Maybe you should save the crow serving when they actually launch a game that uses this tech.
*smh* you guys need to be smarter than this.
Maybe you should save the crow serving when they actually launch a game that uses this tech.
Why would a current "high end PC" crawl down to 2 FPS because there's 30k objects in a scene with graphics from 10 years ago?
Not only this will require always online with very very fast internet but using backend server for destruction is completely impractical from financial stand point
This is going to be sweet if it pans out like that chunk destruction demo. Two questions though
Is it online only?
Isn't this a lot of server time for seemingly little business benefit?
What? They're using Azure which is already huge, Why would it require very fast internet? It's not like they're rendering anything, only doing physics calculations which are tiny.
Won't believe it until I actually see it.
Seems like a shady demo. First, the building was breaking before the rockets hit it. It's just a demo, so that's understandable.
What's shady is they didn't know the same level of destruction. After he "detonated" the building, he turned around immediately and shot something else. When he turned back around to face the building, the level of destruction was not the same as in the first demo.
Why not demo the same exact scenario for comparison?
It was great in Red Fraction GW.
What an awesome game and I'm surprised we haven't had much experiences like that.
Why would they offload it to the cloud if it was pre-baked and non-interactive?
Avalanche said:The cloud functionality is pushed as a marketing tool to compensate for the less favorable hardware specs. I understand why they feel they need to do this, as the specs on paper arent necessarily representative of the actual performance. But the way its presented I feel is misleading at best. Its just common sense that sending data over an internet connection isnt even remotely comparable to sending data over a high-speed internal memory bus.
Digital Foundry said:The PS4 memory system allocates around 20,000MB/s for the CPU of its total 176,000MB/s. The cloud can provide one twenty-thousandth of the data to the CPU that the PS4's system memory can. You may have an internet connection that's much better than 8mbps of course, but even superfast fibre-optic broadband at 50mbps equates to an anaemic 6MB/s. This represents a significant bottleneck to what can be processed on the cloud, and that's before upload speed is even considered. Upload speed is a small fraction of download speed, and this will greatly reduce how much information a job can send to the cloud to process.
Because offloading trivial prebaked/non-dynamic/non-interactive/high latency stuff is the only thing you can do with cloud+todays internet speeds.
It's not that the cloud "can't help", it's more that "it would be stupid if this was in the cloud" because it automatically limits your potential audience to "Gold members only" and would require them to maintain a really solid low-latency high bandwidth connection at all times. With so many speed and throughput variables to overcome, any hiccups will have a severely negative impact on your game's performance. Unless the game is hosted for the most part on online servers and you are merely connecting to play...then comes the "how long until the plug is pulled on my game." And we still get back to the "1/2 your audience can't play it. "
Because they are doing it as inefficiently as possible to show you the extremes. The numbers don't add up for cloud gaming.
If crackdown sells 1 million copy at launch and has 500k players on at the same time, will MS have that much power available... and for how long. What happens 6 months later when another "cloud" game comes out. How is long term "cloud gaming" support financially viable without a monthly fee?
Power of the cloud = all your games wont run for shit once the Xbox Two comes out.
Well, damn.Well the company developing the game is called Cloudgine and apparently exists for the primary purpose of cloud tech... so...
No matter how much large server is their is cost attached to which is very high compared to normal operations which can be done locally. Even calculating physics is part of rendering and when its not done locally it would require massive speed to happen without player noticing any lag
Not a rumor. Confirmed by Phil:
I called it? I called it.
Not a rumor. Confirmed by Phil:
I called it? I called it.
Because he was showing that the system wasn't being bogged down by doing all the physics calculations locally?
Microsoft has made a big deal about utilising the Cloud for gaming this generation to differentiate it from the last and open up brand-new opportunities to scale experiences beyond what localised hardware can handle. This is all well and good but beyond a (pretty impressive) demonstration on how the technology can be used in the future the company hasnt yet gone into details on how they will help developers implement it into their titles.
According to leaked information, a company called Cloudgine will play a part in Microsofts E3 conference this year. On their website they describe their technology as "delivering rendering and processing power from the cloud, allowing game developers to define new ground-breaking online gaming mechanics".
you should know cloudgine is a company focused in cloud computing, and David Jones is the founder of the company. as fas as I researched back in the day ntkrnl leaked all the info Cloudgine is not a gaming company, but they have some interesting cloud computing solutions.
from last 20th of May: http://www.developer-tech.com/news/2014/may/20/cloudgine-microsofts-secret-xbox-one-sauce/
Not a rumor. Confirmed by Phil:
I called it? I called it.
But if David Jones is at the helm they are probably forming a team to create a game (or already formed).
What I mean is that Cloudgine could be a "tech" company before, doing the prototypes and when they made it work they got game guys.
I don't know, they didn't show any devs at the end of the trailer did they?
Not a rumor. Confirmed by Phil:
I called it? I called it.
And yet dedi servers have been a thing for years.Honestly? I'll be genuinely surprised if the destructibility isn't local, the tech is completely impractical for use in a game due to general internet speeds being too slow to not induce lag and errors. If it's always online, then the game will bomb horribly. Relying on the cloud for this sort of thing is a horrible idea in terms of making money.
If crackdown sells 1 million copy at launch and has 500k players on at the same time, will MS have that much power available... and for how long. What happens 6 months later when another "cloud" game comes out. How is long term "cloud gaming" support financially viable without a monthly fee?
I would expect that by when x2 arrives, costs to maintain infrastructure to keep xbox one games would be inexpensive. But certainly it is a reasonable concern, not only for cloud based games, but for online games in general.
It's not that the cloud "can't help", it's more that "it would be stupid if this was in the cloud" because it automatically limits your potential audience to "Gold members only" and would require them to maintain a really solid low-latency high bandwidth connection at all times. With so many speed and throughput variables to overcome, any hiccups will have a severely negative impact on your game's performance. Unless the game is hosted for the most part on online servers and you are merely connecting to play...then comes the "how long until the plug is pulled on my game." And we still get back to the "1/2 your audience can't play it. "
That's exactly the right question, sir. Not if technologically speaking is possible or it (it is, or it will be), but how costs will be managed.
Latency issues would cause problems with this obviously, interesting tech but fluidity and usefulness will be the preserve of those with quality internet connections.
No internet, no destruction?