Microsoft explains Xbox One cloud gaming in an effort to justify online req


Recommended Posts

Legendofmart is all about bashing the One. He doesn't care o any feature makes it better, more appealing, more versatile or more useful.

I don't even think most of them know the meaning of versatility or usefulness.

What they want is a single purpose electronic device like a cassette player or a terrestrial radio player.

They don't get the idea of supplemental computing that everything should be done on a single device

Or maybe it's just because it's coming from Microsoft.

Yup, and people like that call themselves "Gamers", like I've said before I used to be like that, until I understood that if you call yourself a gamer, time's spent gaming and not finding flaws, unavoidable flaws of any platform.

My "unlimited" internet connection (Verizon FiOS) apparently has a hidden data cap of 77TB - I think I can spare some if it improves graphics. People were rightly complaining about weaker GPU in Xbox One (at least on paper) but why complain about this? :/

Comcast tried to slap a 500GB data limit on their users. Luckily I have Business Class at my house and office so I'm exempt but I believe because people complained so much they took it back off regardless. Either way, they'll find a way to add it back on and blame it on this I promise you.

Comcast tried to slap a 500GB data limit on their users. Luckily I have Business Class at my house and office so I'm exempt but I believe because people complained so much they took it back off regardless. Either way, they'll find a way to add it back on and blame it on this I promise you.

Maybe but I'd say that this doesn't use anywhere near as much data as say, Netflix or OnLive do. Just my guess, but you're not exactly sending the whole game down to someone but parts. Just a guess.

Comcast tried to slap a 500GB data limit on their users. Luckily I have Business Class at my house and office so I'm exempt but I believe because people complained so much they took it back off regardless. Either way, they'll find a way to add it back on and blame it on this I promise you.

I am not sure how Comcast (and others) treating their customers like crap has anything to do with Xbox One? If you are concerned about bandwidth, unplug it and then play.

Wait Microsoft is bring innovative technology to consoles that if you have an Internet connection you will have a better looking game and experience and that is NOT ok to you? So if you have better PC hardware you will have a better looking game with a better experience right? Why is it ok for one but not on for the next?

If me spending $400 on a console that gives me graphics of a $1500 gaming rig through the use of cloud computing then I'm sold. It beats me spending $1000 every 4 years to have a decent gaming setup.

All these One haters are so out of touch it's not even funny anymore.

First they spread FUD about how the One has to always be connected which had been debunked.

Then they start "no used gsme"

Then now cloud computing "is NOT ok"

Jeez, it's like guys are desperate to put down the One as much as possible.

If they love the PS4 so much why not go talk about all its benefits and how you plan on enjoying it instead of spamming the xbox threads?

Or is that there's not much to talk about playstation

You and HawkMan are completely missing the point of my argument. Photon maps and fog ARE rendering tasks. If a game expects those to be processed by the cloud but a particular gamer doesn't have access to it, then what? Do they not having as good lighting or atmospheric effects? The most probable answer is that that gamer will get an inferior experience due to these extra constraints. Developers won't waste time coding two different solutions to the same problem.

Everyone will be paying the same amount for the game and the console, so why should some have a better game than others simply because of a technology barrier that is not and SHOULD not be at all related to the game or the console? Every Xbox One owner should get the exact same experience for the same game. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this. That is the point. It is a BAD thing for everyone if people buy into this mentality.

Maybe but I'd say that this doesn't use anywhere near as much data as say, Netflix or OnLive do. Just my guess, but you're not exactly sending the whole game down to someone but parts. Just a guess.

I don't know, if we're saying that the GPU can't really handle it locally and we're offloading it then we're going to be offloading quite a bit of data to and from the Azure datacenter. All of my testing with Azure has left some pretty high data usage whenever it comes to managing it, etc.

You and HawkMan are completely missing the point of my argument. Photon maps and fog ARE rendering tasks. If a game expects those to be processed by the cloud but a particular gamer doesn't have access to it, then what? Do they not having as good lighting or atmospheric effects? The most probable answer is that that gamer will get an inferior experience due to these extra constraints. Developers won't waste time coding two different solutions to the same problem.

Everyone will be paying the same amount for the game and the console, so why should some have a better game than others simply because of a technology barrier that is not and SHOULD not be at all related to the game or the console? Every Xbox One owner should get the exact same experience for the same game. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this. That is the point. It is a BAD thing for everyone if people buy into this mentality.

