• 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

Latency is actually not a big principal issue with game streaming. In fact, the latency of streaming can be rather easily offset by low-latendy displays and running the game at higher frame rates.

I am saying that is not a principle issue, because the current architecture of the Internet is not really suited for providing reliable QoS-constraints. However, research agendas that strive to change that are underway all over the globe. It remains to be seen when and how they will improve the situation, but improve it will. And then game streaming will provide all the benefits of the cloud without the downsides of distributed systems that I described.

I see your points, but it sounds to me it's a better approach to the problem to design around the fact that nothing is guaranteed, and compensate for that than trying to make the whole internet perfect and reliable.

Even if you can offset the lag by running in higher frames and using low latency displays, there still would be a minimum latency, and that latency is pretty close to delivering a acceptable experience, so if anything goes south, you have nothing.

What I'm saying is, I think it's a safer approach to develop cloud based system assuming that connection won't be reliable, and take that into consideration rather then assuming everything will work 100% all the time. Yeah, it's an extra burden when developing the game, but it keeps everything under your control.

A game like crackdown for instance, could reduce the amount of physics, so the local processing power can handle it or even use older data until the new one comes making the simulation less accurate, not the best scenarios, but better than a cloud only approach whereas the only solution would be to turn the stream off even if only for a few frames.

Using hybrid solutions also gives more freedom on to what could be delegated to the cloud. I think indirect lighting for instance might be a good candidate. You could have the cloud calculating the indirect lighting for the sun on all objects and locally use a simpler proven model that could work for local lights like voxel cone tracing (Just to mention an example of something that's feasible on current consoles, but it does require a certain amount of power). Then the indirect light from the sun would be very latency tolerant, and the local lighting would always be rendered locally so it wouldn't need a 100% reliable connection to work. That could net some other advantages as well, in this example, instead of lighting the entire scene the console would only have to work on a portion of it, so there's more processing power available to something else.

It would come the day though where internet is reliable and people have new low latency displays, so a cloud only approach should be possible, I just wouldn't want to wait until that point for this to take off.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
Isn't it like $75 per hour per 100k users?

I thought I saw it mentioned in a thread.

Depends on the application, but it's not really much cheaper per unit than traditional data hosting. It is more flexible though, in the sense that you allocate and deallocate resources more quickly, and only pay for what you allocated for your workload. But you only need that flexibility for everything that exceed a certain baseline of infrastructure that you always need all the time. For that reason, many companies with a large baseline of infrastructure are keeping the traditional hosting model for that baseline.

So I am sure that Sony won't do that, especially given how "suboptimal" their PSN servers are. I'd rather see them ramp up that first before doing any other online shenanigans. Which I don't expect them to do in any case. I just threw that in as some kind of joke, because theoretically Sony could just buy the very same infrastructure from Microsoft that Microsoft themselves are using. That would be hilarious.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
I never assumed it was free. Where did you read into that?

I read that into your statement, that Sony would still have to buy servers "per game", as opposed to Microsoft, who essentially has to buy server time "per game" internally from itself too. If that's not what you meant then nevermind.
 

Apathy

Member
lol

Sony can't even match XBL from 2007.

No they haven't.

There's still not even basic features such as name changes or appearing offline. It took them 8 years to make a party chat

The idea that Sony would just roll this out in 18 months to nullify the advantage is hilarious.

Man your console warrior badge is getting a workout today.

You realize Sony does not have to create the infrastructure right? They could go out to the number one supplier of cloud based servers, oh who is that, oh right, Amazon, and buy from them. With CD3, the engine is built to take the physics calculations and offload them to the servers and have that calculation come back to your Xbox. It's not some magical substance wizards at Microsoft labs invented. Sony (or any other company for that matter) could make a game that does the same thing, physics calculation offloaded on cloud based servers, the game just requires to be built for that in mind. But if a game does not require that, then why would they add it?
 

Nickle

Cool Facts: Game of War has been a hit since July 2013
Sounds like it could be really cool, I hope it works wrll so we can see more stuff like it in the future.
 
So, is it just easy as Sony could just rent servers and do the same? I think more important is the technology MS has research and developed over the years to make this demo, they must own the patents, expertise and the overall technical knowledge make this work and make it commecially viable in 2016.

It is not just Sony can do Hololens too if they invest.
 
I read that into your statement, that Sony would still have to buy servers "per game", as opposed to Microsoft, who essentially has to buy server time "per game" internally from itself too. If that's not what you meant then nevermind.

