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

[Athernar]

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.

 

The developer incurs even less cost if they farm out their server infrastructure to end-users. Which somewhat lowers the value of Azure in this case. But really the biggest question is why was this approach (community servers) shunned in the first place?

 

I could understand a few cases last generation of no dedicated servers due to potential issues like the codebase using large swaths of inline assembly + limited budgets/time, but even that feels like grasping at straws for an excuse.

[trooper11]

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".

So are you discounting the value of MS offering server hardware access to all developers or not?

Just drop all the other stuff because its just running around in circles. You really want to 'expose' the big lie about the cloud, I get it, but there is nothing to expose to me personally. I am not qualified to speak on the specifics of what exactly can or cannot be done via server hardware and which developers working on the X1 are using it in a way that results in more local hardware performance going to visuals. If you know more about the specifics and are convinced, fine, no arguments from me.

I'll say it a 4th time: the cloud matters more to developers than consumers. MS' offer means more to developers.

Does that offer mean the X1 is better than the PS4 overall? No. Does it mean developers have a bonus when they want or need access to servers on the X1 vs the ps4? Yes.

Getting defensive about 'the cloud' is not worth it. Everyone seems to love validating the same hype they argue against by taking the completely opposite viewpoint. Of course any features on each console will be used to compare, but you know how people take it too far.

The developer incurs even less cost if they farm out their server infrastructure to end-users. Which somewhat lowers the value of Azure in this case. But really the biggest question is why was this approach (community servers) shunned in the first place?

 

I could understand a few cases last generation of no dedicated servers due to potential issues like the codebase using large swaths of inline assembly + limited budgets/time, but even that feels like grasping at straws for an excuse.

Are you saying MS or Sony shun such practices?

Maybe developers aren't as confident about letting the community be the sole host of servers for their game.

[Athernar]

Are you saying MS or Sony shun such practices?

Maybe developers aren't as confident about letting the community be the sole host of servers for their game.

 

Whoever, consoles in general.

 

You raise a good point with there being a degree of trust with community servers, but the same thing applies to the PC too.

 

Run a small selection of "official" servers or take steps to disallow modding, or heck - legitimise modding and have tagging systems (vanilla, modx, mody, etc) in place. Now that would be an innovation for consoles.

[dead.cell]

You might want to be more specific here as the PS3 supported dedicated servers.  It's only Xbox with it's "Walled Garden" approach that prevents dedicated servers.  The PS3 (as well as the PS4) connect to the regular internet with no Sony filter.  That's why you get a web browser (crappy as it may be) out of the box on these without having to pay Sony for some service (and why Netflix, etc. work without subscribing to PlayStation Plus).  As such any game company who releases a PS3/PS4 game can set up servers if they like.  In fact a game company can release a server that runs on PCs but hosts games for PS3 players if they like.  I believe Epic experimented with this with Unreal Tournament for the PS3 but I'm not sure what ever came of it.

 

On the other hand Microsoft doesn't let you connect directly to foreign servers.  You can only connect to Xbox Live and you have to pay to go out their gateway to the larger internet.  Since MS controls what you go to they block XBox games developers from putting up servers unless they do so inside the Xbox Live network which in the 360 days where prohibitively expensive (though I believe technically possible... I think they do sell that option but no one buys it because it costs so much).  So with Xbox One the solution is to have a Azure cloud INSIDE their network that game developers can use instead.  This is a good solution but it's a solution a problem they created by their own Xbox Live restrictions and is not even an issue for PlayStation.

