A closer look at Titanfall's not-so-secret weapon: Microsoft's cloud

[vcfan]

This technology is not new and it's not revolutionary, there haven't been any breakthroughs - yet all of a sudden dedicated servers are a "thing" for consoles. Why is that? Or even more to the point, what about consoles stops/impedes the existing model the PC uses for servers from carrying over?

 

The PC model not only takes cost away from the developer/publisher, but gives the game a life even after the developer has completely discontined support. Why not give console titles the same advantage?

they're not raving that they can finally use servers to offload stuff like AI, they're raving about the platform. who else has the same infrastructure, sdk,tools and support for any game developers to easily use? thats the revolutionary thing.

[PGHammer]

You again have completely missed the point, which was explained easily above. I will say it again. It's a HUGE deal for us console gamers that have wanted dedicated servers, something PC gamers have always had. Again, a huge whoop for us. Maybe not a huge whoop for you obviously.

 

What happens when it storms out and my DirecTV goes out? What happens when someone cuts into my cable and my internet goes out? What happens when someone trips on the power cord and turns off my console? What happens when my internet drops on my cell phone? What happens if someone slams into my car and my body goes through the windshield and decapitates me?......

 

Everyone is at the mercy of servers, even peer to peer. Peer to peer are still going through servers.

 

It's just a big a deal for PC gamers, and for the exact reason that Athernar referred to - despite how easy it sounds, it is often BADLY mucked up in practice.

It is far from JUST an EA problem, and thus the issue still stands.

[Showan]

I like how they make it seem like it's some revolutionary technology by describing it as "offloading AI to the cloud", when the reality of it is all they're doing is using dedicated servers.

 

Big whoop, I play CS:GO vs bots on a dedicated server already. Power of the cloud indeed.

 

The big whoop is for console gaming...  People keep saying consoles and PC have been doing this, well they have and they sucked at it badly...

 

MAG on PS3 was a horrid experience.  

BF4 on Next Gen consoles and PC sucked

Sim City sucked

 

Respawn/Microsoft purposely gimped the servers in England (during crazy peak hours) just to see what would happen.  And Azure relocated them to the East Coast servers in America and handled it like a beast.  

 

Microsoft did something right.  And much as they have been ticking me off as of late, I have to give them their props...

[Athernar]

No, it's clearly you missing the point. And you even reiterated my point in your comment. But we can see why you are not comprehending. Had you actually read the article, your questions would have been answered direct from developers implementing these cloud services on their console titles.

 

I skimmed the article and found no such answers, nor have you been able to actually respond to any of the points I raised in my post. You clearly are not comprehending (or even bothering to read) or are being wilfully obtuse of the implications here.

 

Take South Africa like the article itself mentions, the game is completely unavailable in that region because of the absence of coverage - but with crowd-sourced dedicated servers that would not be an issue.

 

they're not raving that they can finally use servers to offload stuff like AI, they're raving about the platform. who else has the same infrastructure, sdk,tools and support for any game developers to easily use? thats the revolutionary thing.

 

They seem to spend a fair amount of time raving about both.

[Showan]

From what I am reading, if Azure has any issues whatsoever.  It appears the down time will be a few hours tops...

 

Not down time that results in: hours, that turn into days, that turn into months, that turn into "Well onto the next game", because I'm not going to bother with this one now.

[Showan]

I skimmed the article and found no such answers, nor have you been able to actually respond to any of the points I raised in my post. You clearly are not comprehending (or even bothering to read) or are being wilfully obtuse of the implications here.

 

Take South Africa like the article itself mentions, the game is completely unavailable in that region because of the absence of coverage - but with crowd-sourced dedicated servers that would not be an issue.

 

 

They seem to spend a fair amount of time raving about both.

 

Crowd Source is a good thing.  People's hearts are in the right place...

 

But the bad thing is, people run out of money... Microsoft seems to be gaining a ton of it, even in these still existing bad economic times.

 

Microsoft does have to get a Data Center somewhere in the Middle of Africa.  

 

No one is perfect.  But not a bad attempt at all if ya ask me.

