hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
How is this thread 15 pages long?! What's going on in here guys?
-
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.
Crackdown 3 uses cloud-based physics processing to enable environmental destruction
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
First thing I can think of is: great, the destruction is cool, but the game turns into a crippled version of its former self the moment the servers are brought down or moved to use in some other game.
inpHilltr8r
Member
Microsoft will always have a cost advantage, because they own the servers, and they set their prices.
The question from me is, will anyone other than MS bother? If they do, will MS cloud price advantage transfer to a console sales advantage, or will they be happy just selling more Azure to third parties. Will they resist selling Azure to cross platform teams? Or will we see PS4 titles with "powered by Azure" on a splash screen?
I bet David Jones wants to sell Cloudgine to as many people as possible. Unless he's tilting for an MS buyout.
tl;dr:
Game uses dedicated server to do heavy lifting not possibly by having the server be on the client box.
In other news, home computers don't have the power to run a WoW server, either. Whouda thunk?
Having the server handle most of the interactions is neither new and not surprising that they can pull it off. It's been a staple of most PC games for years.
Sony doesn't have online infrastructure? You do realize they put out this small game nobody played called Everquest, right?
Game uses dedicated server to do heavy lifting not possibly by having the server be on the client box.
In other news, home computers don't have the power to run a WoW server, either. Whouda thunk?
Having the server handle most of the interactions is neither new and not surprising that they can pull it off. It's been a staple of most PC games for years.
Sony doesn't have online infrastructure? You do realize they put out this small game nobody played called Everquest, right?
gamechanger87
Member
MS doesn't have a server farm for this game. Its all VMs that spool based on usage so they don't manually move games to other servers.
If XBL/Azure goes down you aren't playing online anyway.
inpHilltr8r
Member
For me, the impressive bit is splitting a connected physics world, seamlessly across multiple servers.
No more than any other network multiplayer game.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Made up in what way?
Age of Ascent, a game using Azure....
https://twitter.com/lee_stott/status/486437448348860417
So yeah.
SEGAvangelist
Member
It's exciting tech.
Tripp Daily
Member
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-15-the-difference-engine
This is a link to an article I posted a thread around the time when the Xbone was first released. In this article Microsoft employees clearly state that
Also, Albert (Microsoft employee - forgot his last name) stated in another thread this tidbit.
Link to the thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=697684&highlight=
Yes, and its a similar solution. Take incoming data, create new assets based off data, animate said assets with physics simulation.
However, well, google the new video and the answer to your question is very self explanatory. Its pretty damn cool.
But this... This snake oil journolist pr is reaching too far, and once again into fradulant territory.... The things you can do with the cloud are very specific with hard limits set by current latency technology, ie how fast can electricity travel... And this is just implying once again that it makes the system super powerful, as if you could simply use the cloud for any aspect of the game, as if it was now a part of the closed system itself.
presagetogood
Member
Many posters here talking about the cost of Microsoft using Azure for cloud computing have no idea what they're talking about. Cloud is the future for Microsoft, and they are heavily invested in it, and they have ways of dealing with the cost that are beyond what average posters here understand. They have built their servers to be massively scalable, including the use of virtual servers. The more gamers are using the cloud, the more the data will be scaled and shared across to the local machines. They are not using cloud for XB1 or for gaming because it's going to cost them a ton more money; they have built the cloud specifically to target mass usage; the more users are on board doesn't mean they will tax their servers more...there is lots of info online about this and they talked a lot about this in the initial reveals about cloud being a future component for XB1.
Another point is that Sony simply won't be able to add cloud computing to their system cheaply...they will have to go to Amazon/Google/MS if they want cloud computing....and there's also room to question which platform, in their internals, is better set up to handle external parallel processing...
Another point is that Sony simply won't be able to add cloud computing to their system cheaply...they will have to go to Amazon/Google/MS if they want cloud computing....and there's also room to question which platform, in their internals, is better set up to handle external parallel processing...
Pathfinder
Member
Most likely, yeah. To what extent we're not yet sure.
ClosingADoor
Member
Azure is a totally different business unit in Microsoft. They don't care who they sell it to. Same way how Samsung competes with Apple but happily sells them components for in their products.
Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
Halo 2 multiplayer went down years ago and Live itself is still up. I just hate stuff that will inhibit enjoyment of a game, especially single player, years down the road.
inpHilltr8r
Member
plus system exclusive => console warrior honeypot
oldergamer
Member
Any basis for that reasoning other then the obvious?
