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

[Draken]

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.

[+Neowin User 007 Subscriber²]

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.

[George P Global Moderator]

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.

[BajiRav]

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.

[spacer]

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.

[+Neowin User 007 Subscriber²]

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.

[BajiRav]

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.).

[_neutrino Veteran]

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.

[George P Global Moderator]

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?

[jakem1]

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.

[soniqstylz]

I could see this working best for MP games.

[George P Global Moderator]

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.

[Roger H. Veteran]

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).

[jakem1]

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

[George P Global Moderator]

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.

[spudtrooper]

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.

[Blackhearted]

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.

[spudtrooper]

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.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

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.

[HawkMan]

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.

[George P Global Moderator]

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.

[HawkMan]

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.

[Yogurtmaster]

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?

[HawkMan]

Are you sure you quoted the right person...?

[Yogurtmaster]

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.