[George P Global Moderator]

Man, who cares what they rave about or call it, either cloud or dedicated servers, some of you are pretty touchy about this like they kicked your dog.  Either play the game or don't, move on.  What's with this need to strike out at things that you don't like in this section of the forums? 

[Athernar]

Crowd Source is a good thing.  People's hearts are in the right place...

 

But the bad thing is, people run out of money... Microsoft seems to be gaining a ton of it, even in these still existing bad economic times.

 

Microsoft does have to get a Data Center somewhere in the Middle of Africa.  

 

No one is perfect.  But not a bad attempt at all if ya ask me.

 

That's the beauty of crowdsourcing in my opinion, individually you might have people running out of funds - but there is usually always someone ready to step up to the plate and take over.

[trooper11]

More arguing about the value of the 'cloud'?

Goodness, let it go already.

The 'cloud' is being used more and more across pc and console gaming. MS are in a position to offer all game developers cheap and easy access to the server infrastructure to do with as they please. That level of access is why its a big deal for developers in particular. MS thought that was worth touting and really, it is. MS has actually done something good here, which is rare, I know.

MS didn't 'invent' the cloud or make insane claims(unlike some tried to do on the internet), they have just decided to make it more accessible/approachable for developers. Then its up to the developers to see what they can use it for. The Titanfall developers are clearly happy that MS has given them that kind of access and they think its a big deal.

I guess the problem is that much of what the server infrastructure provides is not going to be obvious to the end user. Using server infrastructure in gaming is just another way of doing something that can be done in other ways. Its not like its some new way to game like say VR or motion controls, its just a different way for games to be created. These things will mean more to the game creators than they will to the game consumers.

[Brendeth]

Respawn benefited from Microsoft's support, and Microsoft benefited from a great second party game and publicity for their services. Since when is that such a bad thing?

[theyarecomingforyou]

More arguing about the value of the 'cloud'?

Goodness, let it go already.

The 'cloud' is being used more and more across pc and console gaming. MS are in a position to offer all game developers cheap and easy access to the server infrastructure to do with as they please. That level of access is why its a big deal for developers in particular. MS thought that was worth touting and really, it is. MS has actually done something good here, which is rare, I know.

The issue is that Microsoft touted the cloud infrastructure as a game changer, as something that would give it a huge advantage over the PS4. Titanfall is the first game to really utilise the cloud infrastructure that Microsoft was touting and it achieves nothing that couldn't be done locally. People are right to question the value of it when there is no perceivable advantage. That's especially true when people in countries like South Africa can't actually play the game because Microsoft doesn't have any servers there.

 

Cloud computing is here to stay and it will continue to evolve. However, this implementation is rather lacking.

[pmrd]

Azure, and all that it includes, is proving itself to be a massive disruptor by bringing stability, bidirectional scalability, and commodity pricing, to every area where it has been deployed so far.

 

The really scary part is the eventual deployment to the desktop even if only for use by garage developers.

 

No - I'm not kidding.

 

First off, some garage developers are, in fact, using Azure right now - remember, it's a plug-in to Windows Server 2012R2, and as low as Standard Edition - and if you have a DreamSpark or Website Spark Admin subscription - both of which are free - you can try out Windows Server, and Azure, right now, at a cost of nothing.

 

The code differences between Windows 8.1 and Server 2012R2 are far less than between any desktop and server version of Windows based on the same code (such as between the orignal Server 2012 and Windows 7).

 

Could Microsoft create a "Developer Essentials" add-in (for Visual Studio Professional and above, for example) to bring Azure power to play within the IDE?  If you have seen "Server Essentials" in Windows Server 2012R2, you tell me.

 

Things are going to get messier.

 

Wow did you even use Azure to say all this crap? First of all Azure is not a plug-in for Windows Server and it already works within Visual Studio Express.

 

You'll never be "running" Azure since it's all on Microsoft's servers

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Read this earlier today and my first reaction after doing so was I could not help but feel the timing plus tone of the article made it more like an in-depth advertisement rather than a true article. Very similar to those 5 page spreads that have been popping up in Wired magazine lately that have the very hard to read "This Is A Paid Advertisement" text hidden on the bottom of each page.

