• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Crackdown 3 and the Power of the Cloud

Recommended Posts

+Asmodai    637


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.

So Sony should spend the time/money to develop some proprietary cloud API that they may or may not be able to convince cloud providers to implement in their cloud solutions and even if they do manage to do that they should not require anyone to use it. So it's entirely possible that no cloud provider would implement it and even if they did no developer may end up using it... sounds like a huge waste of time and money to me.  I must be misunderstanding what you're saying.

Does MS say you can't use anything but xbox compute? Yes they do.  Microsoft won't allow Xbox One games to connect to just any server solution.  In the Xbox 360 days they let developers pay them to host their servers inside the xbox live "walled garden" network but it was so expensive to do most games didn't bother and most 360 games were peer hosted (one of the payers hosts the game).  Providing Xbox Compute for free was their solution so Xbox One games will actually have dedicated servers instead of being peer hosted.  You can NOT make an Xbox One game that uses that Amazon AWS C++ SDK for game developers I've linked to twice now in this thread, MS doesn't allow it.

I really didn't follow anything you said after "Does MS say you can't use anything but xbox compute?"  There isn't even an agreed upon networking framework within a single engine, it's different for each game.  Game X that runs on Unreal Engine can't use the Server of Game Y that runs on Unreal Engine.  Each game has it's own server code, even within a single game engine.  But the client doesn't care what platform the server is running and vice versa as long as they use the right network framework for that game.  You can have Windows PCs hosting Mac clients or Linux clients, they can be MIPS clients or ARM client sor x86 clients, none of that matters because all the server sees is network packets coming in and they just have to be formatted in the way the server is expending regardless of what platform sent them.  So you don't have to be a wiz at platform X to serve a game to platform X.  You have to be a Wiz at platform X to make the client run well, to do single player, etc. but the cloud providers don't have to do any of that or know anything about it.

I keep saying they shouldn't bother because it's not better for everyone, it's a huge waste of time and money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BajiRav    2,137

 

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.

 

This is ridiculous point of view. First thing, you want to have a common API/framework so that development is streamlined. That is the reason Sony has a common API for their hardware. If they followed what you are suggesting they could've just went..."yeah here is a custom AMD APU with a bunch of RAM and now go use Dx, OpenGL, Vulcan etc or whatever you want to build games" instead of developing the PS SDK

I raised the point that NaughtyDog using AWS is weird when PSN is using Rackspace because two parts of the same company using two different cloud providers for similar purposes. I was not even talking about non-Sony developers but just Sony (or SCE whatever).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Asmodai    637

This is ridiculous point of view. First thing, you want to have a common API/framework so that development is streamlined. That is the reason Sony has a common API for their hardware. If they followed what you are suggesting they could've just went..."yeah here is a custom AMD APU with a bunch of RAM and now go use Dx, OpenGL, Vulcan etc or whatever you want to build games" instead of developing the PS SDK

I raised the point that NaughtyDog using AWS is weird when PSN is using Rackspace because two parts of the same company using two different cloud providers for similar purposes. I was not even talking about non-Sony developers but just Sony (or SCE whatever).

That's a ridiculous analogy.  Cloud compute is NOT like the PS SDK.  Of course Sony provides the SDK to access their proprietary hardware. That includes APIs for compute shaders on the local hardware.  If the compute shaders are in the cloud though it's not limited to one type of hardware like local compute is and it doesn't need to be from Sony, it can be any type of server on the public internet, so there isn't just one API that would work best in all cases.

Also what Sony and Naughty Dog are doing are not similar purposes.  Naughty Dog is using cloud compute to make a video game.  It's essentially a cloud based dedicated server solution similar to Xbox Compute.  What Rackspace is doing for Sony is hosting cloud things like the PSN cross game chat servers, cloud saves, etc. as well as hosting the modified PS3 based rack mounted servers that run PlayStation Now.  Furthermore even if they were doing the same thing why should a Studio in California be bound by what developers in Japan are doing or what developers in the UK are doing.  Each should be free to use whatever tool they feel is best for their specific application not forced to try to make one tool work for every use case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BajiRav    2,137

 

That's a ridiculous analogy.  Cloud compute is NOT like the PS SDK.  Of course Sony provides the SDK to access their proprietary hardware. That includes APIs for compute shaders on the local hardware.  If the compute shaders are in the cloud though it's not limited to one type of hardware like local compute is and it doesn't need to be from Sony, it can be any type of server on the public internet, so there isn't just one API that would work best in all cases.

