-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
XB1: Microsoft Claims that Cloud Computing Can Provide Power of 3 XB1's, 32 X360's
- Thread starter bombshell
- Start date
freefornow
Member
Edit: already covered by someone else
So far it hasn't been bad since the PS4 launched. It should scale reasonable since they are adding users at a well known pace. Some users are going to be screwed because they live away from the data canters and for those people both Live and PSN is going to let them down.
To rent servers and storage to give away for any game on the platform?
I could see that being a problem.
Similarly, we would have seen games outside of exclusivity use The Cloud by now. It's really free, no?
same as anything else, including Azure... by having local server farms.
Azure isnt magic, and so far they have not shown any competitive advantage.... if anything, it seems aussie servers were not ready for titanfall:
http://mmgn.com/xboxone/news--titanfall-aussie-server-dilemma-local-servers
I am not sure why would Sony provide managed servers for their clients, plenty of other companies doing that, probably at far lower price... Sony should focus on doing things they are good at and looking at PS4 reception, that seems to be the case.
and why would they do that? Do you see developers flocking to develop for XB1 due to this great free service? I am sure they are telling us how great working with MS is at all these conferences that passed, right? Do you see all these 3rd party developers raving how great free Azure has been for their multiplatform games? If so, send us some links, as nobody is mentioning it, in a good way, except for MS PR.
Maybe. But it all comes back to one of the biggest problems MS faces with this; that is, that if the same experience cannot be easily replicated on the PS4, then devs might never bother in the first place. Games like BF4 or PvZ might be perfect candidates for cloud compute, yet since the games are also on the PS4 (or in the case of PvZ, it soon will be) then the devs can't really take advantage of Xbox Cloud Compute. At least until Sony offers a similar, competitive, service anyway.
Also let's not forget that it's only been six months since the console has launched. If, like I suggested earlier, that it's been a recent change in policy to make XCC free, then it still might take a while before we see 3rd party games taking advantage of MS's services.
njean777
Member
Respawn was touting that it was great, that is the only third party I know that has said anything.
Except that third party developers who don't have exclusive arrangements with Microsoft are not "contacts that can help their business in other ways such as a favourable review, or cheaper ingredients".
The bigger problem for Microsoft is demonstrating that The Cloud has provided an experience that haven't been replicated in the past, let alone on the PS4
That's true I suppose. Lets say that at E3 MS demonstrates a game using technology from this demo. Would that satisfy you or not?
The keyword that u missed is "multiplatform".
should it satisfy anyone that the demonstration was orchestrated under the most optimised conditions, and has not seem real world examples?
They don't have to do that. But at that point they're not offering a comparable solution. It may not be heavily utilised at the moment, but that may not be the case as the gen goes on (there has been very little software up until now, with most of it being cross gen). Besides Respawn isn't MS PR, and they seem plenty happy with the service.
I had a whole second paragraph there for you, in order to clarify how this can apply more directly to MS and third parties. I'm not sure how a small part of my example scenario became the sticking point for you. The point is that MS has an abundance of cloud resources, and providing them to those they work with, is not a similar cost to actually renting cloud time from someone else. They don't need to charge, if they feel it can lead to other benefits.
Yes, and you seemed to miss "MS PR". Which Respawn is not.
Well the whole point would be that it's demo of an upcoming game, therefore it would have to be seen as a real world example.
No sane business who will bad mouth their partners.
InsaneTiger
Member
Hope you got a stable and fast connection. I wonder if "the cloud" will have any effect on data caps. Microsoft might have to pay-to-play for all ISPs.
sure, if MS can ship a game that uses the power of 32 xbox 360's over Azure, i am sure everyone will love it and their sales will pick up. That demo claims Azure can make your "powerful gaming rig" at least 32x more powerful...
It will be awesome... in the meantime, it seems EA put up AU servers for Titanfall that are not using Azure, as Azure AU has not been finished yet. So EA has put up their own servers.
I am not sure how they could replicate Azure awesomeness, but they did and in very short time. Mighty EA.
Actually I'm pretty sure Respawn worked with MS to handle the AU servers, EA weren't really involved too much. But what does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that manually setting up a bunch of permanent dedicated servers is easier/better/more flexible/more efficient than just tapping into the existing Azure infrastructure and firing up an instance whenever needed? Because that's a pretty weak (i.e. wrong) argument. Or are you under the impression that I think that Azure is some magical service? Because again, you would be mistaken.
And u missed spwolf's point. Respawn at this point is not multiplatform and has exclusive arrangements with Microsoft. If they got it for free as a result, of course they'll enjoy it.
My point stands. Microsoft has no incentive to give away an expensive resource for free, if a third party will be paying for a server on ps4 anyway.
Liabe Brave
Member
This argument doesn't make sense. For a multiplatform game with elements perfect for cloud compute, the dev/pub has two options:
1. Build netcode themselves for One and PS4, and pay for their own servers on both.
2. Build netcode themselves for PS4 and pay for its servers, and use existing built-into-SDK netcode on One and get servers for free.