 

With that said the part I found to be most interesting was...

 

Because Titanfall's advanced AI is handled by the Azure servers, your Xbox's or PC's innards can be used to achieve more detailed graphics and the game's silky-smooth frame rate. 

 

That leaves me wondering just how different of a game we would have been provided with if the Azure servers do in-fact allow for the One to handle graphics locally and thus "achieve more detailed graphics."

 

I put $60 down on the fact that past the hype this game is fun to play. Thing that has me worried is there has been a whole lot more hype than usual it seems. I guess the truth is MS is banking on this one being a big success, so the hype should be expected. Hopefully once it all dies down, a fun game remains. 

[PGHammer]

More arguing about the value of the 'cloud'?

Goodness, let it go already.

The 'cloud' is being used more and more across pc and console gaming. MS are in a position to offer all game developers cheap and easy access to the server infrastructure to do with as they please. That level of access is why its a big deal for developers in particular. MS thought that was worth touting and really, it is. MS has actually done something good here, which is rare, I know.

MS didn't 'invent' the cloud or make insane claims(unlike some tried to do on the internet), they have just decided to make it more accessible/approachable for developers. Then its up to the developers to see what they can use it for. The Titanfall developers are clearly happy that MS has given them that kind of access and they think its a big deal.

I guess the problem is that much of what the server infrastructure provides is not going to be obvious to the end user. Using server infrastructure in gaming is just another way of doing something that can be done in other ways. Its not like its some new way to game like say VR or motion controls, its just a different way for games to be created. These things will mean more to the game creators than they will to the game consumers.

Precisely this.

 

It will mean more to developers (and not just game developers) at first - however, once more ways are found to leverage Azure (and they WILL be found - that's simply the way of technology), it will mean more to everyone.

That is, in fact, why I mentioned Azure as a plug-in to Visual Studio (or other IDEs).

What is to prevent that from happening?

Azure itself can be plugged into Windows Server 2012R2, and today. (You don't need the high-end of Windows Server to leverage Azure even today; merely Standard Edition - which has lower requirements than Windows 8+ - is enough.)

How long will it be until Azure is pluggable into our desktops, or portables, or whatever we are using, as a service?

 

Windows Server requirements vs. Windows 8+ requirements

 

I will wager a few eyebrows took off when I mentioned that Windows Server 2012R2 has lower requirements than Windows 8, and are wondering what drugs I have been taking.

Here's the comeback - the ONLY reason why Windows 8 has higher requirements is due to Extended Proocessor Table support that Hyper-V requires on Windows 8+; this a feature that Windows Server, while it can leverage it, doesn't require it.  Even Hyper-V Gen 2 (the current version) does not require Extended Processor Table support on Windows Server 2012R2, despite it being a requirement on Windows 8+.  As a result, it's actually easier (for now) to leverage Azure on server hardware than desktop hardware.  However, even I don't expect it to stay that way.

[trooper11]

The issue is that Microsoft touted the cloud infrastructure as a game changer, as something that would give it a huge advantage over the PS4. Titanfall is the first game to really utilise the cloud infrastructure that Microsoft was touting and it achieves nothing that couldn't be done locally. People are right to question the value of it when there is no perceivable advantage. That's especially true when people in countries like South Africa can't actually play the game because Microsoft doesn't have any servers there.

 

Cloud computing is here to stay and it will continue to evolve. However, this implementation is rather lacking.

It just seems like people cannot see beyond the brand or the silly statements that spread around the net.

MS' move to offer access to servers in this way is a game changer. It was a good thing. I just don't get how its not a good thing.

Taking what the Titanfall developers did with that access and using it to run down MS just seems weird to me. Anyone here that knows what the cloud really is should know better then to use this to talk down the whole idea of using a server infrastructure. I agree with you that Titanfall doesn't seem to be breaking new ground, but it still demonstrates that MS' offer of access was helpful to the developer. As I said before, I really think the cloud stuff matters more to developers then consumers.