MS already set aside a certain portion for all of Xbox, IIRC. It's also virtual servers so they don't need to worry about shrinking populations.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Depends on the application, but it's not really much cheaper per unit than traditional data hosting. It is more flexible though, in the sense that you allocate and deallocate resources more quickly, and only pay for what you allocated for your workload. But you only need that flexibility for everything that exceed a certain baseline of infrastructure that you always need all the time. For that reason, many companies with a large baseline of infrastructure are keeping the traditional hosting model for that baseline.

So I am sure that Sony won't do that, especially given how "suboptimal" their PSN servers are. I'd rather see them ramp up that first before doing any other online shenanigans. Which I don't expect them to do in any case. I just threw that in as some kind of joke, because theoretically Sony could just buy the very same infrastructure from Microsoft that Microsoft themselves are using. That would be hilarious.

I thought some Sony games have used Amazon's AWS before. Some dev posted it in another thread.
 

Apathy

Member
So, is it just easy as Sony could just rent servers and do the same? I think more important is the technology MS has research and developed over the years to make this demo, they must own the patents, expertise and the overall technical knowledge make this work and make it commecially viable in 2016.

It is not just Sony can do Hololens too if they invest.

I think it's more like the next iteration of some stuff that's been done before taken to an exponential step due to the ability of cloud servers being able to be spun up and down when necessary. Instead of having to power/house/spin up a huge physical server and do it at a moments notice/split second it's needed (something that can't be done), the cloud servers can do it seamlessly
 

Dynasty

Member
Man your console warrior badge is getting a workout today.

You realize Sony does not have to create the infrastructure right? They could go out to the number one supplier of cloud based servers, oh who is that, oh right, Amazon, and buy from them. With CD3, the engine is built to take the physics calculations and offload them to the servers and have that calculation come back to your Xbox. It's not some magical substance wizards at Microsoft labs invented. Sony (or any other company for that matter) could make a game that does the same thing, physics calculation offloaded on cloud based servers, the game just requires to be built for that in mind. But if a game does not require that, then why would they add it?

If Sony was to go Amazon(any cloud distributor), they would have to pay and continuously pay to keep the game up. MS would also have to pay, but not as much as Sony making it more realistic for them from a business stand point. Also ain't just about getting the servers, MS has been working on this for a while, ever since the X1 reveal even before so their tools are miles ahead of Sony. We won't see Sony doing anything like this for a while.
 

Sydle

Member
It's neat tech. This is early days, too, so I'm curious to see where we are in 5, 10, 20 years with it.

Every single Crackdown thread this past week has been a shitstorm. It's amazing.

Could you imagine the chaos if it was Phil Spencer talking about Crackdown and making the claims Cloudgine has?
 

x-Lundz-x

Member
I am certainly impressed with what I saw, but its application is very limited right now. One game using some impressive tech does not make the console all powerful. We will probably only get a small handful of games that even take advantage of this.

And until the power of the cloud makes my games look graphically lifelike, then it really isn't worth making too big a fuss over right now in my eyes.
 

Menome

Member
Having a dedicated PhysX card in the mid-2000s didn't magically make a mid-spec PC into a powerful one.

It's obviously great tech that's making a difference, but it's not affecting the raw specs that are inside the box and whatever the Crackdown devs are doing might not necessarily be replicated as well by a less technically proficient studio. It's a nebulous addition that can't be seen as making the console 'the most powerful'.
 

c0de

Member
Can't wait to level an entire city in 720-900p.

The 100% destructibility is really cool, but the Xbone is still the Xbone

How many 720p games were released last year and how many are going to be released this year? Yes, it is what it is but this type of posts are what they are: shitposts.
 
The question on my mind is if it would have been more cost efficient to just make the Xbone more powerful, instead of spending on server time. Then there is also the consideration of local power being much more reliable, but the cloud offers more scalability.

It will be interesting to see which way gaming heads: more powerful local consoles or towards game streaming. The popularity of VR gaming will probably be a major factor in that, and I personally would prefer local over game streaming.
 
Sony could just buy the very same infrastructure from Microsoft that Microsoft themselves are using. That would be hilarious.

They could indeed - but I bet you Xbox would get a much cheaper rate than Sony from the Azure team (=much more feasible to use in the real world).

Plus there's a whole bunch of code to get up and running and proven in a cloud world and MS appear to be ahead of Sony on this regard too - although Sony have some good working knowledge because of Gaikai which is also a cloud model albeit for different type of data.
 
I've never heard of crackdown
apparently there's been 2 games before this one right,still it seems that
these building have physics like angry birds on steroids,my money is that
this will be just like Titan fall all over again, it's super hyped then everyone forgets about it.
Not to mention the lol glitches will be fun to watch with those building physics.
 
giphy.gif

That's definitely a cue to abandon the thread.
 

BiGBoSSMk23

A company being excited for their new game is a huge slap in the face to all the fans that liked their old games.
Honestly , while this stuff is ingenious, there will be other games that will simply run their physics locally with an engine that's built and optimised for large scale terrain deformation.