Obviously, the second option is the only one that makes sense: it's less work and it's cheaper. The only reason you'd choose otherwise is if one (or both) of the Xbox benefits in the second scenario isn't actually true. So if using Azure isn't as easy as Microsoft says, and instead takes a lot of development work; or if Azure isn't free; or both. (Technically there's a third, more subtle option: Azure really does save time and money, but so little that it doesn't matter. That's not really a win for Microsoft either.)
Actually, they are not the only ones. Knack also does some cloud magic. When you find a collectible in one of the chests sprinkled around the game, it's stored in cloud, and later your friends can choose to collect the same item. (Oh, and I'm currently in to Clash of Clans. It uses cloud as well.)
Now, sorry to start picking nits, but this figure (3x) is the part that really bothers me. I mean, theoretically the computational power of cloud is limitless: you can scale up and down at will. So where does the "3" come from? It's not like that is the absolute upper boundary of what the whole 300,000 server Azure farmville is able to provide.
So I would actually go so far as to say that this "three times the computational power of Xbox One" is biggest marketing horsecrap in this whole cloud discussion. It's a nice curvy number, but apart from that, MS has no clue what they could do with it in practice.
I didn't miss his point... there was nothing incorrect in the poster you responded to pointing out that Respawn was a third-party (and thus not MS PR) that has commented on being happy with the service. Yes, their game isn't multiplatform, but that doesn't magically make them MS PR, as spywolf's post would claim.
Feel free to not believe MS' claims to allow people that are not publishing exclusively on their system to use their service. It's not implausible that it isn't true. However I'm not willing to say that its a lie when they claim otherwise, and no other developer has stated that it's in fact untrue. Why assume guilty until proven innocent here?
It could simply be the amount of processing that they have set aside based on their projections for how many concurrent users they will have. Azure is a different segment of MS from the Xbox team, and so any resources they take from it would still need to be negotiated, and I'd assume that they're not free to swallow up as much of it as they like.
NDAs, you should read up on them.
But that's a pretty big problem is it not? If you're developing a game based around dedicated servers, and one platform is free, while the other requires expensive set up/maintenance costs, then you're faced with two options:
1. Build the game anyway, and to ensure feature parity, eat the costs of the dedicated servers. Why would you do this? Especially if you're not backed by a huge publisher.
2. Build the game, but instead of facing the costs of dedicated servers, and to ensure feature parity, just use standard P2P. This is what would likely happen, and therefore that's where MS may have a problem
Edit: Anyway, it's pretty late in my part of the world. So if you reply and I don't respond, it's probably because I'm sleeping.
having the cloud handle physics would be fantastic for games like battlefield and it would give it a large edge over the ps4 version. of course Microsoft would have to get EA to agree to use their servers instead of the shitty ones EA has been using for the series.
Eppy Thatcher
God's had his chance.
Someone needs to shake the shit out of a PR director over at MS because godamnit do they just not get it all.
Everytime they inch forward with any goodwill or a good game or some positive numbers they turn around and flummux the fucking ball with more of this complete and utter tripe. Quit with the imaginary super computer flying about our heads and just SHUT THE FUCK UP already.
So ... so dumb.
Everytime they inch forward with any goodwill or a good game or some positive numbers they turn around and flummux the fucking ball with more of this complete and utter tripe. Quit with the imaginary super computer flying about our heads and just SHUT THE FUCK UP already.
So ... so dumb.
I'm aware that there are definitely more games that use the cloud. In my example, I was only referring to Xbox One games.
I'm so fucking tired of this. I understand that theoretically their statement is accurate. Given the right circumstances client side and server side with a robust enough connection that processing power can be used. Who is that useful to though? No one has access to the setup to make this viable yet, why even bother touting this as some kind of feature.
If it can make a meaningful difference to you and me, build a demo for us Xbox One owners to download and get a feel for, otherwise put any money that would get spent to promote "The Cloud" on the next first party exclusive this system should have. It almost feels insulting at this point, new market or not.
If it can make a meaningful difference to you and me, build a demo for us Xbox One owners to download and get a feel for, otherwise put any money that would get spent to promote "The Cloud" on the next first party exclusive this system should have. It almost feels insulting at this point, new market or not.
Microsoft's already becoming the 2005-2007 of Sony.
What reason is there to believe Microsoft's claims? They have no incentive to provide free server farms if the third party is going to put the game on the PS4 anyway. It is implausible.
Have to be? Maybe you're not familiar with Aliens Colonial Marines.
Because they have straight up announced it to the world, and not one person has provided a single shred of evidence to the contrary. "We even give them the cloud computing power for FREE." Obviously they won't let the PS4 version of the game use the cloud compute for free, but they won't disallow you from using it for your Xbox One version if a PS4 version exists.
A lot of people would argue that the resolution increase on PS4 games make it the better console (the argument's a subsidy of the console having better power, so we can go with that too).
However- if Xbox *consistently* had a better online experience, and more devs adopted using the cloud to do extraneous shit that PS4 couldn't- wouldn't that entice a lot of people to join Xbox this gen?
Big if, but I think that's the big summation of what MS is trying to achieve with Azure on Xbox.
