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
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.