Crackdown 3 and the Power of the Cloud

[+Asmodai MVC]

So, if it is depending on the cloud.. you'll have to be online for this game to work?

Yes.

[fusi0n]

Yes.

Thanks for answering my question.. However, I'm not sure how I feel about this "next level of gaming".. but I'm sure it's going to be common.. 

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

Thanks for answering my question.. However, I'm not sure how I feel about this "next level of gaming".. but I'm sure it's going to be common.. 

Don't forget the cloud and online only part of this is for multiplayer only. Something that you'd need to be online for anyway.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Thanks for answering my question.. However, I'm not sure how I feel about this "next level of gaming".. but I'm sure it's going to be common.. 

 

It's the multiplayer part of the game, so it'd have to be online any way.

[1337ish]

Someone seems pretty fixated on downplaying MS's position/advancement/ability in the cloud space when it comes to Xbox gaming.   I mean we went from, this stuff is just marketing BS, to, it's nothing new, to, it's just a demo and can't work that well in the real world, to today where, eh, anyone can do it, nothing special.

Can we just move on and enjoy the games?  I understand this deep seeded need to be proven right or to have the last word but at this point it's just silly.  All the new Amazon move proves is that what MS is doing, and what they started, is viable enough to get Amazons attention and since AWS is the leader at this point they're doing all they can to stay on top, that means copy what MS does with Azure as best they can and vice versa.  

Yeah I think its pretty ironic how the haters opinion starts changing when other consoles start thinking about it too. I remember all the hate and bluff posts about how it could never work in the other threads.

[Rohdekill]

Am I the only one laughing at the idea of a machine gun bringing down a skywalk or punching through a brick wall?

[1337ish]

Am I the only one laughing at the idea of a machine gun bringing down a skywalk or punching through a brick wall?

They boosted the damage lots for the demo to save time. It would be a cool mod though lol.

[BajiRav]

Sony as the PlayStation platform holder isn't going to pay 3rd parties like Amazon to host cloud computing.  They aren't going to pick a winner, they don't need to and there would be no point in doing so.  They're going to let the market decide.  Maybe Naughty Dog will release game X on Amazon and then game Y on IBMs cloud, maybe Sucker Punch will release game Z on Google's cloud, maybe EA will decide to make their own cloud service for all of their non-Xbox games.  PlayStation Network is open, PlayStation developers can connect to any server or cloud service on the internet.  Xbox Live is a "walled garden" so if you want to use cloud compute then you've got Xbox Compute and that's it.  The good news is Xbox Compute is free and the furthest along.  PlayStation can use the same cloud servers as Linux and Mac and Android and non-Xbox Windows, and anything else... ANY public cloud infrastructure.  This is a competitive emerging market and players will come and go and the services will evolve.

Microsoft is offering Xbox Compute for free to Xbox game developers so of course it will be cheaper for third party developers to use the cloud in Xbox games... I noted that in one of, if not THE, first post of mine in this thread.  No one is arguing MS isn't cheaper, it's free, you can't get cheaper.  But others acted like I was nuts in suggesting that game developers could afford to pay for cloud services.  m3.2xlarge servers are very expensive after all.  Like just because that ONE solution wouldn't work it proves it's a no-go for non-MS subsidized cloud compute.  Cloud compute for gaming is going to be big, MS is almost certain to get there first and will be a strong competitor (again, I give them mad props for pioneering here and Azure is AMAZING) but it's going to be used by all platforms.  It's not a MS or Xbox thing and the Xbox One hardware isn't uniquely suited to handle it.  Some people (not saying you in particular) seem to think that Cloud Gaming is some unique capability of the Xbox One, it's not. 

Personally I think it's more important the weaker the device is.  I think the areas it will really excel are with micro-consoles but again LONG TERM, not in the next few months.  It's kind of the middle ground between totally streaming games (like PlayStation Now or nVidia GRID) and totally console based games like traditional PlayStation and Xbox games have been.  You can do totally streaming games directly on a TV (and Samsung and Sony are doing this now with PS Now), they don't require much hardware at all (just decode the video coming back - which TVs already do, and send the inputs).  Totally console based games you play on comparatively expensive $300+ (at launch) machines and they have disc drive and can function without an internet connection because they have the hardware locally to run the games.  You're going to see a middle ground where there is no drive or cartridge, the games are all downloadable only, the box is designed for streaming movies and music, and you'll be able to play games more powerful than the cheap hardware around ($200 or less at launch) is capable of running locally via cloud gaming because they'll be always online (they're streaming boxes first) already anyway.  These boxes are going to come from the likes of Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, Android TV, etc  Again though I'm not saying the current ones of those on the market are going to do this, I'm saying the next iteration of them or the version after that, it's a long term thing not RIGHT NOW.  In some ways I think MS wanted to make the Xbox One compete with these guys in their original vision.  They always on (really phone home...), downloaded games, cloud compute, entertainment focus, etc. but issue is that works best on cheaper devices who use the compute to compensate for the weaker local hardware not a $500 (at launch) console.  If people are going to drop that kind of cash on a box they don't want it to need the cloud the play games.

