147 posts in this topic

The highest profile cloud-optimised game was Titanfall, which launched at 792p and had framerate issues. Colour me unimpressed.

 

Did you just call Titanfall cloud-optimised? :laugh: Also, what do resolution and framerate have to do with cloud-optimisations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you just call Titanfall cloud-optimised? :laugh:

That's what the developers claimed.

 

Also, what do resolution and framerate have to do with cloud-optimisations?

Supposedly calculations are meant to be offloaded to the cloud in order to improve performance. The reality is that it has no bearing on performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what the developers claimed.

 

 

Supposedly calculations are meant to be offloaded to the cloud in order to improve performance. The reality is that it has no bearing on performance.

 

But calculations are offloaded to the cloud. Check out Diablo 3 and WoW, for example. This doesn't mean that graphics, as in, meshes, models, textures, sprites and other similar stuff, will be magically rendered on the cloud and then just streamed down to the players, unless the game has specifically been made that way.. something which absolutely is not the case with TItanfall, since you do not install all that data for no reason. If that were the case, then we would have had an OnLive-like experience when playing Titanfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, just wow. I'm surprised this article was used for the topic.....

People don't want to take what MS said, they just want to inject whatever silly notion they have about the 'cloud'. I have to say that discussions on this topic are some of the hardest to have.

MS didn't mention improving graphical fidelity at all, and yet, the same old comments are made, the same jokes are made.

Their statement was actually true that they have enough servers dedicated to X1 use to equal the COMPUTATIONAL power of so many 360s or X1s. For some reason people will literally brush that factual statement aside and focus on how they take the entire presentation.

MS has 300k servers for this purpose, you don't spend all the money and time setting those up and not want to mention it to the end users.

I think what gets MS in trouble is using too many numbers. Throwing out too many numbers along with words that people clearly take the wrong way, and you get this constant blow back. MS should just come out and say:

"We built a bunch of servers to do stuff for games" That would be less controversial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

inb4 "Japanese microsoft doesn't represent the whole of microsoft".

That seems to be the mantra these days. If a MS department screws up, it's either a rogue employee or not "representative of the company". Makes one wonder when a company can be held accountable for its actions doesn't it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to be the mantra these days. If a MS department screws up, it's either a rogue employee or not "representative of the company". Makes one wonder when a company can be held accountable for its actions doesn't it?

How is this anything like situations like the S.Korea stuff?

A post on social media is not the same as an official event.

:laugh: I just don't get the thinking that one event is taken and applied to an entire company for anything they do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look kids, numbers!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People don't want to take what MS said, they just want to inject whatever silly notion they have about the 'cloud'. I have to say that discussions on this topic are some of the hardest to have.

MS didn't mention improving graphical fidelity at all, and yet, the same old comments are made, the same jokes are made.

Microsoft is misleading users about the impact of cloud computing in an attempt to downplay the performance advantage that the PS4 has. As I have already pointed out, we haven't seen any tangible benefits from Microsoft's cloud platform so far. Titanfall was the most hyped title for its cloud implementation and it was nothing more than a dedicated server, something that has been common in PC gaming for over a decade.

 

It's all very well having that amount of supposed power available to developers but it's worthless if it doesn't improve the gaming experience. Most people would rather have the higher framerates and graphical fidelity of the PS4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft is misleading users about the impact of cloud computing in an attempt to downplay the performance advantage that the PS4 has. As I have already pointed out, we haven't seen any tangible benefits from Microsoft's cloud platform so far. Titanfall was the most hyped title for its cloud implementation and it was nothing more than a dedicated server, something that has been common in PC gaming for over a decade.

 

It's all very well having that amount of supposed power available to developers but it's worthless if it doesn't improve the gaming experience. Most people would rather have the higher framerates and graphical fidelity of the PS4.

Forza uses the cloud to offload AI calculations, which is something beyond just dedicated servers.

I'm not arguing that you can name off every single game on the X1 out and find something 'magical' about the cloud. MS clearly needs more games like Forza that show developers using the cloud in a way beyond just dedicated servers, no arguments there.

But my point is that people in this very thread, people that are clearly knowledgeable about such things, insist on sticking to the same old lines and not acknowledge the facts.

Server hardware can be used to offload parts of a game. That is not misleading. Its been explained in detail and its been demoed in many ways. MS is careful to say 'COMPUTATIONAL' power since if they had said graphical, they would be lying. MS went ahead and dedicated a whole bunch of servers for X1 developers to play with that, for no extra cost to the developer. It is a big deal behind the scenes, it is something worth talking about.