 

As for Cloud in general cloud services likely will replace dedicated servers this generation but they aren't exclusive to MS.  MS HAS to provide a special cloud inside their Xbox Live network because they block devs access to outside clouds (just like they blocked them to developer hosted servers in the 360 era).  So sure you can make a cloud backed game for the Xbox One now but you can also buy regular Azure service from Microsoft (the commercial one, not the Xbox Live one) and use it to host servers for a PS4 game or any other platform for that matter.  The benefits of the Xbox Live version is that it has some game specific extensions to make your life easier and it's accessible by Xbox One owners.  The downside is it's your ONLY cloud option for the Xbox One.  If you are a PlayStation dev you can make your server run on MS's regular Azure cloud but you'll lose the game specific extensions.  You can also however choose a different cloud such as Amazon or other competitors both now or in the future if you aren't targeting the Xbox One.  You can even make your OWN cloud if you have that capability.  For example EA could set up their own cloud framework for their multiplayer games for PC, Mac, Linux and PlayStation (not sure how Nintendo's networking works) but it won't work for the Xbox One because you HAVE to use ONLY MS's Xbox Live Azure variant for Xbox Once cloud gaming.

 

So basically all this hype about MS's cloud is just that, hype.  It IS better than the Xbox 360 but that's only because MS's self imposed restrictions on wider internet network access.  Xbox users can finally get something similar to dedicated servers.  Cloud computing in general IS the future of networking because it allows for hardware to scale seamlessly behind the scenes and companies to only pay for what they're actually using but in this general since it is not something that's exclusive to Xbox.  Nothing stops a developer/publisher for making their servers on any available cloud service for PlayStation, PC, Mac, Linux, etc.

Highlighting this post because despite all the bickering here, this was a great read into understanding what exactly is going on here, putting hype, exaggeration, and pettiness aside.

 

It concerns me to read things regarding South Africa's cancellation for the game due to the internet structure, seeing as they also lack Azure servers in the South Africa region. If Microsoft is going to bank on cloud computing, how do they expect to hold up to the demand on a global scale? Right now, they can't even get off the ground from the 13 countries they've released to, how can we expect the Xbox name and platform to grow?

 

Maybe these are growing pains, but one has to expect the gains to be absolutely worth the investment. Otherwise, what are they doing?

[trooper11]

Maybe these are growing pains, but one has to expect the gains to be absolutely worth the investment. Otherwise, what are they doing?

Delaying the inevitable.

[Showan]

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.

Africa has a few on the continent as a whole... A large part of Africa lack resources for Microsoft to stash one of their Azure centers there.

Microsoft is very picky when it comes to logistics. Lookup Africa on a map or globe, it's layout probably don't fit Microsoft's wants/requirements...

[spaceelf]

Africa has a few on the continent as a whole... A large part of Africa lack resources for Microsoft to stash one of their Azure centers there.

Microsoft is very picky when it comes to logistics. Lookup Africa on a map or globe, it's layout probably don't fit Microsoft's wants/requirements...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azure_Services_Platform

It ain't just Africa chief.

[Showan]

The developer incurs even less cost if they farm out their server infrastructure to end-users. Which somewhat lowers the value of Azure in this case. But really the biggest question is why was this approach (community servers) shunned in the first place?

 

I could understand a few cases last generation of no dedicated servers due to potential issues like the codebase using large swaths of inline assembly + limited budgets/time, but even that feels like grasping at straws for an excuse.

Pure and simple, Respawn doesn't have to worry about anything but TitanFall. They don't have maintain servers (or hope servers are being maintained. They don't have to deploy the updates/patches, all handled by Microsoft. And what's even better better, the redundancy. No real downtime for anyone at all. And when you launch an update, Microsoft can deploy once and cover the world just like that.

Imagine having to call Amazon, the Open Rack, Then local data centers... Too many contacts.... That would annoy me.... And you got different rates as well... One price w/Microsoft, and that price was probably too good to pass up, as Respawn hasn't even complained about it. If Microsoft gave it to them for dirt cheap, and Xbox Live, gives us access to them, no point in crowd sourcing...

Hand code Microsoft, and from Redmond, they can update around the world just like that....

[Showan]

Respawn: Titanfall's server stability is in Microsoft's azure hands.

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/03/10/respawn-titanfalls-server-stability-is-in-microsofts-azure-ha/

[Sandor]

Having AI in a game

 

I burst out laughing.

[Athernar]

Pure and simple, Respawn doesn't have to worry about anything but TitanFall. They don't have maintain servers (or hope servers are being maintained. They don't have to deploy the updates/patches, all handled by Microsoft. And what's even better better, the redundancy. No real downtime for anyone at all. And when you launch an update, Microsoft can deploy once and cover the world just like that.