I mean, good for MS for pushing their power of the cloud marketing, but saying this game would be IMPOSSIBRU without the cloud is a bunch of baloney.
 

Concept17

Member
So how is the destruction mechanic tied into multiplayer? What purpose does it serve?

Guerrilla had amazing tech, but after blowing up about 20 buildings it got boring.
 

Sevyne

Member
I gotta say, it's pretty damn impressive what is being done here. However, anybody thinking this is going to be some huge gamechanger moving forward in the near future are only kidding themselves.

You aren't going to see this as a common thing a large amount of MS games because (even though it's cheaper for them because it's their servers) it's still a costly thing to maintain. I could see them leveraging the cloud for their flagship titles for sure and it'll be equally (if not more) impressive going forward, but do you really think MS is going to dump that kind of money out on games other than their big guns?

Now don't misunderstand me here. Seeing just the first real implementation of this with Crackdown has been really damn cool. It's converted me from one of those "lol, power of the cloud" guys into a believer in some ways, but I just find it hard to believe this won't be used very little (this gen at least).

Regardless, good on MS for proving me wrong. I'll gladly eat crow now, and if I'm wrong about anything else here in the future then you can serve me up another plate.
 

Popsickles

Member
I cant see how this can make all that much difference a few physics calculations made in the 'cloud'. Surely this is just something that devs could ofload onto the GPGPU cores on ps4 as it has more than Xbox to get a similar or better result as it doesn't require internet. And all that talk of most powerful console do these guys really belive their own spin or is it shear arogance that they think we will.
 
Isn't it like $75 per hour per 100k users?

I thought I saw it mentioned in a thread.

Well we can pop over to the Azure pricing page and have a guess with made up numbers?

Based on Dave's demo at Gamescon he explained that each multiplayer instance consists of a number of compute services processing chunks of the world. He also mentioned that the highest number of "Xbox like" instances they have utilised was 15.

Lets say that an average game uses 5 compute instances. Since they said that this would equal 5 times the power of an Xbox One, let's assume that each instance is an Azure A3 instance (4 cores, 7GB ram).

That would cost £1 an hour. Each game instance has 4 players. Now let's just say they have 100,000 players playing simultaneously that's £25,000 an hour for 4 player games using 5 compute services each game.

Now I have just made all the numbers up and plugged them into the Azure pricing calculator so almost certainly 99% of what I have said is probably bullshit but hey... until we get some more information on how exactly they are utilising the Azure platform - we will really never know the cost.
 
Well if you showed me something I thought couldn't be done on a solo Xbone and told me it was courtesy of 'the cloud' then I might.

Then again I'd probably assume it was bullshit anyway.

So did you watch the below video or are you just coming into troll because you can?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFWIpAPvF-Q&feature=youtu.be

I cant see how this can make all that much difference a few physics calculations made in the 'cloud'. Surely this is just something that devs could ofload onto the GPGPU cores on ps4 as it has more than Xbox to get a similar or better result as it doesn't require internet. And all that talk of most powerful console do these guys really belive their own spin or is it shear arogance that they think we will.

See above. Why waste GPU power on something that can be done externally?
 

watership

Member
It's neat tech. This is early days, too, so I'm curious to see where we are in 5, 10, 20 years with it.



Could you imagine the chaos if it was Phil Spencer talking about Crackdown and making the claims Cloudgine has?

Phil Spencer interview, talking about the power of the cloud, Crackdown, and then at the end leans into the interviewer and says. "There is no clause".

Gaf would fucking SHUT DOWN.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
I thought some Sony games have used Amazon's AWS before. Some dev posted it in another thread.

Individual developers, like Naughty Dog, use(d) AWS. That Rackspace deal was for SEN, and maybe other IT-needs of Sony. They apparently don't have a company- and studio-wide deal with a particular provider.
 
I was impressed with the demo and the destruction is amazing, but that doesn't change what the console has under the hood.

I think the big question is why does it matter?

This is a thread about cloud computing and Crackdown 3.

Might want to save the resolution talk for the resolution thread, once we get information on what it will be.
 
Except that rfg did it on a 360 in sp as well! Shit articles from both links in the op.

RFG had limited destruction of a few buildings in a closed environment. In addition, the majority of the stuff that blew apart magically disappeared..........

The math isn't hard, its tracking everything and doing it simultaneously while maintaining the game.

This is city wide. Its not a calculation thing, its a scope and scale.

I don't think anyone in here really understands what they are talking about.
 