Also what Sony and Naughty Dog are doing are not similar purposes.  Naughty Dog is using cloud compute to make a video game.  It's essentially a cloud based dedicated server solution similar to Xbox Compute.  What Rackspace is doing for Sony is hosting cloud things like the PSN cross game chat servers, cloud saves, etc. as well as hosting the modified PS3 based rack mounted servers that run PlayStation Now.  Furthermore even if they were doing the same thing why should a Studio in California be bound by what developers in Japan are doing or what developers in the UK are doing.  Each should be free to use whatever tool they feel is best for their specific application not forced to try to make one tool work for every use case.

Your second paragraph makes no sense. The "cloud" and its capabilities don't change because of its intended use. You get compute, memory, storage etc. from the "cloud". What you do with it is entirely up to the implementation. There is no reason Sony should be using different providers instead of sticking to one provider and negotiate better pricing for their own sake. They also end up with a common base that can be built across Sony.
I think I have made my point here but if you believe that Sony's "open" PSN is the best approach and XBL is somehow restricted because whatever then I am done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Asmodai    637

Your second paragraph makes no sense. The "cloud" and its capabilities don't change because of its intended use. You get compute, memory, storage etc. from the "cloud". What you do with it is entirely up to the implementation. There is no reason Sony should be using different providers instead of sticking to one provider and negotiate better pricing for their own sake. They also end up with a common base that can be built across Sony.
I think I have made my point here but if you believe that Sony's "open" PSN is the best approach and XBL is somehow restricted because whatever then I am done here.

It absolutely DOES make sense.  The "cloud" isn't a single specific implementation, it's a generic term for network hosted services.  It's capabilities absolutely DO change.  Some "cloud" hosting is IaaS, some is PaaS, some is SaaS, etc.  The capabilities are different if the hardware it's running on is custom designed *nix servers or commercially available Windows boxes.  The capabilities are different between Azure and AWS and Google and IBM.

What you do IS entirely up to the implementation but there are any number of implementations of cloud services available and no one API fits them all.  Furthermore even if Sony did stick to one provider that HURTS their ability to negotiate better pricing because if that provider knows Sony is going to stick to them after they win the initial contract no matter what there is no reason for them to be competitive.  If Sony can choose different providers per project then the providers who want the job need to compete on features, price, etc. to win the contracts.  Making cloud providers compete for your business is a good thing.  It doesn't make sense for Microsoft because Microsoft IS a cloud provider themselves, even ignoring the Xbox and gaming division, so for them it does make sense to use their own product instead of someone elses.  It doesn't make sense for Sony to try to compete in cloud services because they don't care about that industry outside of gaming and they don't block game developers from using any of the existing could services already available out there so there is no need for them to provide yet another proprietary option.

I didn't say Sony's "open" PSN is "the best approach" overall.  Whose to say what is "best" but if you have an "open" network like PSN where game developers can host the server component of their game on any publicly accessible internet server and you don't have any non-gaming interest in competing in cloud computing then it doesn't make sense for you to set up your own proprietary cloud infrastructure.  On the other hand if you have a "walled garden" approach like Xbox Live and you don't let game developers host the server component of their games on any publicly accessible internet server and you ARE already competitive in cloud computing then it makes total sense to host your own cloud compute solution like Xbox Compute.  They're two totally different scenarios and I believe both Sony and MS are doing what is best for their particular setup.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Showan    698

 

It absolutely DOES make sense.  The "cloud" isn't a single specific implementation, it's a generic term for network hosted services.  It's capabilities absolutely DO change.  Some "cloud" hosting is IaaS, some is PaaS, some is SaaS, etc.  The capabilities are different if the hardware it's running on is custom designed *nix servers or commercially available Windows boxes.  The capabilities are different between Azure and AWS and Google and IBM.

What you do IS entirely up to the implementation but there are any number of implementations of cloud services available and no one API fits them all.  Furthermore even if Sony did stick to one provider that HURTS their ability to negotiate better pricing because if that provider knows Sony is going to stick to them after they win the initial contract no matter what there is no reason for them to be competitive.  If Sony can choose different providers per project then the providers who want the job need to compete on features, price, etc. to win the contracts.  Making cloud providers compete for your business is a good thing.  It doesn't make sense for Microsoft because Microsoft IS a cloud provider themselves, even ignoring the Xbox and gaming division, so for them it does make sense to use their own product instead of someone elses.  It doesn't make sense for Sony to try to compete in cloud services because they don't care about that industry outside of gaming and they don't block game developers from using any of the existing could services already available out there so there is no need for them to provide yet another proprietary option.