Imagine having to call Amazon, the Open Rack, Then local data centers... Too many contacts.... That would annoy me.... And you got different rates as well... One price w/Microsoft, and that price was probably too good to pass up, as Respawn hasn't even complained about it. If Microsoft gave it to them for dirt cheap, and Xbox Live, gives us access to them, no point in crowd sourcing...

Hand code Microsoft, and from Redmond, they can update around the world just like that....

 

"No point in crowdsourcing" Tell that to the gamers in South Africa.

 

Or anyone else that might want to play the game after the servers have been taken offline.

[mattmatik]

So, who do we blame* for not being able to connect now that the game is unlocked for PC? Microsoft, I assume? 

 

(*Besides blaming myself for buying day one  :rofl: )

[blerk]

I don't see how it is anything other than a Good Thing?.

 

The revolutionary thing is not that they have servers, because every multiplayer game has them. 

The revolutionary thing is that Microsoft have taken the most valuable part of a multiplayer game, other than the client software/game itself, and made it cheap, painless and reliable, while also building in abilities that are not available in simple community-run servers. The Azure cloud has been made very cheap free, and developers have been given a system with which they can use to improve the game as they see fit: they can muck around with AI, graphics, implement an in-game bitcoin miner, whatever. 

 

And I don't quite see why some people are panicking that in 5/7/10 years time, the multiplayer aspect might go poof. If the server-side stuff is as scalable and easy as Respawn and Microsoft say (or very heavily imply they are), I don't see why after a period of time, they wouldn't just let you rent your own dedicated server instance on Azure/Xbox Live. But we shall see about that. 

[George P Global Moderator]

You don't need a datacenter next door in order to play the game, for gods sake people.  South Africa's problem isn't the lack of a Azure datacenter in the country, it's the overall slow internet speeds to connect to one outside.   All of the EU has just 2 Azure servers and they're connecting fine, why?  Because the average speed for connections in the EU isn't in the 2mbps range like in South Africa.  That's all it is, nothing more. 

 

The nitpicking is strong in this thread, trying to find any fault with anything MS does with the Xbox, it's borderline compulsive behavior for some it seems.  

 

The advantages to Azure are noted, having this as a option for Xbox Live is big, is the technology in use new?  No, but it's the way it's handled that's new.  EA wouldn't do much or care much about giving you dedicated servers, as far as they're concerned they'd much rather stay to the old console model and save money.   Azure is there, it's used for other things, there's no need to build up servers for the initial launch of a game and then have them sitting around a year or 2 from now when less and less people are still playing.  Azure allows developers to do this for cheaper, for less hassle, for less time and gives them more control over what they need.  Does the game need more servers?  Just a few clicks and off it goes.   Does it need less?  Just a few clicks and done. 

 

This whole argument about,  why not allowing community servers?  This just sounds like a complaint and nothing more.  Why do companies want to keep more control over their content?  Gee, I wonder why?  The future could hold something different, as the game dies down in usage they could very well say, here, have the server bits and run your own guys.    For now, that's just not an option so you take what you get or you don't play the game.

 

I don't really know what else Respawn is going to do with the game but running as much of it online gives them options, tinkering and tweaking the server side bits should happen behind the scenes with players not noticing that work is going on, much like how web apps get updated one day and you don't have to do anything.

 

Other things that developers have talked about are possible, from the moment the world is online or mostly online you are able to do more things than a local game, AI doesn't sound like anything new, true, but then what Forza 5 does with the AI is a new take on it, unless you guys just want to write that off as well.    It's early days, those who've played titanfall say they enjoyed it, it's fun, the game will sell well and do well, from the looks of it it'll be a hit.  But hey, if that doesn't sit well with some of you, keep going, I'm sure if you argue about how it's nothing great for another 5 pages on here everyone will wake up and not play the game.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

You don't need a datacenter next door in order to play the game, for gods sake people.  South Africa's problem isn't the lack of a Azure datacenter in the country, it's the overall slow internet speeds to connect to one outside.   All of the EU has just 2 Azure servers and they're connecting fine, why?  Because the average speed for connections in the EU isn't in the 2mbps range like in South Africa.  That's all it is, nothing more. 

