You aren't misunderstanding, it would be terrible for anyone with data caps or slow internet. Much better to invest in some extra storage.
-
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.
Microsoft is looking at using the Cloud to help Xbox One X games take up less space
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
You aren't misunderstanding, it would be terrible for anyone with data caps or slow internet. Much better to invest in some extra storage.
Yeah, that's what it sounds like to me as well.
With more people having data caps in 2016 than we had the year before (and this year looking like that percentage is getting even higher) this is an idiotic move for them to make.
Azure Phoenix
Member
1TB (a chunk of which being reserved) isn't acceptable when you're asking people to use over 100GB per game, that is as little as 5 games playable at a time. These systems should be coming with 2TB as standard with a 4TB configuration also available for an extra £50, putting the onus on the user to spend an extra £100 on top of the system cost is just shitty.
The thing is, bandwidth caps are becoming more and more common so offloading extra demands onto the customer's internet connection on top of the already painful patch/install sizes is not the answer. We're not even remotely close to major countries having good enough internet for cloud streaming to be worthwhile, and given Microsoft's track record you can excuse me for being sceptical that such an option wouldn't eventually become a requirement.
A second disc doesn't do anything for your installation footprint.
Yep, that's what he said! Unlike... having to delete the game to play another one (because games are big), then re-install the first one, etc. Thankfully that doesn't write to the drive so it's all good.
People have willfully abandoned their common sense lately.
I'm not sure how often you delete and reinstall games but i sure as hell can't believe you do it as often as there are write operations when you only download certain levels whenever you play them.
See it like this:
At the moment it writes a game onto your HD 1x
The way they're proposing is something like this:
You'll redownload each level/area everytime you visit it there are more write operations which increases wear of the HD and shortens it's liftetime.
It's not that hard to see how increased write operations increase HD wear and failure rate if you have some common sense.
... What!? What are you even talking about here
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
They'll call it the cumulonimbus this time.
Liabe Brave
Member
This is a good idea in principle. However, it does have drawbacks. Just last night, Xbox Live was down for hours. With cloud-streamed games, people wouldn't have been able to play anything, including singleplayer games. (Under the current setup, all they had to do was set their console to "offline" to play.)
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Christ so many shitposts from people who clearly didn't even read the thread title let alone the OP.
It's about storage space, not computing power.
Or talk to Nintendo about how compression works and learn a thing or two?
It's about storage space, not computing power.
Or talk to Nintendo about how compression works and learn a thing or two?
Lol what?
Xbox Live servers including dedicated matchmaking servers are run in the cloud. Does that sound like vaporware to you?
So whats your alternative? Keep the shitposting without consequences? Its not fair.
Example:
"The Cloud is a push to attempt to lock third party development into an infrastructure which Sony can't leverage in the hope that it'll drive development away from PlayStation."
Why we can t have a reasonable discussion when Xbox is involved? Why I have to read dozens of insane messages like the like above?
PetriP-TNT
Member
Gamers have shitload of misunderstandings about anything technical in anything so it doesn't really come as a surprise to anyone. Your updates come from teh cloud. You download your games from teh cloud. Your video game online friends are in teh cloud. Your credit card is tied into teh cloud.
ToxicPhantom
Member
I dont remember the last time I played a game "offline." So I'm all for any cloud integration as long as it's optional. With 1GB service, nooo problem. I got this!
It's not hard to see that the benefit of this change would be that when you want to play a game, it's available to you without removing another game.
Let's say your hard drive hold 10 games, but you have 15. You can either switch 5 of them out when you want to play them, or you can have the system dynamically move unused portions of them out so you can play any at a given time.
Assuming the same usage of the system by the gamer (ie "I can play the game I want, when I want"), and the same amount of hard drive space being written to, the only change would be time saved for you when it's time to play something you haven't played in a while. Which, as we know, is bad unless My Preferred Platform Owner™ is doing it.
The forum has actual moderators and they do a fine job. Messages like the one above that you personally find "insane" ... the reality is, you have to just ignore them. ¯\_(ツ
_/¯Maintenance
Member
WoolyNinja
Member
The problem with using the cloud to help Xbox One X games take up less space is that A) not everybody will be online and B) lag/ping to servers is still too all over the place from household to household to ensure a quality experience for everyone. If my connection is crappy at that given moment then my experience is going to be much worst than my friend who has a 100mb+ connection with 10ms ping to the server.
All that being said - adding this as another option for install seems like a great idea and should be easy enough.
When downloading the game simply choose how much of the game you want locally vs in the cloud. Maybe have 3 options... for example:
5GB (only important files are local)
20GB (audio and common/shared content are local)
50GB (everything is local)
All that being said - adding this as another option for install seems like a great idea and should be easy enough.