I didn't say Sony's "open" PSN is "the best approach" overall.  Whose to say what is "best" but if you have an "open" network like PSN where game developers can host the server component of their game on any publicly accessible internet server and you don't have any non-gaming interest in competing in cloud computing then it doesn't make sense for you to set up your own proprietary cloud infrastructure.  On the other hand if you have a "walled garden" approach like Xbox Live and you don't let game developers host the server component of their games on any publicly accessible internet server and you ARE already competitive in cloud computing then it makes total sense to host your own cloud compute solution like Xbox Compute.  They're two totally different scenarios and I believe both Sony and MS are doing what is best for their particular setup.

I get what your saying, but there are other issues at hand as well.  While this approach your coming with, will work you have to think about other variables.  How does the old adage go? You get what you pay for.  Rack Space, is a known name in the Cloud Space, a quality company at that.  

There are other variables as well, while options is usually a good thing, in this instance it can have some annoying distractions.  Narrowing down providers (especially if it's a game, that's geared toward every gamer on Earth) can be time consuming, and eat up resources ($$$)

I think a contract with maybe say 2 providers may be the way to go.  Contracts depending on game, projected longevity of game, game based in certain region, or global scale.  This way if Sony feels they are being ripped off, they can either go with the better of the 2 providers, or drop a provider and add another, so that they can can at least keep 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Asmodai    637

 

I get what your saying, but there are other issues at hand as well.  While this approach your coming with, will work you have to think about other variables.  How does the old adage go? You get what you pay for.  Rack Space, is a known name in the Cloud Space, a quality company at that.  

There are other variables as well, while options is usually a good thing, in this instance it can have some annoying distractions.  Narrowing down providers (especially if it's a game, that's geared toward every gamer on Earth) can be time consuming, and eat up resources ($$$)

I think a contract with maybe say 2 providers may be the way to go.  Contracts depending on game, projected longevity of game, game based in certain region, or global scale.  This way if Sony feels they are being ripped off, they can either go with the better of the 2 providers, or drop a provider and add another, so that they can can at least keep 2.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Rack Space is less of a player in cloud services than Amazon.  Amazon and Microsoft are like 1 and 2 last I checked.  They don't have to compare every tiny player so if when a new project comes up they want to just compare the one they've used before to whoever is leading at that time they are free to do that.  They can do as much or as little comparison as they like.  Maybe Sony HQ in Japan will stick with Rack Space, maybe Naughty Dog in California will stick with Amazon, maybe Guerrilla Games in Europe will stick with the Google cloud or something else.  They're all parts of Sony but it's not like people transfer all the time between those different studios so it doesn't really make a difference if they use the same provider or not.  If Naughty Dog lets say has a bunch of developers who are familiar with Amazon's cloud services from prior jobs and such why should they have to use Rackspace which they may have no experience at all with just because HQ in Japan chose them to host cloud saves, cross-game chat, and PlayStation Now?  Plus it's a very competitive industry now... whose to say the #1 cloud provider in 3 years won't be a company that doesn't even exist today... maybe they'd offer a killer deal for hosting cloud compute for some game being developed at that time, why would you want to be locked into just 2 options.  All that's just within Sony too, why should Sony tell EA what to use or Ubisoft or anyone else?  Everyone should use whoever they feel most comfortable with and heck maybe the big guys like EA and Ubisoft will even make their own gaming cloud servers for PC, Max, Linux, Android, iOS, and PS4... any platform they support with access to publicly hosted servers could share the same cloud infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Asmodai    637

So there we have the man, Phil Spencer himself, effectively saying developers could make PS4 exclusive games ("even other platform's exclusives") on Microsoft Azure services (cloud compute).

Titanfall 2 may very well be using it on all platforms but Phil won't speak about specific 3rd party titles.

 

So a game like Crackdown 3 with all of it's cloud computing beauty (and it IS beautiful, I don't want to take anything away from the amazing work being done there) could absolutely be developed for PlayStation, PC, Mac, Mobile, or any other platform for that matter.  The specific series Crackdown may be Xbox exclusive (It's published by Microsoft) but Reagent Games could very well make a follow on game if they wanted to that was on PS4 as well and leveraged the same technology... just like Respawn is likely doing with Titanfall.  They'd likely have to name it differently since MS (as the publisher) may own the Crackdown name (Titanfall was published by EA so MS didn't own it).