 

The nitpicking is strong in this thread, trying to find any fault with anything MS does with the Xbox, it's borderline compulsive behavior for some it seems.  

 

The advantages to Azure are noted, having this as a option for Xbox Live is big, is the technology in use new?  No, but it's the way it's handled that's new.  EA wouldn't do much or care much about giving you dedicated servers, as far as they're concerned they'd much rather stay to the old console model and save money.   Azure is there, it's used for other things, there's no need to build up servers for the initial launch of a game and then have them sitting around a year or 2 from now when less and less people are still playing.  Azure allows developers to do this for cheaper, for less hassle, for less time and gives them more control over what they need.  Does the game need more servers?  Just a few clicks and off it goes.   Does it need less?  Just a few clicks and done. 

 

This whole argument about,  why not allowing community servers?  This just sounds like a complaint and nothing more.  Why do companies want to keep more control over their content?  Gee, I wonder why?  The future could hold something different, as the game dies down in usage they could very well say, here, have the server bits and run your own guys.    For now, that's just not an option so you take what you get or you don't play the game.

 

I don't really know what else Respawn is going to do with the game but running as much of it online gives them options, tinkering and tweaking the server side bits should happen behind the scenes with players not noticing that work is going on, much like how web apps get updated one day and you don't have to do anything.

 

Other things that developers have talked about are possible, from the moment the world is online or mostly online you are able to do more things than a local game, AI doesn't sound like anything new, true, but then what Forza 5 does with the AI is a new take on it, unless you guys just want to write that off as well.    It's early days, those who've played titanfall say they enjoyed it, it's fun, the game will sell well and do well, from the looks of it it'll be a hit.  But hey, if that doesn't sit well with some of you, keep going, I'm sure if you argue about how it's nothing great for another 5 pages on here everyone will wake up and not play the game.

 

Do you not feel that those critical of the cloud think like that as well about those opposed? Lets get one thing straight, MS have created this ecosystem of critical thinking in regards to the cloud themselves, they released the PR, the hype and the claims of what it can do for the XB1. Isn't that what causes critical thinking? It's a little unfair for those pro those statements to simply tell those critical of them to shutup, stop nitpicking and move on. We're not discussing favourite colours/controller here, it's a tangible argument to argue what can actually be done by cloud computing, and that's cloud computing in general as well. So no one is simply picking on your favourite console, MS/MS developers are just the only ones out there as far as I can see making some of the claims they are in the gaming world. If you had Sony and Nintendo doing the same, maybe Valve for good measure as well, you'd have a far wider spectrum of confidence in such claims. 

 

Highlighting this post because despite all the bickering here, this was a great read into understanding what exactly is going on here, putting hype, exaggeration, and pettiness aside.

 

It concerns me to read things regarding South Africa's cancellation for the game due to the internet structure, seeing as they also lack Azure servers in the South Africa region. If Microsoft is going to bank on cloud computing, how do they expect to hold up to the demand on a global scale? Right now, they can't even get off the ground from the 13 countries they've released to, how can we expect the Xbox name and platform to grow?

 

Maybe these are growing pains, but one has to expect the gains to be absolutely worth the investment. Otherwise, what are they doing?

 

It was indeed a good read. Of course the gains will be worth it, especially with the money spent, people just want transparency though and not led down a path 1~2 years later they'll be questioning just how honest claims were (Remember the Milo Kinect demo anyone?). In an industry full of bullshots, 180s, failed promises, DLC-monetization, DRM, and the list goes on, skepticism is rife when we get textbook PR. When you have one company saying cloud computing is useful for some things and quite transparently saying not graphics, and the other company releasing PR about graphics improvements you can't fault the consumer in the middle asking questions. Investment in cloud computing needs to carry on, and any gains are worth it, but it's up to MS to prove their claims of what it can do (especially when they're alone in some of their thinking), not for the consumer to stop asking questions and simply become a mute.