 

First, if Sony is using Rackspace and then Sony (i.e. NaughtyDog) is using AWS - then it doesn't make any sense. Their internal teams are not even talking to each other?

Your rest of the post is the same old "yeah Microsoft is doing but anyone can do it if they wanted" argument. If anyone could do it, they would have done it until now. There is also a strawman of this is more important for Xbox One because it is weaker - well you think PS4 could pull it off without a cloud backing it?

[HawkMan]

Am I the only one laughing at the idea of a machine gun bringing down a skywalk or punching through a brick wall?

Most guns larger than a .22 will punch through a brick wall though. 

[+Asmodai MVC]

First, if Sony is using Rackspace and then Sony (i.e. NaughtyDog) is using AWS - then it doesn't make any sense. Their internal teams are not even talking to each other?

How does it not make sense?  I already covered this:

"Maybe Naughty Dog will release game X on Amazon and then game Y on IBMs cloud, maybe Sucker Punch will release game Z on Google's cloud, maybe EA will decide to make their own cloud service for all of their non-Xbox games.  PlayStation Network is open, PlayStation developers can connect to any server or cloud service on the internet."

You're saying that because they use Rackspace for project X they should forever be bound to Rackspace for all future cloud projects?  That's absurd.  If you have project X and Rackspace offers you the best deal for cloud serivces for it and then project Y comes along later and Amazon AWS offers you the best fit and the Project Z comes along and Google offers the best cloud compute fit for that particular project why would you not keep switching?  Being stuck with only one option no matter what happens in the market is a far worse choice.

[spaceelf]

You're saying that because they use Rackspace for project X they should forever be bound to Rackspace for all future cloud projects?  That's absurd.  If you have project X and Rackspace offers you the best deal for cloud serivces for it and then project Y comes along later and Amazon AWS offers you the best fit and the Project Z comes along and Google offers the best cloud compute fit for that particular project why would you not keep switching?  Being stuck with only one option no matter what happens in the market is a far worse choice.

They can, but they'd have to use different APIs for every project and have different performance projections/availability/cost.  The good thing with Xbox Live Compute is you're always using the same tools, once you've learned it you don't have to relearn it or change anything for another project.

The thing is, until we see the cloud used for something significant in more shipping projects than Titanfall, it really isn't going to matter to most people.  Crackdowns stuff could be cool, but it being third party does not inspire confidence.

[PGHammer]

I'll just like to add that i'm looking forward to Crackdown 3 if MS brings it to PC. I liked the first Crackdown. And if they can get the multiplayer right (gameplay is fun) yes totally destructible env with "realistic" physic and perpetual features added in the multiplayer could be very cool. That's the sort of things that can make multiplayer more fun no doubt asbout it. Game breaker not sure but it can add to the multiplayer there's absolutely no doubt.

I made my previous comments mainly because of the thread title. That "the power of the cloud" moniker ... If the thread title would have been "Crackdown 3 tech demo showing cool multiplayer destructible env and physic using the cloud" i would not have been negative in my comments.

Anyway just to say i'm not trolling i don't have any console right now other than my old 360 and i'm looking forward to the PC version of the game if it's ever coming.

The $64USD question is why couldn't it be done?  It's not a *name* developer; the real question is who is publishing the game?  The entire reason that Titanfall got pooh-poohed was lack of single-player (on PC in particular) - the method it used for leveraging Azure was praised - even by those pooh-poohing the game's lack of single-player.  It could be x64-only (that's not exactly new territory - Battlefield: Hardline is that already, so was Titanfall itself); neither was a barrier that XB1 could not cross.  Depending on the publisher, a PC version is certainly possible.

[PGHammer]

Am I the only one laughing at the idea of a machine gun bringing down a skywalk or punching through a brick wall?

