You would still be testing each platform separately (if u r deveoping on more than one, contrary to your example) even if they interface with the same API standard. And the server costs are not the same.
-
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
You would still be testing each platform separately (if u r deveoping on more than one, contrary to your example) even if they interface with the same API standard. And the server costs are not the same.
No way.
Go here: http://www.azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/calculator/?scenario=virtual-machines
Look at the instance types and their pricing (move the count slider to one to get price per instance). Instances start at a quota of 1GHz CPU, 768MB RAM. 8x1.6GHz is the absolute biggest CPU quota Microsoft offers per instance at all. At 50 Cent per hour (Linux VM offered cheaper than Windows VM, I wonder why, lol).
speculawyer
Member
Did they really go with a mushroom cloud in Japan?From Dualshockers.
What happened to the Infinite Power of the Cloud?
More at the link: http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/04...an-provide-power-of-3-xbox-ones-32-xbox-360s/
No ... I guess that is a transition symbol. But not a good choice of one.
Re: cloud......latency latency latency!
Skinny Pete
Banned
Not this shit again.
Doesn't that raise the question of what they're actually promising us the consumers and what we should expect to get from this? What do they mean specifically?
If it's unclear then its yet more confusing PR from MS IMHO. Actually let's be blunt, it is confusing PR from MS. Technically with an online console you could hook up huge amounts of computing power on the other end - but for what? What would it be doing and what are the benefits vs it not being there?
And it's pretty disingenuous IMO to talk about 3x the computing power while noting not in terms of graphics - this strongly implies to me we're talking something theoretical that might never see any real life usage as I doubt we're going to see games designed anytime soon that shut so much AI/Physics and computational tasks to the Cloud the end result is a game that would require the power of 3 XB1s.
Unless it can be clearly positioned in terms of what you get then it's all rather vague and comes across as PR designed to impress prospective purchasers with notions of benefits they'll get. Honestly MS really need to halt all PR statements that are widely open to interpretation IMHO and adjust everything to be rock solid and clear. And I mean that constructively because since the reveal every vague or unclear statement of the console's capabilities has either backfired, produce negative perception or just generally been jumped on by the media and forums alike.
Statements like the ones delivered here about the Cloud are just asking for trouble due to lack of clarity IMHO.
Yea, but it's still probably not the last he'll say on that.. because someone is certainly going to go at him about it again in the future. Which is why getting tagged over something so silly sucks.
Yes, you will be testing each platform separately, but you will also be testing the service in isolation of the platform too. So instead of:
Test Azure functions.
Test XB1 calling Azure functions.
Test PS4 calling Azure functions.
You're turning it into:
Test Azure functions.
Test Amazon functions.
Test XB1 calling Azure functions.
Test PS4 calling Amazon functions.
As you can see the work on the service side has doubled because the two platforms no longer have the same service in common. If you added PC to the equation, then decided to use Google it becomes.
Test Azure functions.
Test Amazon functions.
Test Google functions.
Test XB1 using Azure functions.
Test PS4 using Amazon functions.
Test PC using Google functions.
Instead of only adding "Test PC using Azure functions." to the top example. It's stupid to be honest, and not something that virtually anybody creating the same product for multiple platforms would ever choose to do. And since you're so certain on the pricing, we're going to mix things up for a change. You're going to detail to me how much the developer saves using your approach, rather than simply claiming it makes sense. Cool?
Gucci Messiah
Banned
I don't get why people are shocked or offended by PR embellishment. This isn't anything new, no need to get up in arms.
I think most people are in the 'here we go again' boat over being shocked and offended.
I completely agree with you. Whilst the claim of 3x the power of an Xbox One isn't an unrealistic claim to make when talking about cloud processing in general (consider all the distributed computing projects), it says pretty much nothing in terms of concrete applications for it in terms of gaming. As a result we are left to make assumptions on what can or can't be done with the potential. My view on the subject is pretty safe and unimaginative, in that it would be very suitable to AI processing. This isn't really a stretch because it has been proven to be possible plenty of times. Other people immediate associate power with the typical measure for games.. graphics. And that's when it all starts to look extremely unfeasible.