 

Again the HUGE thing for Xbox is that these services are FREE for Xbox games (this is REALLY, REALLY, cool, I'm not trying to downplay that at all) but MS is more than happy to provide the services to other (even competing) platforms for a reasonable fee.  It is NOT prohibitively expensive.  It is NOT Xbox exclusive.  It is NOT without competition as Amazon is now offering a game oriented cloud compute service as I indicated in a prior post in this thread.  Again though Kudos to MS for being on the bleeding edge of cloud compute in gaming.  Microsoft is clearly a force to be reckoned with in cloud computing it's just not Xbox specific.

 

My original post in this thread (emphasis added):

 

On 8/6/2015 at 2:42 PM, Asmodai said:

I think this is cool.  Kudos for MS making Xbox Live Compute free for Xbox game developers.

Let's be clear here though, cloud compute is always going to be online only because you can't have cloud compute without the cloud.  Also cloud compute doesn't make the Xbox One more powerful, you need cloud compute to do things via network servers (i.e. the cloud) that the console is too WEAK to do locally (this isn't a Xbox vs. PS thing, PS is likely too weak to do it offline as well).  This is the pioneering days here but as this technology matures you might see comparatively weak devices like Apple TV Next, Amazon Fire TV Next, nVidia Shield Android TV Next, etc. leveraging cloud compute to play games that approach the quality of the stand alone consoles when the stand alone consoles aren't cloud connected.  Which brings us to the last point, while MS is certainly a Pioneer in this area there is nothing in the concept of Cloud compute that is Xbox exclusive.  Nothing is stopping a developer from using cloud compute in a Amazon Fire TV game and hosting it in Amazon's EC2 cloud.  Heck a developer could make a game that uses cloud compute to hosted on Microsoft's public Azure cloud and release the game on PlayStation if they want to.  The big deal MS is doing is just making that cloud free for Xbox games and providing some game specific APIs for developers.  Microsoft provided APIs may or may not be desirable to any given developer (many like to roll their own) and free is awesome but one of the big things with the cloud is it's cheap and it scales according to use.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,482
On 9/22/2015 at 10:48 AM, Asmodai said:

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Rack Space is less of a player in cloud services than Amazon.  Amazon and Microsoft are like 1 and 2 last I checked.  They don't have to compare every tiny player so if when a new project comes up they want to just compare the one they've used before to whoever is leading at that time they are free to do that.  They can do as much or as little comparison as they like.  Maybe Sony HQ in Japan will stick with Rack Space, maybe Naughty Dog in California will stick with Amazon, maybe Guerrilla Games in Europe will stick with the Google cloud or something else.  They're all parts of Sony but it's not like people transfer all the time between those different studios so it doesn't really make a difference if they use the same provider or not.  If Naughty Dog lets say has a bunch of developers who are familiar with Amazon's cloud services from prior jobs and such why should they have to use Rackspace which they may have no experience at all with just because HQ in Japan chose them to host cloud saves, cross-game chat, and PlayStation Now?  Plus it's a very competitive industry now... whose to say the #1 cloud provider in 3 years won't be a company that doesn't even exist today... maybe they'd offer a killer deal for hosting cloud compute for some game being developed at that time, why would you want to be locked into just 2 options.  All that's just within Sony too, why should Sony tell EA what to use or Ubisoft or anyone else?  Everyone should use whoever they feel most comfortable with and heck maybe the big guys like EA and Ubisoft will even make their own gaming cloud servers for PC, Max, Linux, Android, iOS, and PS4... any platform they support with access to publicly hosted servers could share the same cloud infrastructure.

In fact, Respawn, EA, and Titanfall 2 are a solid example - do they, in fact, rely solely on Azure for cloud compute?

 

From the original plan, the idea was no - for understandable reasons - looking just in terms of coverage, Amazon and Azure have different coverage maps (where one is strong, the other may be weak - and that is just in the United States) - how strong is EC2 compared to Azure in the southeastern United States, for example.  Now take the same thinking to Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.  (For example, Titanfall was never officially released in Africa due to lack of Azure service availability there.)  Now suppose you could deploy Azure on EC2.  (Not far-fetched at all.)  If service APIs are not tied to specific providers, everybody (and I mean everybody) wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    18,015

Crackdown 3 *is* going to have destructible environments, they're just limited to multiplayer...

 

I guess they can only "use the cloud" for multiplayer.