Microsoft might put certification in place to avoid such things from occurring. Think about it - this is like complaining about Xbox 360 doing HD games in 2005 and saying but some people may not have HDTVs (or 5.1 sound etc.).

so long as they are not going to try to pull an Onlive style online rendering method that ends up with compression artifacts i do not really mind having part of the game rendered off console.

You and HawkMan are completely missing the point of my argument. Photon maps and fog ARE rendering tasks. If a game expects those to be processed by the cloud but a particular gamer doesn't have access to it, then what? Do they not having as good lighting or atmospheric effects? The most probable answer is that that gamer will get an inferior experience due to these extra constraints. Developers won't waste time coding two different solutions to the same problem.

Everyone will be paying the same amount for the game and the console, so why should some have a better game than others simply because of a technology barrier that is not and SHOULD not be at all related to the game or the console? Every Xbox One owner should get the exact same experience for the same game. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this. That is the point. It is a BAD thing for everyone if people buy into this mentality.

If the developers are worth the money they get paid then they'll know to check for a internet connection first and if there is one then offload tasks to the cloud, if not then render as best you can on the local hardware. What's the end result? The game will look close to or the same as it does on the PS4 probably without the help of the cloud and a bit better with the cloud.

Why should people who have internet not get some extra stuff if it's there? Hey, I know, I paid the same amount for lots of my 360 games but don't care about MP so why should I have to pay the same as the next guy then? You see how it doesn't work this way and never has right?

  • Like 1

You and HawkMan are completely missing the point of my argument. Photon maps and fog ARE rendering tasks. If a game expects those to be processed by the cloud but a particular gamer doesn't have access to it, then what? Do they not having as good lighting or atmospheric effects? The most probable answer is that that gamer will get an inferior experience due to these extra constraints. Developers won't waste time coding two different solutions to the same problem.

Everyone will be paying the same amount for the game and the console, so why should some have a better game than others simply because of a technology barrier that is not and SHOULD not be at all related to the game or the console? Every Xbox One owner should get the exact same experience for the same game. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this. That is the point. It is a BAD thing for everyone if people buy into this mentality.

Let's say you don't have an internet connection but I do. Why do you care if some elements of my gaming experience are better than yours when your gaming experience is still top notch?

Following your logic it seems like MS should never have released Xbox Live because people without an internet connection won't be able to take advantage of it. That doesn't make sense.

  • Like 1

I don't know, if we're saying that the GPU can't really handle it locally and we're offloading it then we're going to be offloading quite a bit of data to and from the Azure datacenter. All of my testing with Azure has left some pretty high data usage whenever it comes to managing it, etc.

No, see, I think it's not that you can't do it all locally, it's about either speeding it up by getting some help or adding a bit more on top. If developers are smart about this they wouldn't want the games to be vastly different when they're on and offline, that also makes it more complex to code I bet. I like to think that we'll see them use it to help with loading things faster. When you compare the difference in raw power between the X1 and PS4 you figure that because the PS4 has more it can load and render things quicker and also more of them. So say you use the cloud to shave off time for loading the next level, it's a difference for the gamer of waiting a bit longer or not, doesn't really change the look of the game much though.

Or you can use the cloud to render a bit more, so you just get a few more things on the screen with it or without it. Like a bigger world map in MP would be one thing. Or you see more NPCs walking around a town in some RPG, but without the cloud you get a few less.

It really doesn't make the developers look good to rely on this so much that you get a night and day version of the game with or without it. THey'll start off using it where it makes the most sense and where it's safer to use it to start and that will be online in multiplayer for sure.

I expect this will help with loading MP matches quicker, bigger maps, more players in at the same time and so on. After that they'll start to try it out more and more on the SP side.

MP games with dedicated host servers would be the big benefit of these. Since these AZURE servers aren't going anywhere, it would work great to allow server to last long time after the game has been released.

I've been wondering though if that 300,000 number is just Xbox Live or ALL the Azure servers around the world (dunno the current numbers now but i'm guessing they just included the total number of Azure servers).

Surely the 300,000 is just the Xbox servers otherwise why quote the number in relation to Xbox One?

Yeah, it's just Xbox Live servers not Azure, the Azure datacenters aren't listed in that number at all.

Offloading any rendering to the cloud still doesn't make much sense when the latency to any server outside of the same city you live in will be far higher than the time it takes to render one frame.

You assume it has to be synchronous, perhaps its more along the lines of allowing dynamic worlds by implementing cloud servers that can change them and allow the depth/shading/immersion we expect where the data will then be cached locally..

I for one, can't wait. Google fiber and Xbox One ftw, I love Austin!