Microsoft's messaging has been absolutely terrible, however I don't think that justifies people writing off the technology as a whole in response.
Why would you test a server in isolation of the platform you intend to use it with?
"After a short analysis it becomes obvious that the new pricing proposal by Google is more affordable than those by AWS and Azure in average by 10%. That meant even after the radical cut of Amazon S3 and Azure prices, Google is the most affordable cloud storage." Which for a popular game will probably amount to a significant saving in absolute figures.
http://www.cloudberrylab.com/blog/amazon-s3-azure-and-google-cloud-prices-compare/
Roland1979
Junior Member
Secret sauce all over your face. But seriously, it might be a nice additional, it will help in certain processes no doubt, but no. Theoretical numbers are just not the same as real life application.
And this is what i meant by that. I'm not saying it doesn't have certain potential or said numbers are completely off, but the XB1 will not gain the strength of 3 more XB1's.
Are you seriously asking why you would test a segment of your implementation in isolation from the rest? Seriously? Do you think you implement an entire piece of software before running any tests on it? Would you not test a set of tires until you build an entire car? I'm stunned you even asked this.
Props on the link, however that is referencing only storage, with nothing mentioning compute costs. I had a quick look and came across this. The cost/performance chart doesn't appear to heavily favour Google, and goes against Amazon.
There does appear to be a decent amount of consideration on absolute performance, but for software that is expected to run on both platforms this wouldn't be a concern. If your implementation can't run on Azure, then you wouldn't be able to obtain the free servers anyway.
It can't be, it takes too much effort to do that!
Whilst this does a pretty good job of blowing up my assumption that nobody would opt to split the implementation between different platforms... I'm sure you're also aware this also removes your point of multiplatform games having access to Azure resources...
This particular moment hasn't been good for either of our arguments, lol.
Why would you test one server implementation in isolation of the only platform you are developing it for?
I'm not sure which of my point has been invalidated by the cod example. Microsoft got an exclusive arrangement, being early DLC. What's more, it highlights the questio that if cod was able to get free servers this early, why hasn't any other developer bitten into this freebie? Perhaps there is a catch?
Its one thing to say this prelaunch. Its quite another to say this 6 months after launch. There is an entire case study here in the US as examples of how much power the XBO has. I realize that things will improve but 3 times? Customers need to see real world results. Just because it works in theory and will get a few gasps at a conference, doesnt mean it will work in practice. All this does is make people question everything thats said.
Maybe Microsoft deliberately pours streams of nonsense onto particular topics of interest to make all semi-reasonable people throw up their hands and walk away.
You test all sorts of things in isolation during software development. I broke those two down at the high level. You would also be testing lots of sub-scenarios in isolation within them. During development you generally build small bits, test that they work correctly, then use them to build larger bits. Anything that is called from more than one place doesn't need to be tested repeatedly after it has been deemed to work. This would include everything being called server-side, even across different platforms.
CoD has had early DLC on Xbox since forever, that's hardly changed. If they already have an alternate server solution I'd imagine they'd prefer to continue receiving money as usual. CoD is an annual franchise that it cross gen and has probably used the same server implementation for years. So they wouldn't have actually been creating a new one from scratch. The PS4 would simply use the same setup as the other platforms it launches on.
As for why others don't do the same, I dunno. PvZ is a full timed exclusive on their platforms, and doesn't use the servers, so we don't really have a consistent pattern here. All we know at the moment is that being multiplatform doesn't appear to rule out receiving server benefits. Maybe other devs simply don't want do the work necessary to implement Azure into their already created online solutions?