[George P Global Moderator]

That's hardly the case, this isn't isolated to just MS, anyone says cloud and you have a knee jerk reaction from some, going but but...

Sure lets not look at what can be gained from it, lets just nitpick it to death as no big thing.

MS already showed how it can be used in a way with forza, respawn is using it in a more traditional way for now with their game. Who knows how the next game will use it?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

That's hardly the case, this isn't isolated to just MS, anyone says cloud and you have a knee jerk reaction from some, going but but...

Sure lets not look at what can be gained from it, lets just nitpick it to death as no big thing.

MS already showed how it can be used in a way with forza, respawn is using it in a more traditional way for now with their game. Who knows how the next game will use it?

 

So again everyone shutup, leave MS alone (insert Britney Spears meme) and only think positively about what the cloud can do, not critically about what is claimed it can do? Not even Valve, masters of the PC have been making some of the claims MS have. Do you really want people not to think critically and challenge MS' claims for a better understanding/transparency for us all? Give me a good reason why not, people afraid of smoke and mirrors? 

 

There are 3 main claims people have issues with, and will continue to do so whether anyone wants them to or not until there is evidence to suggest their validity. The arguments aren't coming on Neowin only, or just on pro-Sony boards, they're literally on every gaming site online and they revolve around

 

1) Claims that what MS are doing is 'new technology'

2) Claims of only being possible on the Xbox One

3) Claims of improving the graphics by offloading

 

Dedicated servers, matchmaking and bot AI aren't the talking points here (although AI is always scrutinized when described with PR buzzwords), they're already factual improvements of the cloud and have been done limitedly on consoles, and full on, on PCs for a while. MS has stepped it up for the XB1 entering the "full on PC level", and by offering great support and tools for developers (much of which saves them money). People aren't as enthusiastic to talk about this though, as it's not new grounds, it's building on existing foundations, it's the "new claims" that are the talking point - People are excited by such claims, and equally skeptical of their validity.

[blerk]

 

So again everyone shutup, leave MS alone (insert Britney Spears meme) and only think positively about what the cloud can do, not critically about what is claimed it can do? Not even Valve, masters of the PC have been making some of the claims MS have. Do you really want people not to think critically and challenge MS' claims for a better understanding/transparency for us all? Give me a good reason why not, people afraid of smoke and mirrors? 

 

There are 3 main claims people have issues with, and will continue to do so whether anyone wants them to or not until there is evidence to suggest their validity. The arguments aren't coming on Neowin only, or just on pro-Sony boards, they're literally on every gaming site online and they revolve around

 

1) Claims that what MS are doing is 'new technology'

2) Claims of only being possible on the Xbox One

3) Claims of improving the graphics by offloading

 

Dedicated servers, matchmaking and bot AI aren't the talking points here (although AI is always scrutinized when described with PR buzzwords), they're already factual improvements of the cloud and have been done limitedly on consoles, and full on, on PCs for a while. MS has stepped it up for the XB1 entering the "full on PC level", and by offering great support and tools for developers (much of which saves them money). People aren't as enthusiastic to talk about this though, as it's not new grounds, it's building on existing foundations, it's the "new claims" that are the talking point - People are excited by such claims, and equally skeptical of their validity.

 

 

 

1) It is new technology. Nobody has deployed quite what Microsoft (claims) to have deployed in their back-end infrastructure. 

2) Currently it is only possible on Xb1 to have teh powerz of the cloud. Neither Sony nor Nintendo have competing/comparable offerings. 

3) The claims (or lack thereof) by Valve are not gospel. If Microsoft engineers are saying it is possible, why should we instantly jump to a rabidly critical position, outright dismissing those engineers as liars and charlatans? The cloud, and it's relevance to in-game performance, is one of those areas in which Microsoft have been very open and transparent saying that they have made an investment for the long term, and that they are actively working to flesh out the possibilities. 

[George P Global Moderator]

There's creative criticism and then there's not, you're not adding anything at this point when all you have to say is , this isn't anything new or its not possible.