How about a shred of evidence pointing to the non-contrary? A single evidence of a multiplatform game that has free servers on The Cloud?
Certainly, but did The Cloud based games have a demonstrably more responsive online experience than games of past, like Call of Duty?
Platinum_D
Member
This shit again...
Yes, yes. That doesn't magically mean that they are being charged either. That just means we don't know either way. Plus NDA's have hardly seemed to have stopped us hearing about MS' internal workings in the past.
If the dev opts for a multiplatform cloud hosted game rather than p2p, they get paid for Azure time. It would be more like offering the service at a discount rather than free when it comes to multiplatform games.
Anything I may suggest is purely speculation. There's not really any point in asking me. The thing is that we don't have any evidence of their claims being false, and usually that's enough to not claim people are lying.
And what's to stop Sony from doing the same and being even more powerful than the Xbone with the cloud?
This bickering back and forth is pretty moot without any proof. Like someone said above, let's get a demo of what the cloud can do on a 10 Mbps speed (US average). Or, for kicks, let's get that physics demo they used in-house over 10Mbps DSL and see how it goes.
Otherwise, releasing a tech demo for something in-house only is not all that truthful.
RackSpace benched higher than Azure. Just saying.
I know Sony's presence in RackSpace won't be as large as Azure or anything, but I can see it being good for PSNow.
This is what I would also like to know. Is the online experience using The Cloud really, not just slightly, but a whole lot better than the online experience from the past? There have been some reports of not being able to connect to a game (which is understandable in the first few days a game is released) and people still have lag from the few posts I read on reddit. So, it seems that The Cloud is still subject to the same woes as online games have had in the past.
Memorabilia
Member
Yes. The only limitation is the threat of mass electrocution during down-pours, but apparently Xbone has magic insulation so no worries.
I seriously cant believe we're back on this bullshit. Again. How many times is MS gong to trot out the same fairy tale?
Liabe Brave
Member
No problem, I don't think you and I can come to a real conclusion about what products we'll see in the future anyway. It's just speculation now.
But as for your argument, you're assuming that feature parity is an unbreakable goal. As publisher, your PS4 and One versions aren't competing against each other--they're competing against other titles on the respective systems. If Azure is a real benefit and free, then you'll be facing off versus other games that have it, so you'd better too. No law says you have to include the same stuff in the PS4 version. That decision will be driven not by some arbitrary need to match the One version, but by whether your competitors on PS4 sprang for the cost of servers. If so, then you'll budget for that accordingly from the very beginning. It's about what you're in competition with locally, not about designing a game based on the narrowest possible union of things all platforms support.
lifeexpectancy
Member
Judging from TF alone, it's not the 2nd coming. I dunno what exactly they're offloading to the magical cloud, but the game itself suffers from SEVERE lag at times. Even on USA servers near me with a ping less than 40ms, I'll have times where what I see when I die and what the deathcam shows are lightyears apart. I'll be saying 'the fuck that guy killed me through a wall!', only to see seconds later on the deathcam that he was in fact right behind me on HIS screen. That shouldn't be happening to that severity on 'dedicated servers' with such a low ping.
It's pretty damned ridiculous, because the difference between our screens is a whole lot more than 40 milliseconds' worth of time elapsing. And the minions' AI in the game is laughable at its absolute best, so there must not be a whole lot of cloud processing going on there to keep those brain-dead things populating the battlefield. I know they're not supposed to be true AI opponents, but they don't have to be THAT lobotomized, sorry.
Anyone with any common sense detected the distinctive stink of marketing jargon with this whole 'cloud processing' thing all along. It just hasn't had enough games 'utilize' it to show its true colors, yet.
There's not really anything any solution could do to prevent an individual player lagging due to a shit connection on their end. As a result, there will always be a least a few reports of lag in online games.
Although I have been involved in one match where something definitely went wrong on the server end. A whole group of us suddenly got hit by crippling lag for about a 10 second window. Have no idea what could have caused it.
In the absence of empiric evidence, we can still examine the incentives behind a behaviour (which we have done), and evaluate the sincerity of a statement. Microsoft have more incentive to not be entirely truthful about their server costs (good PR), than they have in giving away their server farms for free when end-users can play the same game on a competing platform anyway (bad finance). Unless there is a clause that they didn't tell you about.
Memorabilia
Member
Exactly. I love TF but the server lag is just as frequent and at least as jarring as the frame-rate problems. Additionally, the supposed "AI off-loading" we've been told is handled by "the cloud" is at best suspect due to the simple fact that what little AI is actually used for grunts is essentially brain-dead...while the AI for the Titans is essentially "follow the leader". In other words, when I think of Titanfall the last thing I think of is impressive AI, stable frame-rates, or incredible net-code. The game has an addictive quality to it *despite* these weaknesses and certainly not because there is some persceptible magic happening due to Azure that makes the online experience any better than just about any other online MP game I've played on 360 or PS3 (on a side note I experience zero lag on Ghosts PS4, Left 4 Dead 2 (360), etc...). The marketing bullshit is so deep on this subject we need hip-waders.