Same goes if you compare the Xbox One version to the PC version, yet you're content with the Xbox One version despite there being a way better version out there (without extra fees, and generally cheaper at retail). If it's about the "fun" then the 360 version is as good as any other version out there and there is no reason to try and sell one version over the other.
It is highly doubtful that simple tradition is the driving force behind the early DLC arrangements.
He's talking about the expertise of different developers though. not claiming that the Xbox One has the definitive version of Titanfall. The person he replied to was using Titanfall 360 as proof of Bluepoint > Respawn, as if to say that Bluepoint created a version of the game performing on par with Respawn's version of vastly more powerful harder. Sage is just saying that their is enough of a gap between them, for that claim to not really work. Nothing suspect with that.
I disagree though... looking at the Xbox 360 version of the game, I don't think there's any way the X1 version should perform as it does if an equally proficient team was responsible for it tbh. That doesn't mean I think they're very close though.
It's not a matter of tradition. Simply that these deals happen all the time, cloud servers or not. MS has early DLC for CoD and BF4 (which also doesn't use the servers). Sony has deals for DLC in place for Assassin' Creed, Watch_Dogs and Destiny. These things simply happen. They're not evidence of anything unique to one of the manufacturers.
Forgottonone
Member
Stream every xbox og game free and i'll buy one.
It's almost certainly cheaper to just buy an OG Xbox and everything worth playing on it.
Not that I'd complain it they did it though.
People get tired of hearing b.s.
The PR type AND the internet type (forums etcetera)
KeyboardThug
Member
This would be great but I think they would have a hard time getting permission from some publishers.
PdotMichael
Banned
After 6 months is there a single example of the "power of the cloud" thing?
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I feel this is where we always go wrong in these discussions, but it has to be addressed nonetheless. Just because people may not be rioting in the streets about games not being 1080p native, doesn't mean that we somehow don't care about graphics or visuals also. Fun is a big part of it, sure, but if we just wanted "fun," and that alone, people wouldn't buy next gen consoles. The 360 version of Titanfall may be fine for others, but it damn sure isn't for me. I don't want any part of that. If Titanfall were just a game for the 360, I wouldn't even be interested. I love my campaigns as it is, and practically never touch MP, but I broke that role for this game. A very big motivating factor for me to buy this game is because there's a next gen console version, and I want to hit the ground running with the new system. And not really isolating you, I'm just speaking in general, but I don't have the faintest idea where this mindset emanates from that just because people have chosen to game on Xbox One that it must obviously mean we don't care about graphics or don't like the idea of having prettier looking games to play. When they release multi-platform titles, do people believe PS4 owners are the only ones gaming with next gen graphics, and Xbox One owners are slumming sega cd style or something?
Don't want to get way off topic so I'll obviously make this my final post in the thread, but I don't feel the differences between the Xbox One and PC version are anywhere nearly as big as the ones between the 360 and the Xbox One version, and I've seen and played all 3. The fact that PC is always going to be better goes without saying. That's an age old absolute, and it's always been a common argument for PC over consoles, but if that reason alone wasn't nearly compelling enough for me with the 360 and PS3, I don't see it having much weight with Xbox One and PS4 either. My PC is more than capable of absolutely crushing it in Titanfall, but if I wanted to play it on the PC, I would get it for PC. It would surely be a lot cheaper for me if all I wanted were this game, wouldn't it?
But it's not that simple, and it surely isn't all that I want. I much prefer to have the game on the Xbox One where I can use it in combination with the console's specific featureset, and where I can play on Xbox Live with my friends or family who will also be playing it on their xbox ones. I like being able to jump straight to watching tv or a specific channel with a voice command after playing some titanfall, I like being able to say "xbox record that" "xbox broadcast" "xbox snap game dvr," or start up or join an existing party with some other people that have the new system. If anybody wants to just have some fun, don't even bother getting the next gen console or PC versions of watch dogs, just wait for the ps3 and 360 version... don't get it twisted, man, we bottomfeeders like to look at pretty graphics, too..