The issue with South Africa is bad thing, it highlights the need for more server investment from MS in this case.

[trooper11]

That leaves me wondering just how different of a game we would have been provided with if the Azure servers do in-fact allow for the One to handle graphics locally and thus "achieve more detailed graphics."

 

I put $60 down on the fact that past the hype this game is fun to play. Thing that has me worried is there has been a whole lot more hype than usual it seems. I guess the truth is MS is banking on this one being a big success, so the hype should be expected. Hopefully once it all dies down, a fun game remains.

People tried to take that idea early on and blow it up to mean MS was claiming that the cloud would pump out improved visuals for games. The reality was that even their grandest claim was like what was mentioned here: As you offload tasks that are not as latency dependent to their servers, it frees up local hardware. In that case you could see a game running at higher visual settings as a result. Who knows how much of a boost that would mean, but it would be something.

As far as Titanfall itself, playing the beta was enough to tell me that while the game will be hyped to the moon, its still fun to play. That is what will make it longer lasting, not the hype. After hearing about the number of maps at launch and varied modes of play, I was convinced that they were backing the game with a nice amount of content, even when it lacked a true sp experience. If I had not played the beta, I think the level of hype would also make me question if the game would actually be good, but that is not the case for me.

[PGHammer]

Wow did you even use Azure to say all this crap? First of all Azure is not a plug-in for Windows Server and it already works within Visual Studio Express.

 

You'll never be "running" Azure since it's all on Microsoft's servers

 

I was not aware that there was an Azure plug-in for VSE - however, I did point out that developers can leverage Azure today.

Azure is computing power as a service - like any service, it has a billing structure.

Even Microsoft does NOT plan on being the only "supplier" of Azure as a service - notice that the APIs that Azure uses have also been provided to, among others, the stakeholders of OpenCompute.

With more suppliers, the cost of the service will drop - regardless of supplier.

Increased availability at decreased cost WILL mean more research into leveraging it - as was the case with merely lightbulbs and electricity, or natural gas, or even nuclear energy.

Actually, Azure IS a plug-in for Windows Server 2012R2 via the Server Essentials role - it's just not the ONLY place it can be plugged in.

The fact that it can be plugged in elsewhere will only get more obvious - not less.

I am actually expecting MORE ways of leveraging Azure - not less, and entirely due to its computing-as-a-service nature.

With OpenCompute as a stakeholder, I expect Azure plug-ins to escape Windows, and go into other OSes (and not just Linux distributions either, but UNIX, OS X, possibly even Android, iOS, Windows Phone, etc.).

Azure could wind up being a bigger contribution to computing than Windows itself.

[Athernar]

It just seems like people cannot see beyond the brand or the silly statements that spread around the net.

MS' move to offer access to servers in this way is a game changer. It was a good thing. I just don't get how its not a good thing.

 

That's not really the point though. Sure, offering hosting in a nice polished package is cool and all, props to Microsoft. The "issue" is this does not explain or account for why consoles cannot use the existing crowdsourcing model.

 

It doesn't even have to be a Boolean either, I see no reason why both "official" Azure-based servers and community-hosted can't co-exist.

 

Neither model is "perfect", but there are long-term issues with having titles exclusively locked like this.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

People tried to take that idea early on and blow it up to mean MS was claiming that the cloud would pump out improved visuals for games. The reality was that even their grandest claim was like what was mentioned here: As you offload tasks that are not as latency dependent to their servers, it frees up local hardware. In that case you could see a game running at higher visual settings as a result. Who knows how much of a boost that would mean, but it would be something.

As far as Titanfall itself, playing the beta was enough to tell me that while the game will be hyped to the moon, its still fun to play. That is what will make it longer lasting, not the hype. After hearing about the number of maps at launch and varied modes of play, I was convinced that they were backing the game with a nice amount of content, even when it lacked a true sp experience. If I had not played the beta, I think the level of hype would also make me question if the game would actually be good, but that is not the case for me.