 

http://www.gamesradar.com/crackdown-3-is-going-to-have-destructible-environments-theyre-just-limited-to-multiplayer/?utm_content=bufferc83db&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_grfb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dipsylalapo    1,775
14 minutes ago, wakjak said:

Crackdown 3 *is* going to have destructible environments, they're just limited to multiplayer...

 

I guess they can only "use the cloud" for multiplayer.

 

http://www.gamesradar.com/crackdown-3-is-going-to-have-destructible-environments-theyre-just-limited-to-multiplayer/?utm_content=bufferc83db&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_grfb

That's good news, guess the cloud stuff isn't going anywhere. I'll believe it when I see it, but it's good news. 

 

Shame they don't have a SP destruction mode, kinda like a sandbox where you can just destroy stuff and then hit reset. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
George P    5,433
1 hour ago, dipsylalapo said:

That's good news, guess the cloud stuff isn't going anywhere. I'll believe it when I see it, but it's good news. 

 

Shame they don't have a SP destruction mode, kinda like a sandbox where you can just destroy stuff and then hit reset. 

I always wished that games like GTA, the SP/Offline part, would allow you to destroy things and then you actually see them being fixed over time instead of just you leaving the area and going back shortly after to see it all back to normal.  We're talking lots of resources to get that going though, easier to do online where the worlds are persistent etc than offline, but one can dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LostCat    1,303
On 6/20/2017 at 9:33 AM, wakjak said:

Crackdown 3 *is* going to have destructible environments, they're just limited to multiplayer...

 

I guess they can only "use the cloud" for multiplayer.

 

http://www.gamesradar.com/crackdown-3-is-going-to-have-destructible-environments-theyre-just-limited-to-multiplayer/?utm_content=bufferc83db&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_grfb

Using the cloud does cost money, so it makes sense that something behind a paywall (XBL Gold) would be used for it.  Not only that, a single player campaign where you could break everything to take down bosses instead of actually engaging them directly could really break the game flow and make the crazy agility and other abilities that are a huge part of Crackdown pointless.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 9:49 AM, dipsylalapo said:

That's good news, guess the cloud stuff isn't going anywhere. I'll believe it when I see it, but it's good news. 

 

Shame they don't have a SP destruction mode, kinda like a sandbox where you can just destroy stuff and then hit reset. 

I'm fairly sure you can play the MP mode by yourself if you want to heh.  Not sure it'd be as fun that way but whatever works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    18,015

 

Crackdown 3 and the power of the cloud indeed. 

 

Hopefully it's not delayed 10 years like the last guardian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LaP    2,147

Anyone could have seen this coming from a mile.

 

Distributed computing is nothing new. I did a class on distributed computing in 1997 using the c language and corba. The idea of using a network of computers to realize a task one single computer can't realize in an acceptable amount of time is a very old idea.

 

But it's not really something you can practically use with games. For one there's the latency issue. So you can pretty much write off anything that is not online multiplayers. The last thing gamers way is latency issue in their offline single player games. For two it complicates the programming of the game. I'm sure the Xbox live cloud is awesome with a great api and tools and everything but for god sake game developers are not even properly multi-threading their games yet (despite pretty much everyone having a four cores cpu in their computer these days) and people think they'll start using the cloud and do distributed computing for physics and such? Wont happen guys. Not for now anyway.

 

I can see this being used for a virtual world mmo game. Of course MS and its partners might use it here and there and even do cool things with it. But i said day one people would be disappointed by the cloud in general and i stand by my option. It's not gonna be teh big things anyway not for a while. Multiplatforms and independent developers have other things to do than exploiting the cloud on the xbox one. They gonna use it for traditional servers and most of the time that's gonna be it. Too much extra work for the reward it brings.

 

A traditional Crackdown 3 would have been completed a while ago. And i'm really not sure it would have been less fun to play. Still looking forward for the game btw since i like the serie.

Edited by LaP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew    2,860

They need to fire Shannon Loftis ASAP and end this drought crisis. At this rate, the only exclusive coming out on X1X launch is a dashboard update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dipsylalapo    1,775
3 minutes ago, Andrew said:

They need to fire Shannon Loftis ASAP and end this drought crisis. At this rate, the only exclusive coming out on X1X launch is a dashboard update.

Yep, they can only push the World's Most Powerful Console message a number of times before people start to ask about the games. 