I feel this is where we always go wrong in these discussions, but it has to be addressed nonetheless. Just because people may not be rioting in the streets about games not being 1080p native, doesn't mean that we somehow don't care about graphics or visuals also. Fun is a big part of it, sure, but if we just wanted "fun," and that alone, people wouldn't buy next gen consoles. The 360 version of Titanfall may be fine for others, but it damn sure isn't for me. I don't want any part of that. If Titanfall were just a game for the 360, I wouldn't even be interested. I love my campaigns as it is, and practically never touch MP, but I broke that role for this game. A very big motivating factor for me to buy this game is because there's a next gen console version, and I want to hit the ground running with the new system. And not really isolating you, I'm just speaking in general, but I don't have the faintest idea where this mindset emanates from that just because people have chosen to game on Xbox One that it must obviously mean we don't care about graphics or don't like the idea of having prettier looking games to play. When they release multi-platform titles, do people believe PS4 owners are the only ones gaming with next gen graphics, and Xbox One owners are slumming sega cd style or something?
Don't want to get way off topic so I'll obviously make this my final post in the thread, but I don't feel the differences between the Xbox One and PC version are anywhere nearly as big as the ones between the 360 and the Xbox One version, and I've seen and played all 3. The fact that PC is always going to be better goes without saying. That's an age old absolute, and it's always been a common argument for PC over consoles, but if that reason alone wasn't nearly compelling enough for me with the 360 and PS3, I don't see it having much weight with Xbox One and PS4 either. My PC is more than capable of absolutely crushing it in Titanfall, but if I wanted to play it on the PC, I would get it for PC. It would surely be a lot cheaper for me if all I wanted were this game, wouldn't it?
But it's not that simple, and it surely isn't all that I want. I much prefer to have the game on the Xbox One where I can use it in combination with the console's specific featureset, and where I can play on Xbox Live with my friends or family who will also be playing it on their xbox ones. I like being able to jump straight to watching tv or a specific channel with a voice command after playing some titanfall, I like being able to say "xbox record that" "xbox broadcast" "xbox snap game dvr," or start up or join an existing party with some other people that have the new system. If anybody wants to just have some fun, don't even bother getting the next gen console or PC versions of watch dogs, just wait for the ps3 and 360 version... don't get it twisted, man, we bottomfeeders like to look at pretty graphics, too..
I feel like I just read 3 paragraphs of an Xbox advert, especially the last paragraph.
When they release multi-platform titles, do people believe PS4 owners are the only ones gaming with next gen graphics, and Xbox One owners are slumming sega cd style or something?
This is actually the other issue I have with this argument. Nobody should be happy with the Xbox One version because if you don't care about graphics then the 360 version is fine. Yet if you do care about graphics then the PC version is what you should be buying. Right?
So, how does that fit into the common argument of "I have a PS4 for superior multiplats. The Xbox One is only worth a handful of exclusives"? Shouldn't you just be buying all that shit on PC then?
they can claim whatever nonsense they want.
I bet you wouldnt be surprised.
The claim is so silly. All the ai.. lol wow have you seen the ai in this game?
Its clear pr statement to make up the power difference.
Going to be even funnier when titanfall 2 is released on all platform and I bet ps4 will be the best console version.
NullPointer
Member
Instead of focusing on the potential of offloading compute tasks, which can come with a very real limitation of the game being online-only, I'd rather MS just focused on making the cloud servers available to host multiplayer matches of all kinds.
Focus on the lack of lag, the removal of host advantage, better regional server support, and protection from hacks and exploits.
Those are real advantages that everybody understands from day one.
Focus on the lack of lag, the removal of host advantage, better regional server support, and protection from hacks and exploits.
Those are real advantages that everybody understands from day one.
Just because you prefer to play [insert game here] on your Xbox One doesn't mean you should be trying to get people to purchase your console of choice just because you think the game on [insert console here] isn't running up to snuff (in your opinion).