It's not a joke - the SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) could do it - it is utterly dependent on the thickness of the wall's construction.  (What sounded like a joke was the Old Testament story about Jericho - remember, the walls got knocked down by straightforward sonic bombardment - NO BFT at all.  Guess what - Mythbusters went after it; found out - much to their shock - that it COULD be done.)  Walled towns LOOKED impressive - however, it takes lots of work to build a wall capable of withstanding a serious siege; all too often the builders wimped out on making the wall itself as serious as it looked (reasons mainly being construction costs, and especially labor, though cost of materials was also a factor that was not ignorable, either).  The most magnificent structures of that period (and the ONLY ones that have survived to this day) were built using the absolutely lowest-end labor - slave labor - but the highest-cost materials; and they were - literally - designed BY and FOR royalty - kings, queens, and other monarchs - NOT dukes, earls, and other sub-royal classes.

Taking down a skywalk - even, if not especially, a modern one - can be done two ways; attacking the support pylons or even buzz-sawing the walk itself.  (While both ARE required to withstand heavy pressure due to pedestrian or other foot traffic, they typically are NOT designed to withstand BFT inflicted on their points of failure.  What made 9/11 as horrible as it was was NOT merely the use of passenger airliners as human missiles - it was that all the airliners so used had unwilling passengers IN them; the planes themselves - even without passengers - had more than enough BFT themselves to get the job done.  That same application of physics are why IEDs - and mines of all sorts - are such pains in the rear.)

 

[+Asmodai MVC]

They can, but they'd have to use different APIs for every project and have different performance projections/availability/cost.  The good thing with Xbox Live Compute is you're always using the same tools, once you've learned it you don't have to relearn it or change anything for another project.

The thing is, until we see the cloud used for something significant in more shipping projects than Titanfall, it really isn't going to matter to most people.  Crackdowns stuff could be cool, but it being third party does not inspire confidence.

 

Different projects require different APIs anyway.  If Sony HQ in Japan is using Rackspace cloud services for example for PlayStation Network Cloud saves and PlayStation cross-game chat servers and PlayStation Now PS3 game streaming and PlayStation Vue video streaming none of that has anything to do with cloud compute for PS4 games.  If Amazon has some C++ SDK for game developers they're offering as part of AWS why would Naughty Dog in Santa Monica California turn that down to use Rackspace just because Sony HQ in Japan used it for non-game servers?  If next year Guerilla Games in the UK sees say IBM or Google decide to offer some game oriented API with their cloud services that they'd prefer to use over Amazon's why shouldn't they use that for their project instead of Amazon or Rackspace?  What do they care that they're using a different API from a studio in a different country, they should use whatever they think is the best fit for their particular project.  Nobody or FORCEING them to use different options, they are free to choose Rackspace or Amazon or whatever they have so if they've used one before then familiarity with the particular API should definitely be a factor the next time but one Studio within Sony shouldn't be bound by the decisions of another in an entirely different country.  BajiRav said it didn't make sense for different studios to use different cloud providers asked their internal teams weren't even talking to each other just because different projects used different cloud providers.  Personally I find trying to use only one cloud service for every cloud project a major international corporation does to be more absurd unless it's an internal solution.  That unless is key here because I'm not trying to bust on MS for only using one, they ARE a cloud provider themselves and so it makes sense they'd use their own.  They can adapt it to their own needs all they want.  Sony has no reason to become a cloud provider themselves when there is such great choice and competition out there already so they can shop around from project to project to find the best fit for each projects individual needs.  3rd parties on PlayStation can likewise shop around and find whatever they feel is the best fit for them without Sony telling them they need to use one provider or another.

[BajiRav]

How does it not make sense?  I already covered this:

"Maybe Naughty Dog will release game X on Amazon and then game Y on IBMs cloud, maybe Sucker Punch will release game Z on Google's cloud, maybe EA will decide to make their own cloud service for all of their non-Xbox games.  PlayStation Network is open, PlayStation developers can connect to any server or cloud service on the internet."

You're saying that because they use Rackspace for project X they should forever be bound to Rackspace for all future cloud projects?  That's absurd.  If you have project X and Rackspace offers you the best deal for cloud serivces for it and then project Y comes along later and Amazon AWS offers you the best fit and the Project Z comes along and Google offers the best cloud compute fit for that particular project why would you not keep switching?  Being stuck with only one option no matter what happens in the market is a far worse choice.

Well...your post perfectly describes why it doesn't make sense and it has nothing to do with PSN being open. It's more of Sony doesn't care much about cloud being used for anything besides online gaming+streaming than it being open.

[spaceelf]

 

Erg, this post was ruined. 

[spaceelf]

If Amazon has some C++ SDK for game developers they're offering as part of AWS why would Naughty Dog in Santa Monica California turn that down to use Rackspace just because Sony HQ in Japan used it for non-game servers?

