The Xbox gaming business is secondary at Microsoft in general, they're far more interested in operating systems and Office. That's why it's all about TV and sports now with the 180.That quote says nothing about Xbox Live being secondary.
i dont quite understand why they are just moving dump trucks of money and throwing it everywhere. i guess they dont care about budgeting/profit that much just as long as everyone else doesn't make more money than them
That quote says nothing about Xbox Live being secondary.
Why do you care? Do you hold shares in the company?
As a gamer, I'm selfish and if this improves online performance, quicker downloads, etc., I'm happy.
I just find it strange that people are questioning MS's use of capital to improve its services. This is what companies do.
The whole cloud idea for the xbox one scares me, it's so inconsiderate of the future of these game titles.
What are you going to do 10 years from now when a game can't reach these servers and who knows what meta strings get calculated in these server farms.
Well, with video streaming the quality can adjust to your connection, so if you've a poor connection it'll still work but be at a poor quality.This is actually a good question.
Why will Gaikai and Remote Play and BC via the cloud work just fine while "the cloud" is considered by many just as "PR bullshit". Aren't they basically behind the same concept? Honest question.
This is actually a good question.
Why will Gaikai and Remote Play and BC via the cloud work just fine while "the cloud" is considered by many just as "PR bullshit". Aren't they basically behind the same concept? Honest question.
This is actually a good question.
Why will Gaikai and Remote Play and BC via the cloud work just fine while "the cloud" is considered by many just as "PR bullshit". Aren't they basically behind the same concept? Honest question.
i would guess Office easily makes more money than xbox
what if i did? what's it to you how i armchair analyze what microsoft is doing? i am a customer and use their products all the time. maybe it interests me.
none of that will happen because of this
"the cloud" is as of yet unproven for anything other than storage.
Gaikai cloud has the game run on servers, so calculation time would be the same as local (i.e. nanoseconds). It's essentially the server running the game and sending a video feed of that game to your console and you sending controller inputs back. Basically, the only real problem is controller lag.
Microsoft cloud supposedly has bits of the game run on servers and bits of the game run on servers, and the PR guff suggested that stuff like physics would be improved by being calculated on servers. This is garbage, because by the time the physics calculation on the server has made it to the console, about 0.1 second (being generous here) has passed, which means noticeable errors are inevitable, especially if you're playing something fast paced such as a racing game. There's also the problem of SimCity using the same excuse ("Server side calculations for the simulation") that proved to be absolute horseshit. Right now, all the implementations of the cloud has been stuff that already was possible in the last generation of consoles.
I also stand by people not noticing the difference between last gen's multiplayer structure and this gen's multiplayer structure. Hell, PSN has more games running on dedicated servers than Xbox Live, and people still claim XBL's better.
There's nothing negative in this, nothing. Not even a speck. A robust and flexible server structure is...quite a good thing actually.
...Yet the atmosphere and comments in here..something better reserved for a disease outbreak of some sort...It's like straight out of bizarroworld.
Sounds like bullshit.
700 million to be stuck up the clouds of developers to keep games exclusive for 6 to 12 months.
The Xbox gaming business is secondary at Microsoft in general, they're far more interested in operating systems and Office. That's why it's all about TV and sports now with the 180.
Why will Gaikai and Remote Play and BC via the cloud work just fine while "the cloud" is considered by many just as "PR bullshit". Aren't they basically behind the same concept? Honest question.
Well, with video streaming the quality can adjust to your connection, so if you've a poor connection it'll still work but be at a poor quality.
With using the cloud to make up for system performance you need lots of data, and you can't miss bits of that data so you need a very fast internet connection.
MMOs?
Netflix/Hulu?
Folding @ home?
That's all ''cloud'' stuff my friend.
A better assumption than that idiotic GI.biz assumption that it's mainly for Xbox Live.So just an assumption, then?
folding @ home is distributed computing, not "the cloud."