Man, this tech is so exciting. I can't wait to see what else people do with it.
We've already heard from multiple developer sources that this is not true.
Nothing Albert says on GAF should be taken on face value.
We've already heard from multiple developer sources that this is not true.
Nothing Albert says on GAF should be taken on face value.
Well, Xbox Live 1.0 got taken down.
If MS isn't eating the full cost then don't expect a single third party to get on board. There would be absolutely no benefit for third parties if MS charged them for it's use, and only benefits for MS. It's part of the reason I was saying before that you'll only see this utilized in MS' big hitters and not much more outside of that.
More tweets -
Age of Ascent paying $75per hour for 100,000 users
https://twitter.com/lee_stott/status/486437448348860417
Yes for one dev but we can't use that as a definitive pricing + given it's MS's own infrastructure it won't be as much as they're are charging people as they are trying to make a profit.
It's already confirmed to not be free or at least for most devs will have to pay because it's only free for a set amount of users see the leaked SDK. Also Albert says lots of stuff....
Popsickles
Member
It wont be wasting Gpu power thats why they are there General purpose GPU cores something that are not really being utilised yet by devs.
InsaneTiger
Member
Will I then be unable to destroy the buildings?
gamechanger87
Member
Halo 2 was on the original Xbox infrastructure. At the launch of 360 they took it in a different path and had to shut down the original because it was all bootstrapped. An IGN unlocked interview with 3 of the heads of xbox from a month ago details this.
360 games are still playable today unless they are EA/Acti.
Popsickles
Member
For a start thre would be no lag, it could be changed on the fly and doesn't require an interent connection.
gamechanger87
Member
Do you have proof of this? That there are untouched GPU cores that can be utilized for Physics calculations and not cause any issues with graphics?
Uhh...
inpHilltr8r
Member
Historically that's not always been the case. Under Gates/Ballmer there was cross unit strategy aimed at always protecting Windows. Word would come down from on high that you could not do that, because it harmed Windows / Office.
This does seem to have changed with the new guy though. Office on iPad and all that.
No different from any other game with an online MP component...
SEGAvangelist
Member
Yeah, I know he was banned, but even Kampfheld was saying it wasn't free. It IS free DURING development, though. That's probably what Penello was referring to.
Regardless, absolutely none of his comments on GAF should be taken at face value. They are clearly and purposefully misleading. I mean, the guy says "There should be no confusion on this point", then proceeds to confuse. It's ridiculous.
Miles Quaritch
Member
It was more a comment on what one developer is paying. AoA was developed with Azure in mind, so I assume they got a discount. Knowing what the developer is paying, or was paying last year, gives us an idea of the cost of using Azure.
It could be more for other developers, it could be less.
This is the key. How many developers will bother taking the time to make games with something that requires utilizing an always-online connection? That alone significantly shrinks your potential audience size. It's like the MotionPlus with the Wii, when given the time, we got some legitimately cool games that took advantage of it. But I can think of only two like that off-hand.
quickwhips
Member
Have they said once this was multiplayer only? I think people are assuming it for pvp and not coop.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Not all of them. But yes, some of them were pretty misleading.
Ah fair point. Yh just like with Respawn although we probably will never know how much of a discount they got.
Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
It's very different, because it affects single player.
But, if what others have said is true, it sounds like the current version of Live isn't at risk of being brought down anytime soon.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
That's correct. The campaign itself has limited destructibility whether you're online or off. The campaign does not use the servers. It's an MP mode on a completely separate map that does all this destruction and leverages the servers for physics calculations.
No it doesn't. See above.
Hockeymac18
Member
Are you sure about that?
I highly highly doubt the same would happen here, its not like when Crackdowns player count drops to zero, they're wasting money on servers dedicated to the game. These are servers which are used by over 50% of the fortune 50.
Yet in this article, Titanfall developers say that they have to pay for that.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...one-cloud-following-a-lot-of-confusion-online
Journey
Banned
Well, obviously. I don't expect the guy to literally lie on every single one of his posts.
But if we can't parse out the truth in some until months later, the general recommended approach is to not trust anything.
Anyways, we're veering off-topic and discussing someone that doesn't post here anymore -- I just wanted to clear that up
There's a video in the OP.
gamechanger87
Member
He is definitely working on the game though. He was right with about 95% of what he said about how they were thinking about it. Likely not at Reagent but Sumo. I think he got banned because they wanted to control the flow of information.