Again, I think MS simply chose the wrong way to talk about it to the public. They tried to be too cute and throw out a bunch of numbers that just result in angering some and confusing others. What frustrates me is that if you look past the pr, there is really something to be interested in as a gamer. There is something cool that can result from what MS has done. As I said before, MS should have kept the cloud remarks to very simple terms. You want to communicate that its a big deal, but you also don't want to give them the wrong impression.

About the ps4 comparison, I think those people would be cool with the power of the ps4 + the work going into the cloud. Sony is doing that with things like PlayStation Now. What if games that are made thanks to the access to MS' servers are brought over to the ps4? Its a win win. Beyond the console war, the things developers do with server hardware can apply to any platform.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Lies! The impact is awesomely awesome! That is, if your game is about finding the next Mersenne prime number. :laugh:

Forza uses the cloud to offload AI calculations, which is something beyond just dedicated servers.

I'm not arguing that you can name off every single game on the X1 out and find something 'magical' about the cloud. MS clearly needs more games like Forza that show developers using the cloud in a way beyond just dedicated servers, no arguments there.

But my point is that people in this very thread, people that are clearly knowledgeable about such things, insist on sticking to the same old lines and not acknowledge the facts.

Server hardware can be used to offload parts of a game. That is not misleading. Its been explained in detail and its been demoed in many ways. MS is careful to say 'COMPUTATIONAL' power since if they had said graphical, they would be lying. MS went ahead and dedicated a whole bunch of servers for X1 developers to play with that, for no extra cost to the developer. It is a big deal behind the scenes, it is something worth talking about.

Again, I think MS simply chose the wrong way to talk about it to the public. They tried to be too cute and throw out a bunch of numbers that just result in angering some and confusing others. What frustrates me is that if you look past the pr, there is really something to be interested in as a gamer. There is something cool that can result from what MS has done. As I said before, MS should have kept the cloud remarks to very simple terms. You want to communicate that its a big deal, but you also don't want to give them the wrong impression.

 

Very well said.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft is misleading users about the impact of cloud computing in an attempt to downplay the performance advantage that the PS4 has. As I have already pointed out, we haven't seen any tangible benefits from Microsoft's cloud platform so far. Titanfall was the most hyped title for its cloud implementation and it was nothing more than a dedicated server, something that has been common in PC gaming for over a decade.

Cloud computing does have an impact but it's relative to the game. Take games like WoW for example, imagine if your PC had to do all the calculations for everything that happened in that game. It would lag like crazy because there's usually a ton of things all going on at the same time. Hence calculations are offloaded to the cloud, the only thing your computer has to do is render the graphics.

With the Xbox One, MS is offering all those benefits for free. Devs don't have to worry about maintaining the servers, paying for the bandwidth and the hardware...they just have to worry about the game. There are other benefits too, but Trooper11 explained them better than I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look kids, numbers!

 

Only the Nintendo 64 has trilinear mip mapping and the Z buffer. Nothing else comes close.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But my point is that people in this very thread, people that are clearly knowledgeable about such things, insist on sticking to the same old lines and not acknowledge the facts.

Server hardware can be used to offload parts of a game. That is not misleading. Its been explained in detail and its been demoed in many ways. MS is careful to say 'COMPUTATIONAL' power since if they had said graphical, they would be lying.

Stating that the cloud can provide three times the power of the console itself implies that games will be three times as advanced/detailed as a result - whether that's AI, physics or graphics. The reality is that it has barely made any difference whatsoever. Microsoft's proclamations aren't even remotely in line with the delivered result. Even Forza, which has the most noticeable implementation, does little more than create AI profiles (Drivatars) based on how players drive and share them with other players - in fact the feature existed in previous games in the series, it was just based locally rather than shared through the cloud.

 

Rather than investing in the cloud Microsoft should have simply included a more powerful processor, as the processor used in the XB1 is basically an underperforming from two years ago running at half the clock speed. In computing terms it is positively antiquated.

 

Cloud computing does have an impact but it's relative to the game. Take games like WoW for example, imagine if your PC had to do all the calculations for everything that happened in that game. It would lag like crazy because there's usually a ton of things all going on at the same time. Hence calculations are offloaded to the cloud, the only thing your computer has to do is render the graphics.