Netflix/Hulu is about as "cloud" as Youtube is. just because something has a server doesn't automagically make it a cloud-based service.
MMOs intentionally tie you to a server so that you are forced to pay money. it's about as beneficial for games as it was for SimCity.
Depends on what you want to do and why.
A game running in Gaikai is pretty much still the same game that ran on your local console. Its FPS may be bumped to account for network latency, but that's pretty much it. The input/output now work over network and not over HDMI/Bluetooth to your TV/Controller.
A game that runs locally but offloads parts into a cloud is a completely different beast entirely. Such a game is a time-critical distributed software system and, thus, much more complicated. In fact, most of its subsystems cannot be "offloaded" by any practical means. Latency and bandwidth are natural barriers, and the inherent unreliability and asynchronicity of distributed software parts make the developers life a pain in the ass.
And the parts that can be "offloaded" are most likely those parts that are already done on the server-side in multiplayer games and MMOs, that is, game world synchronization and shared gameplay elements like bullet impact calculation.
In addition, it doesnt make much sense economically to (a) build expensive dedicated local hardware like the Xbox 180 APU and, in addition, run an expensive cloud infrastructure to run non-essential functions like visuals. No developer would do that. They would just scale the game such that it runs entirely in the local hardware. Less effort and fewer costs. Cloud infrastructures make only sense for functions that are inherently in need of servers (multiplayer, MMOs, sharing, social) and define the product.
2+ billion dollar for video game investment, MS breaking their bank yo.
A better assumption than that idiotic GI.biz assumption that it's mainly for Xbox Live.
I may be looking at this totally wrong or just misunderstanding but this really doesn't sound like a lot of money for a 300,000 -server cloud.
$700,000,000/300,000 servers = $2,333 per server. As an Enterprise Architect who deals cloud servers for probably one of the largest vendors for such hardware and services, that cost per box is very low even for virtualized platforms. Given all the stuff they say is going to be done in the cloud and the dynamic nature of what these servers are doing, they really will be getting a ton of mileage out of these servers for the money.
What do you think the Cloud is then?
For example, I use a product called Salesforce.com. Of course they have servers, but they're considered a cloud service, because unlike client software, I can access my data from any supported device.
That's Microsoft for you. Throw as much money at the wall hoping some of it sticks.
Why would we think
A more appropriate analogy would be that MS said "Hey, I'm gonna spit in your face" and then you said "I'd rather you not do that" and then MS said "Ok, nevermind".
Nope.
We asked them for months to stop, but day after day they kept ignoring us and warming up their salivary glands. It wasn't until they realised that spitting on us might actually hurt them in the long run, that they eventually said 'oh lol sorry, we were totally listening to you!' Stop pretending that MS got rid of DRM out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they listened to the fans.
"the cloud" is as of yet unproven for anything other than storage.
Ever heard of Salesforce.com?
Who cares why they got rid of it? All that matters is that they did.
These are products, not people. No reason to hold grudges.
Just because they wiped the spit away doesn't mean they didn't spit in my face.
That's a whole nother argument, I was pointing out why your analogy was completely wrong. And people care because it leaves a bad taste in their mouth, whilst also fearing MS might do something similar later down the line. You can't treat your consumers like shit, then expect no one to care after it.
But they aren't.
They were going to, but they didn't.
If the 180 happened after launch, I could see the point. But all the DRM went away before a single console was sold.
According to their declarations on May 21st, the current XBL was running on 5000 servers.
until entrement mentioned the word, no.
Just because they wiped the spit away doesn't mean they didn't spit in my face.
But they aren't.
They were going to, but they didn't.
If the 180 happened after launch, I could see the point. But all the DRM went away before a single console was sold.
Jesus Christ, give it a rest.
Microsoft gave you all exactly what you wanted. You still wanna be bitter? Fine. But don't take good news and act like it means nothing.
Yeah because of the backlash, not because they tried to be nice.