Does it really matter if Valve doesn't talk about the cloud? Does that somehow make things fake or something? They're not even on the same scale at this point, it's not they're business to offer dedicated servers to developers. All they gave is a good digital store and social bit attached to it.

If we want to compare Azure then we compare it to AWS. Scale aside how it's used or not in a game is up to the developer at this point. Can they offload things, sure they can AI is the easiest thing to do so they do it first. We're only a few months into this, developers need time to try things out, we don't know the extent of how deep the can integrate offloading yet. To just write it off because it hasn't been used in a different way yet is wrong IMO.

So, sure be critical, but lets try to add to the topic and not just bash and disregard things we don't like.

[BajiRav]

So again everyone shutup, leave MS alone (insert Britney Spears meme) and only think positively about what the cloud can do, not critically about what is claimed it can do? Not even Valve, masters of the PC have been making some of the claims MS have. Do you really want people not to think critically and challenge MS' claims for a better understanding/transparency for us all? Give me a good reason why not, people afraid of smoke and mirrors? 

 

There are 3 main claims people have issues with, and will continue to do so whether anyone wants them to or not until there is evidence to suggest their validity. The arguments aren't coming on Neowin only, or just on pro-Sony boards, they're literally on every gaming site online and they revolve around

 

1) Claims that what MS are doing is 'new technology'

2) Claims of only being possible on the Xbox One

3) Claims of improving the graphics by offloading

 

Dedicated servers, matchmaking and bot AI aren't the talking points here (although AI is always scrutinized when described with PR buzzwords), they're already factual improvements of the cloud and have been done limitedly on consoles, and full on, on PCs for a while. MS has stepped it up for the XB1 entering the "full on PC level", and by offering great support and tools for developers (much of which saves them money). People aren't as enthusiastic to talk about this though, as it's not new grounds, it's building on existing foundations, it's the "new claims" that are the talking point - People are excited by such claims, and equally skeptical of their validity.

I think you need to stop pretending that everyone here is defending MSFT just because Sony is not doing it..yet.

The whole thing about Azure and Xbox One here is that it is part of the toolkit for developers. We don't if it comes free or heavily discounted.

If Titanfall comes to PS4, nothing stops Respawn from using the same Azure servers for PS4 and that can also help save the computing resources on PS4 which may lead to more resources for graphics.

Hell, I am sure Microsoft will happily lend Azure to Sony for PSN if Sony decides to use it.

There is a difference between being skeptical and being just dening everything for whatever reason. I didn't see you or others question the whole PSNow/Gaikai to the same degree that you question the Xbox Live cloud.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

There's creative criticism and then there's not, you're not adding anything at this point when all you have to say is , this isn't anything new or its not possible.

Does it really matter if Valve doesn't talk about the cloud? Does that somehow make things fake or something? They're not even on the same scale at this point, it's not they're business to offer dedicated servers to developers. All they gave is a good digital store and social bit attached to it.

If we want to compare Azure then we compare it to AWS. Scale aside how it's used or not in a game is up to the developer at this point. Can they offload things, sure they can AI is the easiest thing to do so they do it first. We're only a few months into this, developers need time to try things out, we don't know the extent of how deep the can integrate offloading yet. To just write it off because it hasn't been used in a different way yet is wrong IMO.

So, sure be critical, but lets try to add to the topic and not just bash and disregard things we don't like.

 

It's definitely not about discussing something I/we don't like. What isn't there to like about any sort of technology/functionality that can improve gaming? I'd be a bit of a numbskull to say "I don't like cloud computing", there are things it can and can't do, it's not really down to personal preference. So that leaves, what do I not like? *Insert rant about console gaming PR/purposeful misdirection & misleading promises*.

 

As for you saying we can't gauge our ability to offload, of course we can, it's why people get frustrated at MS. PC's and PC based games have been able to do it for ages and already there is plenty of research done on the current (and future) limits of processing remotely/in the cloud. Hence why people get annoyed when it's sugar coated as new technology and never before seen advances. I mean Titanfall itself already runs on the 360 and PC, it's not something new that can be done due to XB1 hardware. If MS are taking that knowledge and improving on it, good, but please don't try and pull wool over our eyes and proclaim that the groundwork for the cloud/remote processing hasn't already been around for quite a while.