The calculations are server based because it's a multiplayer game and it could be exploited if they were done locally. There is no reason why WoW couldn't run locally.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the Nintendo 64 has trilinear mip mapping and the Z buffer. Nothing else comes close.

 

And it had fish that would move out of the way 17 years before Xbox One.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stating that the cloud can provide three times the power of the console itself implies that games will be three times as advanced/detailed as a result - whether that's AI, physics or graphics.

3 times more computational power. What I'm arguing against is the implication that many seem to be stuck on. MS should have not used numbers, because now people think what you just said. Its just too technical of a feature to be communicated to the public outside of a small mention.

So MS needs to either be even more clear that the cloud will not make games look better, or they need to drop any technical numbers.

The reality is that it has barely made any difference whatsoever. Microsoft's proclamations aren't even remotely in line with the delivered result. Even Forza, which has the most noticeable implementation, does little more than create AI profiles (Drivatars) based on how players drive and share them with other players - in fact the feature existed in previous games in the series, it was just based locally rather than shared through the cloud.

I agree that content is lacking. However, I am not going to ignore the facts just because of that. Servers can, in fact, offload parts of a game. What needs to happen is more games that make use of it, that's all.

Rather than investing in the cloud Microsoft should have simply included a more powerful processor, as the processor used in the XB1 is basically an underperforming from two years ago running at half the clock speed. In computing terms it is positively antiquated.

Well if even Sony could not afford to include a more powerful processor, what is to say that MS could have if it didn't invest in server hardware? That's like saying Sony should not have bought Gaikai in order to offer a more powerful gpu in the ps4.

We are getting into the weeds a bit, but basically, MS investing in servers did not have to impact the hardware at all. Remember, using server hardware can be applied to any platform. This isn't about just trying to hide shortcomings in hardware. The pc can take advantage of it too.

We are so fixated on MS just because they made a big deal out of it. There will come a point where servers are being used for more and more capabilities within games. At the very least MS is exposing it to many more developers then would normally even try to use it beyond the basics. It could be that this was a feature best left unmentioned, just to let developers use it and if good games came out, say something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like people have already made their mind that the Cloud doesn't do anything on two consoles that have been in the market for 5 months. And yet most of the Internet stuffs are not possible with the Cloud. Try doing a Google Now, Siri, or a Cortana text message dictation without an Internet connection. What happens? Error! Do you find it uncanny that all these services seem to translate your voice in real-time with little lag? How is this even possible? It's not the phone that's doing it.

 

Cloud gaming and cloud-assisted gaming is the future. PS4 is doing it. XB1 is doing it. AMD is doing it. NVIDIA is doing it.

 

AMD: http://www.amd.com/en-us/solutions/servers/cloud/gaming

NVIDIA: http://www.nvidia.com/object/cloud-gaming.html

 

But of course, most people here are architects of these technologies.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year it was 4X the power of Xbox One and 40X the power of Xbox 360.

http://www.develop-online.net/news/microsoft-cloud-makes-xbox-one-four-times-more-powerful/0114948

 

Microsoft downgraded the cloud? lol

 

Seems to be getting weaker, Microsoft might want to feed it some water vapour or it might be 20X SNES next announcement.

ha, way before xbox goes to the cloud, the SNES already reach higher plane with Satellite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 times more computational power. What I'm arguing against is the implication that many seem to be stuck on. MS should have not used numbers, because now people think what you just said. Its just too technical of a feature to be communicated to the public outside of a small mention.

So MS needs to either be even more clear that the cloud will not make games look better, or they need to drop any technical numbers.

Which was exactly my point. Microsoft has been incredibly misleading in its representation of the cloud functionality.

 

I agree that content is lacking. However, I am not going to ignore the facts just because of that. Servers can, in fact, offload parts of a game. What needs to happen is more games that make use of it, that's all.

Nobody disputes the theory but it all comes down to the implementation, which has been woefully underwhelming.

 

Well if even Sony could not afford to include a more powerful processor, what is to say that MS could have if it didn't invest in server hardware? That's like saying Sony should not have bought Gaikai in order to offer a more powerful gpu in the ps4.

Sony shouldn't have bought Gaikai because streaming simply isn't an alternative to local processing. And yes, Sony also cut corners but it was targeting a lower price point and the PS4 still provides the better performance. I think that both companies cut too many corners for this generation and I just don't see this generation lasting as long as the last.