When downloading the game simply choose how much of the game you want locally vs in the cloud. Maybe have 3 options... for example:
5GB (only important files are local)
20GB (audio and common/shared content are local)
50GB (everything is local)
Dlacy13g
Member
Pretty sure nowhere because this isn't a reference to using the cloud to increase a consoles compute/processing capabilities. This is about storage and solutions for downloading 100+GB games in the future.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Now every game can be borderlands.
Which is literally what im saying.
If the system constantly moves data between the HD and the cloud it makes more operations than if the console downloads the game once.
If you have more write operations the sectors get overwritten faster and HD wear increases while life time is reduced.
Dont drag me into your console war bullshit because you dont understand how harddrives work.
Yeah, or maybe you can fuck off and read the OP before shitposting. Is Google Drive or Dropbox or OneDrive part of your 'miraculous cloud' as well? Is Amazon Web Services or GCP or Azure platonic entities through our real world? Is Playstation Now a lie? Damn, my cloud saved games should be part of my imagination!
...ITT, people think Redmond is in Silicon Valley. (It is in Seattle, several hundred miles away).
As for cloud stuff, considering the entire company is moving towards cloud services (the new CEO was the head of cloud services at MS), I'm less worried about stuff getting shut down. If Azure isn't doing well, Xbox is the least of Microsoft's problems.
arhra
Member
You'll disable the feature and use full local installs just like you do now.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
I doubt that this will happen within the foreseeable future. While the technology definitely exists in general the infrastructure is just not good enough to support it at the scale Microsoft would need it to be at were the console to be successful and it to be a widely adopted feature. I would wager they've got a few projects ongoing at any one time that look at how they can utilise Azure to get more out of Xbox, and it's probable that all of them run into exactly the same problem.
Azure is really good and I have no qualms about the datacentre side of things but it's going to be a slim minority who have uncontended fibre lines that can handle the bandwidth and won't see any latency.
Azure is really good and I have no qualms about the datacentre side of things but it's going to be a slim minority who have uncontended fibre lines that can handle the bandwidth and won't see any latency.
There's a reality that we need to accept, this is the cost of gaming at the highest fidelity, increasing HDD size will increase the price which is isn't an option given the innards are already setting us back, it makes sense for them to directly charge for tech which only they can supply, and the surplus storage required is optional to each gamer, so the direct cost from them is as low as they can get it, anything more they're not responsible for. When your catering for millions this seems like an acceptable balance. Cloud storage at least allows gamers to play 4k games progressively even with storage limitations, at zero cost. That's the main point. If you have a cap you have bigger things to worry about then gaming, that impacts all forms of entertainment, this seems like government's responibilty to get ISPs in line, something out of MS/tech companies hands. You could say multiple disks, but that seems wasteful (each release on multiple discs? horrible idea) and a logistical nightmare
Yep - essentially it's deleting bits it doesn't think you need any more and then redownloading them when you do. Call me old fashioned but I think I'll manually manage my own disk space thanks.
Gamezone
Gold Member
Is it even optional? I mean, this thread... This is what happens when Microsoft randomly talks about the power of the cloud after keeping shut for years. They randomly introduce their plans for the future without telling us how it'll really work. People are then left with questions. Questions leads to rage. Rage leads to suffering.
Japanmanx3
Member
Cloud Powah Too: Electric Booga Loo
Chobel
Member
Neat idea but it sounds impractical for a lot of games. I see two issues here:
1) What happens when cloud files aren't fully downloaded locally? You'll have to block the the gameplay with long loading screen or some other artificial blocking mechanic (invisible wall...) until the files are ready.
2) How long do you cache these files?
a) Forever: Then it's no different than PlayGo, and you're better off downloading everything just once then.
b)Temporarily: then you'll end up wasting significant amount bandwidth if the player end up visiting some areas/levels on and off frequently, not to mention it will exacerbate the issue #1.
1) What happens when cloud files aren't fully downloaded locally? You'll have to block the the gameplay with long loading screen or some other artificial blocking mechanic (invisible wall...) until the files are ready.
2) How long do you cache these files?
a) Forever: Then it's no different than PlayGo, and you're better off downloading everything just once then.
b)Temporarily: then you'll end up wasting significant amount bandwidth if the player end up visiting some areas/levels on and off frequently, not to mention it will exacerbate the issue #1.
People ask for more transparency and then shit on it when we get it. If ideas being thrown about induce the type of reaction that has been shown in this thread then i wager the that it isn't Microsoft that has the problem.
I would like to see a game use the cloud to run cloud in a game so meta
Shifty
Member
Normal-ass web servers, which is exactly what 'The Cloud' is. Unlike these marketing-led PR pieces that have so far amounted to a lot of hot air and no actual product.
Similar threads
- Locked