Not only did you just contradict your own post...in the same post, but in the interview, the MS rep specifically used "rendering tasks" as an example of what could be off-loaded to the cloud. (lighting and fog)

What this tells me is that Microsoft's plan going forward is: if you have an internet connection, you'll get a better looking game and a better experience in said game. And that is NOT ok. I cannot fathom why some of you think that it is.

I can't fathom why you would think it's a bad thing. We live in a connected world. Deal with it or don't buy into it. Stop posting on forums, turn off your phone, turn off your tv, don't stream any content or any media.

MP games with dedicated host servers would be the big benefit of these. Since these AZURE servers aren't going anywhere, it would work great to allow server to last long time after the game has been released.

I've been wondering though if that 300,000 number is just Xbox Live or ALL the Azure servers around the world (dunno the current numbers now but i'm guessing they just included the total number of Azure servers).

Interesting question, as far as I know MS hasn't published their numbers but I bet XBL runs on Azure because it only makes sense to dogfood your own services :)

300k servers though is more than what I believe facebook has though, so the scale of what Microsoft is doing is mind boggling.

You assume it has to be synchronous, perhaps its more along the lines of allowing dynamic worlds by implementing cloud servers that can change them and allow the depth/shading/immersion we expect where the data will then be cached locally..

I for one, can't wait. Google fiber and Xbox One ftw, I love Austin!

One of the things they talk about in this article is part of the rendering, which has to be synchronous. Simply because you can't display a frame before you have all the required data to do so.

One of the things they talk about in this article is part of the rendering, which has to be synchronous. Simply because you can't display a frame before you have all the required data to do so.

And who cares? This is awesome news for me. I've had broadband since I got ISDN over 15 years ago and *THIS* was always the promise of the future.

Only you would turn it into a turd.

It's also a single example of what cloud compute can achieve..

Cloud computing is what allows amazon, facebook, google, bing, twitter et all to achieve what they do. It only makes sense to use it to improve the possibilities of what can be done for gaming experiences.

You and HawkMan are completely missing the point of my argument. Photon maps and fog ARE rendering tasks. If a game expects those to be processed by the cloud but a particular gamer doesn't have access to it, then what? Do they not having as good lighting or atmospheric effects? The most probable answer is that that gamer will get an inferior experience due to these extra constraints. Developers won't waste time coding two different solutions to the same problem.

Everyone will be paying the same amount for the game and the console, so why should some have a better game than others simply because of a technology barrier that is not and SHOULD not be at all related to the game or the console? Every Xbox One owner should get the exact same experience for the same game. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this. That is the point. It is a BAD thing for everyone if people buy into this mentality.

At first, I didn't think it would be a bad thing if Microsoft explicitly states that the extra effects from cloud-assisted rendering are a bonus. However, I think it might be an issue if the cloud processing is used for improved lighting instead of better cloth simulation. If Microsoft can enforce a rule where only certain things can be improved, then it may turn out like NVIDIA's PhysX where the extra effects are merely a bonus.

You and HawkMan are completely missing the point of my argument. Photon maps and fog ARE rendering tasks. If a game expects those to be processed by the cloud but a particular gamer doesn't have access to it, then what? Do they not having as good lighting or atmospheric effects? The most probable answer is that that gamer will get an inferior experience due to these extra constraints. Developers won't waste time coding two different solutions to the same problem.

Everyone will be paying the same amount for the game and the console, so why should some have a better game than others simply because of a technology barrier that is not and SHOULD not be at all related to the game or the console? Every Xbox One owner should get the exact same experience for the same game. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this. That is the point. It is a BAD thing for everyone if people buy into this mentality.

If they don't have access to the cloud then they get the same ambient occlusion lighting you have on PC and the PS4 and the same standard fog the PC and PS4 has instead of improved fidelity ones. chances are in a hectic game environment people won't notice the difference anyway. I woul notice, But I'm the guy who ran the DX10 version of Hellgate ust because the liquid smoke was freaking awesome, and I thought EA's presentation of Ignite engine was awesome, not because Iplay sports games, but because the tehcnology can be used in other games, and the best moment I had in The Force Unleashed was when I was walking up on some metal beams in a roof, and I noticed the game used endorphin (or whatever it's called) for animations, and instead of my character balancing his whole body magically on this back heel, he naturally stepped down and followed the geometry. add soft body dynamics(that no one normal will notice) so that hands actually deform around stuff they grip, and... awesome.

At first, I didn't think it would be a bad thing if Microsoft explicitly states that the extra effects from cloud-assisted rendering are a bonus. However, I think it might be an issue if the cloud processing is used for improved lighting instead of better cloth simulation. If Microsoft can enforce a rule where only certain things can be improved, then it may turn out like NVIDIA's PhysX where the extra effects are merely a bonus.