 

We are so fixated on MS just because they made a big deal out of it.

That's because Microsoft is trying to distract from the performance issues of the XB1 by hyping up the cloud potential. It's a classic distraction technique.

 

Microsoft: Our cloud solution gives developers three times the power of the XB1.

Consumer: But what does that mean for the gaming experience?

Microsoft: Ermmm... nothing, but the power is there. Honest!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody disputes the theory but it all comes down to the implementation, which has been woefully underwhelming.

 

Civilization Beyond Earth would be a great way to lead into cloud-powered games, especially when you'd have a bunch of AI alive during mid to late game. Turns may take minutes to compute. (at least, it was that way with the previous Civilization games). Using Azure, one would be able to compute the events many times faster...

 

... that is, if it is worth offloading things server-side in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which was exactly my point. Microsoft has been incredibly misleading in its representation of the cloud functionality.

Again, their wording is technically correct. I do however agree that they should realize that most people are unable to take the info and process it based just on the wording they use. That means that MS must spell it out even clearer. They can't let people get the wrong impression, it just leads to this kind of backlash.

So really all they would have to do is add to their current wording, just a small point to say that this has nothing to do with graphics directly. It is more tied to things like AI. In effect, 'the cloud' can improve a gaming experience, but it does not have a direct effect on the visual side of a game.

Having said that though, maybe that statement is still too much, I don't know. I'm glad I'm not in charge of PR. I would hate that job :laugh:

 

Nobody disputes the theory but it all comes down to the implementation, which has been woefully underwhelming.

Good, I'm glad you said that. I'm perfectly fine with criticizing the lack of content. Its the idea that we just throw out the idea as rubbish that gets to me.

 

Sony shouldn't have bought Gaikai because streaming simply isn't an alternative to local processing. And yes, Sony also cut corners but it was targeting a lower price point and the PS4 still provides the better performance. I think that both companies cut too many corners for this generation and I just don't see this generation lasting as long as the last.

I agree that this generation will not last as long as the last, but I do wonder what MS and Sony could have really done differently. I know the obvious with regards to dropping Kinect, but how could Sony have built a more powerful box without resorting much higher pricing of the console? I suppose they could have used DDR3 like MS did and put that into a better gpu or cpu, but I don't know if it would have resulted in a big difference. We know that both consoles are selling at near cost.

The only way out of the hardware we ended up with would be for MS and Sony to eat huge losses up front, more like they did last gen. They both don't seem to have the stomach to do that, or their financials make it impossible.

 

That's because Microsoft is trying to distract from the performance issues of the XB1 by hyping up the cloud potential. It's a classic distraction technique.

Microsoft: Our cloud solution gives developers three times the power of the XB1.

Consumer: But what does that mean for the gaming experience?

Microsoft: Ermmm... nothing, but the power is there. Honest!

I grant you that some of their motivation for pushing the cloud stuff is to create the idea of supplemental power that will result in the X1 being better then the hardware it has, but I think its unfair to claim that their entire plan revolved around pushing the cloud to cover up poor performance.

MS was planning this server infrastructure way before launch and way before the early issues such as the drm fiasco. I really don't think the idea from day one was that they intended to cover up how 'bad' their console was with talk of 'the cloud'.

I feel that MS was looking for ways to stand out from the competition early on. They had settled on pushing forward with Kinect and then they looked at what they were already good at, server infrastructure, saw the possibilities, and decided to make that a big deal, creating something dedicated to the X1 and freely accessible to developers with all the necessary tools. They probably also felt that the server stuff would become more and more important as the generation went on, so getting the message out early about how much MS is investing in that would be good.

They just haven't gotten enough developers leveraging the technology to justify it in everyone's mind. Since the theory (the real one, not the trumped up one that is thrown around) is sound with the right technology in place, then its pretty likely that more and more games will try to use it like Forza has or more extensively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civilization Beyond Earth would be a great way to lead into cloud-powered games, especially when you'd have a bunch of AI alive during mid to late game. Turns may take minutes to compute. (at least, it was that way with the previous Civilization games). Using Azure, one would be able to compute the events many times faster...

 

... that is, if it is worth offloading things server-side in the first place.

yes, the game that can truly utilize server-cloud-power is those chess-like games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forza uses the cloud to offload AI calculations, which is something beyond just dedicated servers.