 

I'm hoping that we see more exclusive games over the weekend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LaP    2,147
On 26/06/2017 at 8:29 AM, dwLostCat said:

Using the cloud does cost money

Not only does it cost money but consoles and PCs these days are very powerful machines. If you need distributed computing to realize a task the console itself can't do then it means the algorithm behind it is very complex. A console these days can very easily do standard AI and physic. It's not a problem. Outside of maybe perpetual world thingies and multiplayer servers if you really want to wow people with the cloud then you need to push the boundaries. To push the boundaries you first must hire kingpin. Pay them kingpin money. And then invest the time required to do all these crazy physic and AI requiring distributed computing. An almost human like AI or life realistic full screen physic don't program themselves magically with only the power of the cloud. Programmers need to work on it. Good programmers. Must invest lot of time and yeah money.  People talked a lot about Forza and the cloud but every time i played Forza on the xbox one i did not feel like the AI was any better. They used the cloud but the benefits were not very clear anyway not to me. I really hope Crackdown 3 will impress me but i'm not holding my breath at this point.  I'll be fine with just a solid normal addition to the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew    2,860
41 minutes ago, LaP said:

Not only does it cost money but consoles and PCs these days are very powerful machines. If you need distributed computing to realize a task the console itself can't do then it means the algorithm behind it is very complex. A console these days can very easily do standard AI and physic. It's not a problem. Outside of maybe perpetual world thingies and multiplayer servers if you really want to wow people with the cloud then you need to push the boundaries. To push the boundaries you first must hire kingpin. Pay them kingpin money. And then invest the time required to do all these crazy physic and AI requiring distributed computing. An almost human like AI or life realistic full screen physic don't program themselves magically with only the power of the cloud. Programmers need to work on it. Good programmers. Must invest lot of time and yeah money.  People talked a lot about Forza and the cloud but every time i played Forza on the xbox one i did not feel like the AI was any better. They used the cloud but the benefits were not very clear anyway not to me. I really hope Crackdown 3 will impress me but i'm not holding my breath at this point.  I'll be fine with just a solid normal addition to the series.

Isn't the "Cloud" being used for the MP portion of the game only? They completed MP last year IIRC. This delay is likely due to the negative press reactions received at E3 backstage over the SP portion of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LaP    2,147
2 hours ago, Andrew said:

Isn't the "Cloud" being used for the MP portion of the game only? They completed MP last year IIRC. This delay is likely due to the negative press reactions received at E3 backstage over the SP portion of the game.

Maybe. I've not followed the development of the game much lately as i don't plan to buy a new console before next year. I'm still undecided between the PS4 and XBox One and i need to build a new PC this fall. I'll wait spring or summer 2018 to see if the new XBox One live up to the expectation and then I'll make a decision

 

But from what i remember when they announced the game it was supposed to be used to generate some awesome never seen before real time physic. I might remember it wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew    2,860
1 minute ago, LaP said:

Maybe. I've not followed the development of the game much lately as i don't plan to buy a new console before next year. I'm still undecided between the PS4 and XBox One and i need to build a new PC this fall. I'll wait spring or summer 2018 to see if the new XBox One live up to the expectation and then I'll make a decision

 

But from what i remember when they announced the game it was supposed to be used to generate some awesome never seen before real time physic. I might remember it wrong though.

No you remember correctly and it's still in the game, but it's part of the MP:


 

Quote

 

Clearing up confusion surrounding Crackdown 3 destruction

It was always going to be in multiplayer only.

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 19/06/2017

 

When Microsoft showed more of open world blow 'em-up Crackdown 3 during its E3 2017 Xbox media briefing, it did so with a trailer that starred American actor Terry Crews. The only problem was, we didn't get a good look at gameplay, nor did we see any of Crackdown 3's ambitious destruction.

 

This sparked a number of questions about the destruction in Crackdown 3. Had it been ditched? Is the game still using the fancy dedicated server tech to make blowing up buildings ultra realistic in the open world?

 

It turns out Microsoft decided to focus on Crackdown 3's campaign at E3, and the dedicated server-powered destruction is limited to multiplayer. There is basic destruction in the campaign, but not the kind that raised eyebrows back in 2015.

 

Continues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LostCat    1,303

Cripes.  I guess I'm down to Destiny 2 this year.

 

I can't remember anything else anyway.

On 8/17/2017 at 6:18 AM, dipsylalapo said:

Yep, they can only push the World's Most Powerful Console message a number of times before people start to ask about the games. 

 

I'm hoping that we see more exclusive games over the weekend. 

Hmm.  Well, agreed, but the power of the console sells itself to me.  Even with the gaming library it already has it'll be a gigantic difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.