 

So if Titanfall didn't have the cloud it would be "720p" and "30FPS"? :/  I mean if you're going to make claims like what DL posted and then your game runs at 792p and has some FPS hiccups, you're not exactly distancing yourself from all the other non-cloud FPS games that do the same/better. You can't just drop in vague graphical claims/graphical buzzwords (silky smooth/more detailed) and then run to the hills and tell people they're to blame for reading into buzzwords/hype. It's like a bait and switch, here's how the cloud can make graphics better (silky detailed awesomeness) and then "what do you mean you expected 1080p/60FPS, we never said that!"

 

Next up you have AI claims, AI can indeed be intensive and hard to perfect, but server side AI is not new. I posted earlier prodding Titanfall's AI which isn't exactly being heralded as a golden goose with a gif showing a small snippet of behaviour and referring to CS/Quake, obviously it upset someone and got removed. Regardless the point is still the same, it's not a new concept, and Titanfall's AI as far as I can see and read about from the beta isn't exactly some sort of a new standard of perfection for other bot based AI to learn from. Does that mean it's not good, no, but again it's coming down to show the proof of what you're shoving down our throats, not buzzwords, proof of the cloud being used in a way vastly superior than it has been before to live up to the hype that has been created - Not created by gamers now getting blamed for all the criticism of the cloud I might add, created by MS and PR themselves.

 

I can't wait for the first multiplatform game that has the cloud as a pro for the XB1 and see what differences there are versus the PS4 version. Or will we conveniently only see the cloud touted for exclusives... I'll dread the day Titanfall 2/3 might go multiplatform (if EA get their way). Unless there was some sort of tangible difference between the copies in favour of the XB1 the internet would implode.

[spaceelf]

The issue with South Africa is bad thing, it highlights the need for more server investment from MS in this case.

South Africas average internet speed is 2.3mb, and I can't speak for latency.  If servers were the only problem there'd be entire continents unable to purchase.

[vcfan]

 

I can't wait for the first multiplatform game that has the cloud as a pro for the XB1 and see what differences there are versus the PS4 version. Or will we conveniently only see the cloud touted for exclusives... I'll dread the day Titanfall 2/3 might go multiplatform (if EA get their way). 

 

Watch Dogs producer Dominic Guay has announced that the Xbox One version of Watch Dogs will have a more dynamic city than the PlayStation 4 or current-gen versions of the game.

 

http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/23872/ubisoft-xbox-one-version-of-watch-dogs-more-dynamic-than-ps4-and-current-gen-versions

[spaceelf]

http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/23872/ubisoft-xbox-one-version-of-watch-dogs-more-dynamic-than-ps4-and-current-gen-versions

You'll note he also said they're working within the power in the machines, the other is 'we can do this' not 'we will do this.'

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/23872/ubisoft-xbox-one-version-of-watch-dogs-more-dynamic-than-ps4-and-current-gen-versions

 

Posted: 06.07.2013 and Ubisoft didn't show what their own game was genuinely going to look like until just recently. You're really going to hedge a bet on Watch Dogs? It's out soon, or should be, we'll find out shortly I guess. Hope Guay has some proof ready for that statement or he'll be roasted alive, if he and the rest of the team aren't already burned enough by the delay leading onto the recent downgrade in visuals.

 

I mean heck why did they even use PS4 footage for the recent trailer if they could've hid it's downgrade behind the "more dynamic" XB1 footage?

 

The same guy even had this to say in the same month....

 

Ravi Sinha: Given all the hype and hoopla around the PS4, what are your thoughts on the Xbox One? How is the Xbox One version of the game going to be different compared to the PC and the PS4 one?

 

Dominic Guay: The Xbox One is a powerful platform, as of now we do not foresee a major difference in on screen result between the PS4 and the Xbox One. Obviously since we are still working on pushing the game on these new consoles, we are still doing R&D. This said, the platforms have some specificities that we are leveraging. For example, we are making use of the touchpad on the DualShock4.