Here's why I personally do not get the claim Forza 5 would not be the same without the power of the cloud. And someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the way I understand the integration with Forza 5 specifically is yes it does the calculation for the AI, but if you then play the game offline, you will play with whatever the latest Drivatar calculation information is you have downloaded from the last time you played connected to the cloud.

So in that aspect, is it really the cloud makes it that much better of an experience and an experience that can only be had thanks to the cloud? Or does the cloud just makes things more convenient?

What I mean is it seems as if these calculations could also be done without the cloud itself. It just would obviously mean extended load times, etc. But if you can download the Drivatar information for use when the game is offline, then it is not really the cloud has to be used to get that Drivatar information. It is just it makes it easier to access and quicker to get.

So it is not really the cloud is solely responsible for making it that much better of a game. Just that it makes it a smoother experience overall.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is not really the cloud is solely responsible for making it that much better of a game. Just that it makes it a smoother experience overall.

I don't know exactly how the Forza system works, but if the cloud makes it a smoother experience, isn't that the same thing as making it a better game?

I think another point that needs to be made again is that what the cloud can do is not unique to it. Its not breaking new ground with techniques that would somehow only work on server hardware. These are just pcs after all. They can do anything that any other pc can do. The idea is to supplement local hardware, to give developers ways of improving the experience without needing loads of local hardware performance.

The value of the cloud is not in what it is processing, but in the sheer volume of hardware you can throw at a problem vs what you have access to locally. So any problem that is not latency bound can be done more efficiently using server hardware then the local hardware. Any platform could be better with that capability.

So for Forza, its just far more efficient for them to do the AI work on that server hardware and not even involve the local console in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 times more computational power. What I'm arguing against is the implication that many seem to be stuck on. MS should have not used numbers, because now people think what you just said. Its just too technical of a feature to be communicated to the public outside of a small mention.

So MS needs to either be even more clear that the cloud will not make games look better, or they need to drop any technical numbers.

I agree that content is lacking. However, I am not going to ignore the facts just because of that. Servers can, in fact, offload parts of a game. What needs to happen is more games that make use of it, that's all.

Well if even Sony could not afford to include a more powerful processor, what is to say that MS could have if it didn't invest in server hardware? That's like saying Sony should not have bought Gaikai in order to offer a more powerful gpu in the ps4.

We are getting into the weeds a bit, but basically, MS investing in servers did not have to impact the hardware at all. Remember, using server hardware can be applied to any platform. This isn't about just trying to hide shortcomings in hardware. The pc can take advantage of it too.

We are so fixated on MS just because they made a big deal out of it. There will come a point where servers are being used for more and more capabilities within games. At the very least MS is exposing it to many more developers then would normally even try to use it beyond the basics. It could be that this was a feature best left unmentioned, just to let developers use it and if good games came out, say something.

 

How would they quantify their infrastructure without any numbers? Infinite power of the cloud? People have problem even with that. Will it be wrong for Sony to use some XX number for Gaikai network performance if consumers can't verify it before launch? Not at all.

 

I don't think 3X computational power is misleading at all. They did use it in the context of spec war which was wrong/misleading but they ####ed up so much during initial reveal that referring to that timeframe is pointless given changes since then. I think if they use that 3X number today, it wouldn't be misleading as long as they can provide tangible benefits like Forza or Titanfall. Forza has a clear visible difference in how people feel the AI whereas for Titanfall it's mostly in the form of dedicated servers and lower ping due to Azure.

 

Problem is with people who don't stop to give a thought to what the numbers mean. They have 300K dedicated servers in the cloud at launch and going forward they will have 3X computation power for every X1 sold. How else can they give any number for XBL infrastructure given that the X1 sales is a moving target? That's clear and obvious to me (unless I misread/misunderstood).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The calculations are server based because it's a multiplayer game and it could be exploited if they were done locally. There is no reason why WoW couldn't run locally.

Offloading the calculations to the server doesn't stop exploits, not by a long shot. It makes it harder sure, but there are still plenty of exploits in WoW. You should go read up what most people have to say about Russians on EU servers.

The other reason for the offloaded calculations? Performance. A regular computer would lag like #### if it had to process all those calculations locally.

Or look at Eve Online. You really think your computer can handle all those calculations? Big battles cause one of the world's largest datacenter to slow down to a crawl. What do you think it's going to do to your puny i7?

Of course these are all examples and I'm not saying that WoW or Eve Online is going to come to the Xbox One. I'm just saying that offloading calculations to the cloud can have a significant benefit with the right type of game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.