Heck, you pretty much said you really have no interest in Titanfall, and that the only reason you bought it is because it's a game on your console of choice. If you bought games because you wanted to play them, then there would be no reason for you to say the other version isn't good enough. If someone wants to play it, let them play it without spending/wasting hundreds of dollars. Maybe for you those "features" mean something, but try not to make every one of your posts sound like a paid advertisement for The Xbox One All-In-One Complete Entertainment System.
Also, Respawn did their best on the Xbox One version, and it still runs like crap, the PC version also runs average even on beasting PC builds. They said they would try to get some extra performance out in a patch, but they never promised anything, and that's a good thing, because unkept promises are the worst.
Heck, you pretty much said you really have no interest in Titanfall, and that the only reason you bought it is because it's a game on your console of choice. If you bought games because you wanted to play them, then there would be no reason for you to say the other version isn't good enough. If someone wants to play it, let them play it without spending/wasting hundreds of dollars. Maybe for you those "features" mean something, but try not to make every one of your posts sound like a paid advertisement for The Xbox One All-In-One Complete Entertainment System.
Also, Respawn did their best on the Xbox One version, and it still runs like crap, the PC version also runs average even on beasting PC builds. They said they would try to get some extra performance out in a patch, but they never promised anything, and that's a good thing, because unkept promises are the worst.
Drawing attention to the "power" of anything is what has gotten MS so much negative press to begin with...
If they would just stop trying so hard to convince people that the Xbone is even on par with the PS4 they would be better off...use some of those resources to actually show us what the console does well and why there is value...instead of beating the Albert Panello drum all day of "No Way we're giving up 30%" or "we created directx!"
And if its true...then SHOW ME..we're 6 months into this now...surely with all this added "power" at least one of the first party studios should be able to put together a tech demo showcasing what's possible with all this computational power...
If they would just stop trying so hard to convince people that the Xbone is even on par with the PS4 they would be better off...use some of those resources to actually show us what the console does well and why there is value...instead of beating the Albert Panello drum all day of "No Way we're giving up 30%" or "we created directx!"
And if its true...then SHOW ME..we're 6 months into this now...surely with all this added "power" at least one of the first party studios should be able to put together a tech demo showcasing what's possible with all this computational power...
Codeblew
Member
Some people prefer playing games on console? I have a gaming PC also but if a game is out on console, I will usually pick up that version. Now if you also care about graphics for the money, which console do you choose?
I really wish any mentions of this stuff didn't always have to be taken as Xbox One vs PS4...
At no point am I claiming that this means the X1 is stronger than the PS4. If Titanfall was also released on PS4, I would expect it to perform better than on the Xbox One, yes. However I would also expect all of the AI to be offloaded and not run from one player's host PS4. I'm not saying the 360 is magically entering beast mode as a result of having access to the cloud. I'm saying that the server is doing all the heavy lifting in regards to the AI, and neither the Xbox One, or Xbox 360 (or PS4) would do well attempting to replace this locally.
Is this really so difficult to believe?
Not working for games not coming to PC, like Destiny. I'll be getting that on PS4.
The problem with forums is that it's easy for context to get lost along the way. Tsundere was stating that if someone cared about the degraded graphics on the Xbox 360 version of Titanfall, this means they should be looking to the PC version instead. This implies that wanting the best console version is an invalid reason.
This is valid. Can't poke any holes in that argument.
