Regardless my point wasn't that servers (cloud) can't improve games, my point is they already do on PC, PS4, PS3 and Xbox 360. Server hosts data/content and makes calculations which are done in the 'cloud' rather than the local machine. It's nothing new or specific to Xbox One.
What can an Xbox One do with the servers (cloud) that can't be done on any other machine? I'm sure if you answered that and gave sources to support your claims less people would think Microsoft was trying to hype up the Xbox One to compensate for the fact its a weaker system than the PS4. I personally think a toaster with a LCD monitor could utilize the cloud as much as an Xbox One prove me wrong.
Do you guys not follow other posts in this thread?
What MS is doing differently is two fold:
1. Offering access to server hardware for free.
2. Building the X1 in a way to maximize usage of the cloud (they went over that early on, I can point to articles if you need them)
ANY device can connect to a cloud server. When will we get past the false impressions people have? As much as people say MS lie about this stuff, at least point out that they have never claimed that the cloud itself is different from any other cloud. Its all just a collection of servers. MS might claim that Azure has an advantage in the tools developers can use, but again, Azure is not specific to the X1 and can work with any device.
TBH, the sooner people get off microsoft's cloud hype train and come into reality the better.
You will not be rendering visuals via a server. Its too latency sensitive. The only way servers could improve visuals is if they offload enough other stuff to allow the gpu to do more then it otherwise would for visuals. I have no idea if that would amount to anything.
As far as people being on the hype train, what do you exactly mean by that? For one thing, it seems like most people around here are very much against MS' investment in servers, so your already in the majority opinion. Secondly, I haven't seen anyone around here make the crazy claims about the cloud that so many have focused on. The only people left that aren't opposed to it are focusing on what it can do, you know, the reality. That's where I'm at anyway.
Yeah, a controlled demo, unplayable, and not representative of any real world games we are currently seeing on these consoles. Remember when Sony chucked hundreds of ducks on a screen to show how the PS2 could handle graphics and physics (and then laughingly mocked that with a PS3 version)? Remember when MS demoed Milo to show us what Kinect 1 was apparently going to be capable of? Pretty much no one takes controlled demos seriously from any company unless they're playable and somehow represent an actual game, not a carefully constructed one-off scenario to try and push an agenda/point. Skeptics can eat crow afterwards if needed, to say we should be eating crow right now is not how "eating crow" works. None of the doubts has been proven to any stretch of the imagination.
I think the difference here is that the demo MS showed is not completely unheard of or new. The others you mentioned were completely new things that were only being created to market something. The principle behind the MS demo is not unverifiable. Literally, the techniques being used can be tested and verified elsewhere.
This is the part I don't get. Using servers to offload number crunching is not new and it has not been controversial until now. Now that MS used it as a feature of its platform, suddenly its all in question. If MS' had not promoted this feature at all, there would be very little blow back.
The part I agree with you about is that in order for it to be a clear advantage for gamers, more games have to come to demonstrate its usefulness.
As for that demo, you mean the questionable one from a few weeks or so ago? Yea, i seen it. Doesn't mean i believe it's completely legit though. Mainly because even with something else calculating the physics, the increase of things being rendered, on the client(hint, that's your xbox), from the enhanced physics will not come for free like they want you to believe. In fact, i'm pretty sure that's why they capped the framerate in that demo, to hide the fact it still wouldn't be 'free'.
What evidence is there that it was a lie? Its easy to just through that out there and dismiss something, but I would love to see the evidence that the demo was a fake.
Yes, but Microsoft is hyping the technology now and has been doing so since before launch.
Probably because they invested so much into it.
I suspect that they knew there would not be many games making use of the servers beyond the basics for a while, but they also felt they needed to get the word out there to push it as a feature. It's one of those risks to take.
More graphics power allows developers to produce better and new experiences. Also, being a DX11 chipset means it's capable of tessellation and the APUs are better equipped for processing physics.
So would you say that the X1 migrating to DX12 would be considered an innovation since it allows developers to do more?