 

 

I think you need to stop pretending that everyone here is defending MSFT just because Sony is not doing it..yet.

The whole thing about Azure and Xbox One here is that it is part of the toolkit for developers. We don't if it comes free or heavily discounted.

If Titanfall comes to PS4, nothing stops Respawn from using the same Azure servers for PS4 and that can also help save the computing resources on PS4 which may lead to more resources for graphics.

Hell, I am sure Microsoft will happily lend Azure to Sony for PSN if Sony decides to use it.

There is a difference between being skeptical and being just dening everything for whatever reason. I didn't see you or others question the whole PSNow/Gaikai to the same degree that you question the Xbox Live cloud.

 

Really? Selective reading much? Latency, lag, *3rd world country broadband speeds, like in the UK* have been mentioned frequently. There is also nowhere near the amount of squeaky clean PR surrounding PSNow, required BB speed have been quoted officially (I think it's 5-6mb, effectively screwing many) and latency is displayed first hand through demos/beta testing - No mumbo jumbo "people are pounding at our doors to find out our secret latency formulas - just you wait to see how amazing it is".

 

Where's the raw figures/benchmark/Digital Foundry like examination of cloud processing on the One? Or even a MS issued this is what Titanfall would be like without the cloud PDF *insert facts about/demonstration of lower quality lighting*, or the likes. Usually the amazing minds behind the tech can't wait to show their geek off to the masses with fancy figures and charts, but instead we just have the marketing and PR department telling us [even the developers talking about the cloud are speaking like marketing&PR in disguise - cmon guys, where's YOUR raw figures/"lines of code"/before&after pictures and everything else?].

[MikeChipshop Member]

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.

 

You still don't understand what Azure is, what it does and what it could do in the future, do you?

[BajiRav]

It's definitely not about discussing something I/we don't like. What isn't there to like about any sort of technology/functionality that can improve gaming? I'd be a bit of a numbskull to say "I don't like cloud computing", there are things it can and can't do, it's not really down to personal preference. So that leaves, what do I not like? *Insert rant about console gaming PR/purposeful misdirection & misleading promises*.

 

As for you saying we can't gauge our ability to offload, of course we can, it's why people get frustrated at MS. PC's and PC based games have been able to do it for ages and already there is plenty of research done on the current (and future) limits of processing remotely/in the cloud. Hence why people get annoyed when it's sugar coated as new technology and never before seen advances. I mean Titanfall itself already runs on the 360 and PC, it's not something new that can be done due to XB1 hardware. If MS are taking that knowledge and improving on it, good, but please don't try and pull wool over our eyes and proclaim that the groundwork for the cloud/remote processing hasn't already been around for quite a while.

 

 

 

Really? Selective reading much? Latency, lag, *3rd world country broadband speeds, like in the UK* have been mentioned frequently. There is also nowhere near the amount of squeaky clean PR surrounding PSNow, required BB speed have been quoted officially (I think it's 5-6mb, effectively screwing many) and latency is displayed first hand through demos/beta testing - No mumbo jumbo "people are pounding at our doors to find out our secret latency formulas - just you wait to see how amazing it is".

 

Where's the raw figures/benchmark/Digital Foundry like examination of cloud processing on the One? Or even a MS issued this is what Titanfall would be like without the cloud PDF *insert facts about/demonstration of lower quality lighting*, or the likes. Usually the amazing minds behind the tech can't wait to show their geek off to the masses with fancy figures and charts, but instead we just have the marketing and PR department telling us [even the developers talking about the cloud are speaking like marketing&PR in disguise - cmon guys, where's YOUR raw figures/"lines of code"/before&after pictures and everything else?].

As far as I remember they have been open about Azure being used for Titanfall on all platforms (PC, Xbox 360/One). How are they trying to pull wool when this has been known for a while?

 

I guess your demand for before/after difference in benefits of the cloud processing is probably a valid expectation but that's for Digital Foundry to work on not Respawn or Microsoft. Is it even possible for them to do a before/after if the game is fundamentally designed to always use the cloud?