 

 

Source: http://gamingbolt.com/watch_dogs-interview-with-ubisoft-montreal-ps4-advantages-perks-story-details-vehicles-and-tons-more

 

Then as usual for launch titles last year stuff like this crops up.

[trooper11]

That's not really the point though. Sure, offering hosting in a nice polished package is cool and all, props to Microsoft. The "issue" is this does not explain or account for why consoles cannot use the existing crowdsourcing model.

 

It doesn't even have to be a Boolean either, I see no reason why both "official" Azure-based servers and community-hosted can't co-exist.

 

Neither model is "perfect", but there are long-term issues with having titles exclusively locked like this.

Not disagreeing with your point at all. Both can happily exist. In fact I think you will see more crowdsourcing as this gen goes along. I dont think MS or Sony would block that kind of model from being used. The reason MS' move is a big deal is because it means a developer assumes less risk/investment trying to work out the server side of things on their own. They don't have to use it if they prefer another method.

 

 

So if Titanfall didn't have the cloud it would be "720p" and "30FPS"? :/  I mean if you're going to make claims like what DL posted and then your game runs at 792p and has some FPS hiccups, you're not exactly distancing yourself from all the other non-cloud FPS games that do the same/better. You can't just drop in vague graphical claims/graphical buzzwords (silky smooth/more detailed) and then run to the hills and tell people they're to blame for reading into buzzwords/hype. It's like a bait and switch, here's how the cloud can make graphics better (silky detailed awesomeness) and then "what do you mean you expected 1080p/60FPS, we never said that!"

:laugh: Sure, if that's what you want to assume.

I gave no particulars about Titanfall as far as what the cloud might allow for visuals wise. At best I said that any game could offload some stuff to the servers, but as I said, I have no idea how much that amounts to. Heck, in Titanfall, what they offloaded may have allowed them to only adjust a visual affect (something like more AA, etc) and not do anything for the resolution. I have no idea how the game works, so your guess is as good as mine.

Now if they want to directly claim that Titanfall is running at 792p because of the servers, then we can discuss that. They haven't done that yet, so who knows. Your taking words from them about 'silky detailed awesomeness' and claiming that means 1080p/60.

Frankly, I'm not interested in arguing for the developers, you can take that up with them if your so upset by it. My only point was in regards to what MS spoke about when rolling out their server plans. They discussed how a developer might offload some things to the server and that opens up some room on the local hardware for other things. If the Titanfall developers want to lie about what they are using the servers for, than they will be exposed.

Next up you have AI claims, AI can indeed be intensive and hard to perfect, but server side AI is not new. I posted earlier prodding Titanfall's AI which isn't exactly being heralded as a golden goose with a gif showing a small snippet of behaviour and referring to CS/Quake, obviously it upset someone and got removed. Regardless the point is still the same, it's not a new concept, and Titanfall's AI as far as I can see and read about from the beta isn't exactly some sort of a new standard of perfection for other bot based AI to learn from. Does that mean it's not good, no, but again it's coming down to show the proof of what you're shoving down our throats, not buzzwords, proof of the cloud being used in a way vastly superior than it has been before to live up to the hype that has been created - Not created by gamers now getting blamed for all the criticism of the cloud I might add, created by MS and PR themselves.

It sounds like to me your just interested in bursting the bubble that you see when it comes to talking about using servers.

Hey, I can understand how hype often gets in the way of accepting features that are good, but not 'to the moon' levels of awesome as the hype might claim.

I just think that instead of trying to bring it all down, how about we just stick to correcting the record on what the cloud really means and why there are good things that come out of it, just don't listen to all the hype and blow it up to be more than it is. MS has pushed the cloud stuff, yes, but I honestly don't think they have made baseless claims overall. I have most definitely heard people take claims and blow them up and this article here could be proof of over hyping as well from the developer. We should point out the claims that go too far, no arguments there.

 

I can't wait for the first multiplatform game that has the cloud as a pro for the XB1 and see what differences there are versus the PS4 version. Or will we conveniently only see the cloud touted for exclusives... I'll dread the day Titanfall 2/3 might go multiplatform (if EA get their way).

