are working properly.

All beta test should be done at the average house with Net speeds ranging from 1.5down/up and up to 1gb fiber...

#28 Showan

Showan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 28-November 12
  • Location: Amurrika
  • OS: W7, W8
  • Phone: Lumia 521

Posted 28 September 2013 - 14:07

When gaming, Upload is more important than your download... You have 40mbos (which is probably download speeds) what about your upload?

At home I get 25down and 25up...

I think when streaming both are just as important as the other...


Speedtest Support
posted this on January 23, 2012 13:44
inShare

Here are the recommended connection speeds for many popular broadband activities. If you are doing multiple things at once online or sharing a connection with multiple computers, then these recommended speeds may not be enough.. All speeds are provided in the Speedtest.net default of mbps (megabits per second).

Skype (source: Skype Support)

For voice calls: 0.1 mbps download / 0.1 mbps upload
For video calls: 0.5 mbps download / 0.5 mbps upload
For HD video calls: 1.5 mbps download / 1.5 mbps upload
Important note: these connection speed requirements include downloading and uploading at the same time. Since Speedtest.net tests download and upload separately for accuracy, your results will need to be higher than the the numbers provided above. For example, your upload speed may be 2 mbps in the Speedtest.net result, but may go down to 1 mbps while your connection is downloading something.

Netflix (source: Netflix Help)

Basic-quality video: 1.5 mbps download
High-quality video: 3.0 mbps download
YouTube (source: YouTube Help)

Recommended: at least 0.5 mbps download
YouTube offers several quality levels for videos that you can use. The lower-numbers (360p) indicate that the video is smaller and uses less bandwidth, but also has less detailed. The more detailed the video (480p, 720p), the more bandwidth it takes to stream. Choose the highest video quality that allows you to stream without repeated stops and starts.

Hulu (source: Hulu Help)

Recommended: at least 1.0 mbps
Hulu also offers several different quality levels for different connection speeds. Using the gear icon under videos, you can tell Hulu to "Auto-select the best quality for my bandwidth (recommended)".

Online Video Games

Recommended: a low ping (less than 100ms)
For playing video games online, download and upload don't matter as much as ping, which measures how responsive your connection is. The lower ping to servers and other players, the lower the "lag" will be in your game. To lower ping, you can take steps like connecting your computer to the router using ethernet instead of Wi-Fi, and not downloading/uploading files while playing games.

Spotify (source: Spotify FAQ)

Recommended: 0.25 mbps
The bandwidth requirements for Rdio are similar, though both services offer a low-quality option for slower mobile connections.

https://support.spee...ideo-games-etc-



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!