I really expect that's how it'll end up, a bonus. It's not in their best interests to make it dramatically different. Besides I don't think it'll improve the lighting, in the example given, I still think it will be used more as a way to load things quicker but not make them look vastly better.

One of the things they talk about in this article is part of the rendering, which has to be synchronous. Simply because you can't display a frame before you have all the required data to do so.

There are many computationally heavy elements of rendering that can be asynchronous and be done outside the main pipeline. like the aforementioned photon maps calculation.

At first, I didn't think it would be a bad thing if Microsoft explicitly states that the extra effects from cloud-assisted rendering are a bonus. However, I think it might be an issue if the cloud processing is used for improved lighting instead of better cloth simulation. If Microsoft can enforce a rule where only certain things can be improved, then it may turn out like NVIDIA's PhysX where the extra effects are merely a bonus.

You can't cloud compute improved cloth simulation. it needs to be done fairly syncronous with the rendering. however by offloading AI And other calculations from the CPU the CPU can be used more for improved cloth simulation.

How would improved lighting be an issue though ? as I said before, only 3D graphics geeks like me would probably notice major difference between the existing Ambient occlusion fakery and proper photon maps.

Not only did you just contradict your own post...in the same post, but in the interview, the MS rep specifically used "rendering tasks" as an example of what could be off-loaded to the cloud. (lighting and fog)

What this tells me is that Microsoft's plan going forward is: if you have an internet connection, you'll get a better looking game and a better experience in said game. And that is NOT ok. I cannot fathom why some of you think that it is.

Have you ever played a PC game? The games scale in performance by the equipment used. So, the same thing would apply here. If you use the cloud your game scales up, if it does not it scales down. Not a hard concept to follow.

You are over complicating things.

If you have a decent Internet connection and your game happens to use the cloud option (which again is optional), you get much better looking game and with better A.I. for more characters for example.

People wanted better graphics and better A.I. for game play and now they are crying because it happens be even more enhanced than normal for a console cycle because it comes from a remote server.

I am sorry, but you guys are being ridiculous, do you honestly read your own posts?

And who cares? This is awesome news for me. I've had broadband since I got ISDN over 15 years ago and *THIS* was always the promise of the future.

Only you would turn it into a turd.

It's also a single example of what cloud compute can achieve..

Cloud computing is what allows amazon, facebook, google, bing, twitter et all to achieve what they do. It only makes sense to use it to improve the possibilities of what can be done for gaming experiences.

I salute you. Finally someone who embraces the future and not acting like a cry baby.

Am I unhappy about things about the Xbox One? Sure, I hate the name and I hate the look of the console.

However, I am not going to blame Microsoft for my mom dying in 1999 or my dog dying 2 years ago.

I find most people on the Internet actually irrational when it comes to talking about Microsoft in general.

They love Apple and hate Microsoft (even when they innovate or do something cool), they are made fun of for nothing, because someone didn't get their way and didn't grow up or because they hate it because its the "in" thing and they don't know how to handle being an adult.

I was disappointed in Microsoft for not bringing the heat, they have Glasses that can do 3D and also do Augmented Reality and have illumiroom and have all kinds of neat things that they are working on in their huge research labs and I thought they would make themselves look different by showing some of that technology that they are incubating. They haven't shown that thus far. Maybe by E3, or maybe by E3 2014.

The games will all be shown at E3, they said this 5 times already and nobody either believes them or they skip over that part entirely. They mentioned that in the FIRST YEAR there would be 15 exclusive "franchises" (i.e. real playable games) and out of that 8 of them would be new IP and that would all be shown at E3, but yet everyone skips over that part and says they have no games.

They said there is two parts to the story, one part is what we just saw and the second part is E3, if they are horrible after E3 and people play the games and they are horrible, then I see nothing wrong with saying stuff about Microsoft. However, right now I am annoyed to death about people getting things so wrong.

People still think you can't play used games on the new Xbox and that is completely wrong.

Microsoft has the game installed on the hard drive for three basic reasons, one is that they can switch to the video game like a TV channel and the second is that it is actually better for higher performance to the game, and the third is for cloud processing.

I think it is awesome that the game is installing on your hard drive while you play and the cloud stores your levels. So, you could uninstall and install at will and hopefully it takes your level in consideration first. For example the cloud holds your save point and the cloud tells the Xbox to install that level first on the hard drive. That would be smart and most efficient.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!