You will also never get any info on the inner working of Azure beyond PR/Marketing just like with every other "Cloud" provider, be it Microsoft or Google or Rackspace. AFAIK only facebook is more open about it.

[George P Global Moderator]

It's definitely not about discussing something I/we don't like. What isn't there to like about any sort of technology/functionality that can improve gaming? I'd be a bit of a numbskull to say "I don't like cloud computing", there are things it can and can't do, it's not really down to personal preference. So that leaves, what do I not like? *Insert rant about console gaming PR/purposeful misdirection & misleading promises*.

 

As for you saying we can't gauge our ability to offload, of course we can, it's why people get frustrated at MS. PC's and PC based games have been able to do it for ages and already there is plenty of research done on the current (and future) limits of processing remotely/in the cloud. Hence why people get annoyed when it's sugar coated as new technology and never before seen advances. I mean Titanfall itself already runs on the 360 and PC, it's not something new that can be done due to XB1 hardware. If MS are taking that knowledge and improving on it, good, but please don't try and pull wool over our eyes and proclaim that the groundwork for the cloud/remote processing hasn't already been around for quite a while.

 

 

 

Really? Selective reading much? Latency, lag, *3rd world country broadband speeds, like in the UK* have been mentioned frequently. There is also nowhere near the amount of squeaky clean PR surrounding PSNow, required BB speed have been quoted officially (I think it's 5-6mb, effectively screwing many) and latency is displayed first hand through demos/beta testing - No mumbo jumbo "people are pounding at our doors to find out our secret latency formulas - just you wait to see how amazing it is".

 

Where's the raw figures/benchmark/Digital Foundry like examination of cloud processing on the One? Or even a MS issued this is what Titanfall would be like without the cloud PDF *insert facts about/demonstration of lower quality lighting*, or the likes. Usually the amazing minds behind the tech can't wait to show their geek off to the masses with fancy figures and charts, but instead we just have the marketing and PR department telling us [even the developers talking about the cloud are speaking like marketing&PR in disguise - cmon guys, where's YOUR raw figures/"lines of code"/before&after pictures and everything else?].

 

The past doesn't dictate what will happen in the future, again, why is it that, because so and so hasn't said it's possible or so and so hasn't done it yet that we should just chalk it up to not being doable and leave it at that?

 

I've said before that the way Respawn is using it is still in a more traditional dedicated server sense, it's offloading AI and maybe a few other things world related but that's nothing new, it's also the easiest thing to do to start.  Forza used it in a creative new way, it's AI but mapped to real players, I don't know of any other racing game to do it before.   It's AI but a step up when you think about it.  So, who's to say the next game to use "the cloud" won't take it another step up and do something else?     

 

To me the options open up with the type of game you play, titanfall is the type of game, it's online only, Destiny is the next one, where the world is online fully.    I'm sure developers are looking at ways to push it more, there are more ways to offload things, things that don't matter to latency and can work out, everyone knows about AI, so again, it's the first thing to do.    Call me an optimist or whatever but because it hasn't been done yet is not something I believe as a valid excuse.  You can point to the PC and how it's not done there yet, but no one has brought the scale of something like Azure to be used on the PC yet, MS could, the offer is there for developers now.  And as far as it goes it's only going to grow, more centers more servers and so on.   I think a happy middle ground can be reached where we have local and cloud processing of different parts of the game are possible.  It's only when they've tried to take it fully server based with things like OnLive that we've seen it fall flat, not that it isn't possible to do either, just not right now with the connections people have.

[PGHammer]

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.

Nobody has said they couldn't do it - except the console developers and manufacturers themselves - ask them WHY they aren't doing so.

 

Further, there is absolutely nothing that bars a crowdsource-funded game (or other project) from XB1, or PC, or even the Windows App Store - or have we forgotten that VLC for ModernUI is crowdsource-funded?

 

Nobody ever said it couldn't be done, Athernar.

 

What Azure is (nothing more or less) is a new take on a VERY old idea - computing power as a utility.