FranXico
Member
I feel this is where we always go wrong in these discussions, but it has to be addressed nonetheless. Just because people may not be rioting in the streets about games not being 1080p native, doesn't mean that we somehow don't care about graphics or visuals also. Fun is a big part of it, sure, but if we just wanted "fun," and that alone, people wouldn't buy next gen consoles. The 360 version of Titanfall may be fine for others, but it damn sure isn't for me. I don't want any part of that. If Titanfall were just a game for the 360, I wouldn't even be interested. I love my campaigns as it is, and practically never touch MP, but I broke that role for this game. A very big motivating factor for me to buy this game is because there's a next gen console version, and I want to hit the ground running with the new system. And not really isolating you, I'm just speaking in general, but I don't have the faintest idea where this mindset emanates from that just because people have chosen to game on Xbox One that it must obviously mean we don't care about graphics or don't like the idea of having prettier looking games to play. When they release multi-platform titles, do people believe PS4 owners are the only ones gaming with next gen graphics, and Xbox One owners are slumming sega cd style or something?
Don't want to get way off topic so I'll obviously make this my final post in the thread, but I don't feel the differences between the Xbox One and PC version are anywhere nearly as big as the ones between the 360 and the Xbox One version, and I've seen and played all 3. The fact that PC is always going to be better goes without saying. That's an age old absolute, and it's always been a common argument for PC over consoles, but if that reason alone wasn't nearly compelling enough for me with the 360 and PS3, I don't see it having much weight with Xbox One and PS4 either. My PC is more than capable of absolutely crushing it in Titanfall, but if I wanted to play it on the PC, I would get it for PC. It would surely be a lot cheaper for me if all I wanted were this game, wouldn't it?
But it's not that simple, and it surely isn't all that I want. I much prefer to have the game on the Xbox One where I can use it in combination with the console's specific featureset, and where I can play on Xbox Live with my friends or family who will also be playing it on their xbox ones. I like being able to jump straight to watching tv or a specific channel with a voice command after playing some titanfall, I like being able to say "xbox record that" "xbox broadcast" "xbox snap game dvr," or start up or join an existing party with some other people that have the new system. If anybody wants to just have some fun, don't even bother getting the next gen console or PC versions of watch dogs, just wait for the ps3 and 360 version... don't get it twisted, man, we bottomfeeders like to look at pretty graphics, too..
Wow.
I really hope you are getting paid for this...
I only have a PC that maybe could run the game in 5 fps, so I don't have a choice anyway
not_so_special
Banned
are you blind or something like that? just asking..i wont be his last post on the thread,as you can see afterwards
As long as it does well enough to be thoroughly supported. We get most use out of the XBone because it's so easy to get everything on and sign-in. That's in spite of a dearth of apps at present. "Xbox on", "go to YouTube", and there's my subscribed content because it signed me in as it powered up. It does that for everyone.
It's a brilliant console aside from the overpriced DD games and missing apps.
It's a brilliant console aside from the overpriced DD games and missing apps.
TalentBurke
Member
*claps* I completely agree with you.
Not when this is the norm for him.
Pretty sweet job if he was. Getting payed to post on Gaf must be a pleasure.
some form of compensation, whether monetary or not, occurred in exchange for getting CoD's DLC earlier than a competing platform. It is not a third party game where you can rule out an exclusive arrangement as a reason for having free access to The Cloud. To date, there is yet to be a such a game that receives free server time on Azure.
I feel like I just read 3 paragraphs of an Xbox advert, especially the last paragraph.
If you opt to continue reading his posts, this will be a theme.
I don't think this is worth continuing really. There's almost no applicable games that would serve as likely candidates either. If PvZ and BF4 aren't using the servers, then the chances are most devs probably don't want to split the implementation on games that they already have a working solution for. Maybe once we have more multiplats designed exclusively for this gen, we'll have more of an idea (or someone will just outright say what the deal is).
Until then I guess we stay with me not seeing a reason to think they're lying right now, and you not seeing a reason to believe they're telling the truth. Neither of us is going to change the others mind, and I'm pretty sure we both understand the others viewpoint quite thoroughly at this point. If we continue, we're both just going to fall back on all the points we've already covered up until this point, and I'm sure everyone else is tired of skimming past our posts.
You mean for my awesome Ivy Bridge dual core with Intel HD Graphics 4000?