See, you have gone and made it about the console wars again.

All Sony has to do is offer the same level of access that MS is in order to offer developers a similar server advantage. Sony is not doing that at the moment, so that means MS currently offers a nice perk to developers.

I'll say it a third time: the cloud means more to developers than it does consumers

I guess MS' mistake was trying to push it as a consumer feature. Maybe if they had not made it such a public facing feature and just focused on pushing it to developers, it would not have resulted in the over hyping that can happen.

I mean heck why did they even use PS4 footage for the recent trailer if they could've hid it's downgrade behind the "more dynamic" XB1 footage?

The ps4 version will end up better.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Not disagreeing with your point at all. Both can happily exist. In fact I think you will see more crowdsourcing as this gen goes along. I dont think MS or Sony would block that kind of model from being used. The reason MS' move is a big deal is because it means a developer assumes less risk/investment trying to work out the server side of things on their own. They don't have to use it if they prefer another method.

:laugh: Sure, if that's what you want to assume.

I gave no particulars about Titanfall as far as what the cloud might allow for visuals wise. At best I said that any game could offload some stuff to the servers, but as I said, I have no idea how much that amounts to. Heck, in Titanfall, what they offloaded may have allowed them to only adjust a visual affect (something like more AA, etc) and not do anything for the resolution. I have no idea how the game works, so your guess is as good as mine.

Now if they want to directly claim that Titanfall is running at 792p because of the servers, then we can discuss that. They haven't done that yet, so who knows. Your taking words from them about 'silky detailed awesomeness' and claiming that means 1080p/60.

Frankly, I'm not interested in arguing for the developers, you can take that up with them if your so upset by it. My only point was in regards to what MS spoke about when rolling out their server plans. They discussed how a developer might offload some things to the server and that opens up some room on the local hardware for other things. If the Titanfall developers want to lie about what they are using the servers for, than they will be exposed.

It sounds like to me your just interested in bursting the bubble that you see when it comes to talking about using servers.

Hey, I can understand how hype often gets in the way of accepting features that are good, but not 'to the moon' levels of awesome as the hype might claim.

I just think that instead of trying to bring it all down, how about we just stick to correcting the record on what the cloud really means and why there are good things that come out of it, just don't listen to all the hype and blow it up to be more than it is. MS has pushed the cloud stuff, yes, but I honestly don't think they have made baseless claims overall. I have most definitely heard people take claims and blow them up and this article here could be proof of over hyping as well from the developer. We should point out the claims that go too far, no arguments there.

 

See, you have gone and made it about the console wars again.

All Sony has to do is offer the same level of access that MS is in order to offer developers a similar server advantage. Sony is not doing that at the moment, so that means MS currently offers a nice perk to developers.

I'll say it a third time: the cloud means more to developers than it does consumers

I guess MS' mistake was trying to push it as a consumer feature. Maybe if they had not made it such a public facing feature and just focused on pushing it to developers, it would not have resulted in the over hyping that can happen.

The ps4 version will end up better.

 

Sorry to only highlight this in your post, but that is the crux of the argument online. If local hardware on competitor b can produce better end results than competitor a with the cloud, that is why some people aren't all that taken aback by "cloud claims". Sure you want everyone to get along and for no console wars to exist, but in order to compare evidence consoles have to be contrasted. What else can ground claims better than evidence compared across two test subjects, one with the cloud, and one without. It's how scientists would do it.

 

Besides having dedicated servers for MP games like PC gamers have enjoyed for years (produces top notch latency, no arguments there), what is there left that powerful local hardware cannot handle if your competitor without the cloud is doing better? It goes against the grain to see a PS4 version of a game do better if the cloud really is that integral, which makes multilplatform games a good avenue for comparison. Sure exclusives can be compared, but it's always going to be a dirtier argument there - I mean KZ SF does bots like Titanfall (even KZ2/3 did), but it's not the same as comparing bots in a multiplat considering when bots are mentioned it's always something in the vein of "lifelike/behaving like humans/unmatched intelligence".