I'm only talking about game services, not non game services.

I largely agree with you, but I do think it's in Sony's best interest to produce a common service platform to combat XBLC.  At one time IIRC Xbox Live was a pretty clear competitive advantage, but Sony caught up.  There's little reason to think they won't do the same with this.

[+Asmodai MVC]

I'm only talking about game services, not non game services.

I largely agree with you, but I do think it's in Sony's best interest to produce a common service platform to combat XBLC.  At one time IIRC Xbox Live was a pretty clear competitive advantage, but Sony caught up.  There's little reason to think they won't do the same with this.

I don't see what benefit it would be to Sony to try to compete in the cloud compute space.  There is already heavy competition there between Amazon, Microsoft, Google, IBM, etc.

Let's say for a moment Sony did decide to enter the market themselves and build out there own cloud compute solution.  Then they have to build large datacenters all over and they have to make custom APIs and then they have to force all PlayStation developers to use their service and not any of the other big players.  Even if they could do all that what does it gain them?  It's going to cost them a fortune (they don't have) just to build the thing and it will be ongoing as they have to continue to innovate to keep up with the competition in this rapidly changing field, so they really gain nothing.  Developers who make multiplatform titles with cloud compute would then have to use one API on Xbox One/Win10 (assuming Win10 developers even adopt Xbox Compute), another on PS4, and another on everything else (Apple including iOS and Mac, Linux including Android and Steam OS, etc.)  So Sony loses and 3rd party developers lose.

By staying out of it and letting developers pick what they want to use for themselves they give developers (both internal and 3rd party) the most flexibility.  Let Amazon, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Rackspace, etc. all fight it out and just enjoy the spoils.  Why should EA have to use the same cloud compute solution as Ubisoft or Sony's studio in California use the same solution as the one in the UK?  What benefit does it give them?  Furthermore if you're a 3rd party developer and you've chosen say Amazon's cloud solution for your project you can host the servers on that same API for Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS, Steam OS, etc. everything except Xbox.  Any platform that allows games to connect to servers hosted on the public internet could use the same cloud compute servers whereas Xbox Compute is available only to Xbox and Windows.

Sony was behind last generation because Sony didn't provide common services (like cross game chat for example) that Xbox Live did.  It didn't do that because it was free so they had no income to pay for servers to provide these services.  As a result each developer had to roll their own solution for chat and other such features which worked fine within each game but if each game or even company was using their own custom solution they were incompatible with each other and things like cross game chat couldn't work.  Some may argue that was worth the price of totally free multiplayer but Sony seemed to agree it was better to provide a common set of these tools for PS4 so now they do host cross-game chat servers and so now they make players pay for multiplayer to host that.  Cloud compute is a different beast though, it's like a game engine component and making everyone use one would be like telling everyone if they want to make PS4 games they have to use PlayStation game engine.  It doesn't matter any more that Game X uses Cloud provider Y and Game A uses Cloud provider B than it does that Game X uses Unreal Engine and Game Y uses CryEngine.  Cloud Providers Y and B don't need to be compatible any more than Unreal and CryEngine do.  Sure some development houses will choose to make all their games from Cloud Provider Y just like some decide to stick with Unreal Engine.  Others will use other solutions and that's fine, even good.  Competition breeds innovation.

Microsoft hosts it's own cloud because they already have an interest in competing in cloud even without Xbox or games.  If they closed down the Xbox division tomorrow they'd still compete in cloud.  It makes sense for them to use that then for the game division because they are already competing there anyway, so games are just kind of along for the ride.  Sony has no more reason to compete with Microsoft in providing cloud services than they do to compete with Microsoft for desktop OS's or database servers.

[spaceelf]

I don't see what benefit it would be to Sony to try to compete in the cloud compute space.

Because it affects games and developers on their platform.  Because having a game specific compute network makes it easier on the developers, as Sony would be doing a lot of the work for them.  They don't even have to host it, as long as they're making the tools and deals to make things cheap and easy.  And because they'd make money.

Seriously, I'm pretty sure we've both said the same things repeatedly.  I'm taking a break.

 

[+Asmodai MVC]

Because it affects games and developers on their platform.  Because having a game specific compute network makes it easier on the developers, as Sony would be doing a lot of the work for them.  They don't even have to host it, as long as they're making the tools and deals to make things cheap and easy.  And because they'd make money.

Seriously, I'm pretty sure we've both said the same things repeatedly.  I'm taking a break.

 

Mandating a single game engine to all PlayStation developers would "affect games and developers on their platform" as well but that doesn't make it a good idea.  Existing cloud providers ARE building "game specific compute networks" to make it easer on developers, here I'll provide that link again: Amazon launches AWS C++ SDK designed for game developers.  "designed for game developers" = game specific.  A Sony proprietary one would just make yet another one developers had to learn and yet another one they had to port their multi-platform releases between.  How could you possibly know they'd be able to make money from it?  To make money they'd have to charge, unlike Microsoft who is giving it away for free since they already compute in the cloud space outside of gaming, and they'd have to charge more than it costs for them to "make the tools and deals to make things cheap and easy" and for them to have it hosted (no matter if they host it themselves or hire someone else to, no one is just going to host it for them for free) which would likely be pretty expensive for them and is not at all clear they'd be able to charge enough for it to be profitable.  Have a nice break.

 

[Rohdekill]

 

Most guns larger than a .22 will punch through a brick wall though. 

Because a skywalk is just made of concrete....mmmmm, kay.

[HawkMan]

Am I the only one laughing at the idea of a machine gun bringing down a skywalk or punching through a brick wall?

 

[1337ish]

I dont understand why Sony couldnt make the api and the cloud providers simply support it, by not developing the API they make others do the work, others who also dont necessarily know the hardware connecting to it as well as Sony themselves and also cause fragmentation when one studio learns X providers api but has to redevelop and train to move to another provider for the next game. It seems sensible for them to say here is the ps api for hooking into cloud, these providers support it, you learn our api and you can pick and choose.

[+Asmodai MVC]

I dont understand why Sony couldnt make the api and the cloud providers simply support it, by not developing the API they make others do the work, others who also dont necessarily know the hardware connecting to it as well as Sony themselves and also cause fragmentation when one studio learns X providers api but has to redevelop and train to move to another provider for the next game. It seems sensible for them to say here is the ps api for hooking into cloud, these providers support it, you learn our api and you can pick and choose.

I don't understand why Sony couldn't make a single game engine for the PS4 and make everyone who wants to release a game on the PS4 use that engine.  Instead they make others like Epic and Crytek and such do the work.  Epic and Crytek don't know the PS4 hardware as well as Sony themselves and having multiple game engines causes fragmentation when one studio learns one but has to redevelop and train to move to another game engine for the next game.   It seems sensible to say here is the PS game engine.

What's you're calling fragmentation is competition.  It's good to have game engines and cloud providers compete for business.  Also Sony can't just say here's an API Amazon, implement this... because we said so.  Furthermore you don't need to know the hardware connecting to it to implement a cloud server.  Cloud servers could be implemented on PCs and host services for Mac or implemented on Macs and host services for PS4.  They just need to use an agreed upon networking framework.  Additionally very few 3rd party developers make games JUST for PS4 so if they want to release their game on PS4 and anything else then a PS4 cloud API would but just one more to port between, it would make it harder not easier for them.  If the PS4 can use the same API as every other platform they want their game to support other than Xbox One that would be much easier for devs.

[1337ish]

I don't understand why Sony couldn't make a single game engine for the PS4 and make everyone who wants to release a game on the PS4 use that engine.  Instead they make others like Epic and Crytek and such do the work.  Epic and Crytek don't know the PS4 hardware as well as Sony themselves and having multiple game engines causes fragmentation when one studio learns one but has to redevelop and train to move to another game engine for the next game.   It seems sensible to say here is the PS game engine.

What's you're calling fragmentation is competition.  It's good to have game engines and cloud providers compete for business.  Also Sony can't just say here's an API Amazon, implement this... because we said so.  Furthermore you don't need to know the hardware connecting to it to implement a cloud server.  Cloud servers could be implemented on PCs and host services for Mac or implemented on Macs and host services for PS4.  They just need to use an agreed upon networking framework.  Additionally very few 3rd party developers make games JUST for PS4 so if they want to release their game on PS4 and anything else then a PS4 cloud API would but just one more to port between, it would make it harder not easier for them.  If the PS4 can use the same API as every other platform they want their game to support other than Xbox One that would be much easier for devs.

Standards are not necessarily enforced standards where they say you can only use our API, having a base approach which anything could use if they want isnt bad and it certainly wouldnt need to be enforced. To say they need to use an agreed upon networking framework is almost an attempt at a standard anyway. Does MS say you cant use anything but xbox compute? Or could a studio choose to use their own servers to emulate the same features (not xbox live/psn which both have api's/standards) using their own in house api bolted onto x engine. Even the engines implement standards the consoles recommend and they make it easy to use in their engines just as they would implement sonys version of an api for xbox compute. I dont know why you keep saying they shouldnt bother because thats better for everyone.