New Ars article up on the topic.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/08/how-crackdown-3-uses-the-cloud-to-make-whole-cities-destructible/

COLOGNE, Germany—The time has come, it seems, whereby a single console is no longer sufficient to provide the raw power required to run the most processor-intensive multiplayer games. With so many players running around and potentially creating carnage, that humble black box under the TV is beginning to buckle under the strain.

We've already seen this happen with Titanfall, the Xbox One mech-based shooter, which relied on Microsoft's Azure cloud service to drive its AI. The game demonstrated that the cloud can indeed power games in a real time environment. But with the upcoming Crackdown 3—an Xbox One-exclusive action game due for release in 2016—developer Reagent Games has an all new and much bigger way of employing computing power from the server side to back up a multiplayer game.

"We really wanted to do something [with the multiplayer] that was very much within the heart of what Crackdown is," explained Dave Jones, Crackdown 3 creative director and Reagent Games founder. "It's a very physical game with you being able to go into the world and pick up every trash can, rip stuff out of the street, tear car doors off and use it as a shield, or even pick the whole car up. It was all about physicality, so we really wanted to bring that physicality to the online [multiplayer] space."

In order to live up to that original ideal, Jones and his team decided that each and every element within Crackdown 3's world should be destructible. Moreover, total destructivity is something Reagent Games believes more open-world games should evolve towards.

"We thought: what about if, for the first time, we make the whole world fully destructible?" continued Jones. "We asked ourselves simple questions, such as 'why don't my bullets go through walls when I shoot them?' or 'why can’t I step through big holes I’ve made in those walls?' It's a very different way of thinking about games. If there’s a guy behind the wall, I can just shoot him through the wall, shooting both the wall and the guy to bits. That's the way we think game worlds need to evolve."

Buildings, then, are made to a specification that Jones describes as "physical." In essence, they're more than just geometry within a digital space that has been plastered with textures to make them look real. Instead, glass acts like glass, concrete like concrete, and steel as steel. Blow up a concrete pillar and a floor of a skyscraper might come down. Destroy the steel core of a structure and the entire thing might collapse.

"My friends might be in the top of a building and shooting at me," Jones described. "I want to bring that building down with them still inside it. That's absolutely what I want to do. Our buildings are made physically and to do that we need make sure everything stacks up in terms of the physics. Everything in the world is physical and everything persists. There's no fakery here."

As an example, Jones shows himself shooting a simple concrete wall with an assault rifle, tiny chunks peeling off of the structure with every bullet that hits it. There are no pre-defined "rules" of destruction: where you shoot is where the disintegration will occur. This allows you to undermine a structure in a way that suits your needs. You might want to create a new doorway to flank an enemy, which you can do by defining a new hole in the exact place you want to. Alternatively, you might want to create only a small hole in order to give yourself a sniper spot with fuller cover, as opposed to relying on windows or doorways. Or as Jones hinted at, you can take out key supports to bring down an entire hostile building.

All of this destruction comes at a price, especially when you consider that there's also four-player co-op and competitive play—a price too high for the Xbox One to pay by itself. It's here that cloud technology, courtesy of the Scottish company Cloudgine, comes into play, making up for the local shortfall in processing power and providing the oomph required to create an entire destructible city.

Pulling up a custom HUD overlay, Jones showed us how much processing power is being used during his live demo. "This doesn’t represent the power of the entire box," Jones was keen to explain. "It shows the amount we need normally deploy to physics on an Xbox One. As you create more and more destruction you can see that you’re actually using the power of the servers you’re connected to. Do enough damage to the base of a building and, eventually, it should fall down. The whole thing will fall and everything that falls to ground will react physically to that fall. You can see that the debris falling to the ground is taking up the equivalent of an extra Xbox One worth of power. The console takes that extra power from the server when it needs it."

Another overlay shows precisely which bits of debris are being powered by which server, some chunks of concrete pasted green and others blue. These objects are located on different servers that are all powering the same game, allowing for greater detail when necessary. Should you enact so much destruction that you need even more power, a new server will automatically come into play and distribute the processing workload further.

"When [a building] does fall down it crushes the building next to it, and that crushes the next one to that and you can see that that's using roughly six times the Xbox One's power," Jones says with pride. "That can continue across the whole city map. You can see how you begin to think about using collapsed buildings as a ramp for cars to jump off of and get to places that you couldn’t reach before. We’re doing a lot of destruction for destruction’s sake here, but this is a tremendous technology test bed, which opens up a lot of new areas of multiplayer gaming and makes games much more physical."

Despite just how impressive the level of destruction demonstrated in this demo is, Jones refuses to get emotional. After all, what he's just witnessed represents little in comparison to what he has already seen.

"We're hitting about nine times the power of the Xbox One here in this demo due to the way the guys are playing. I think 13 times is our record, though. You really can raze the entire city if you want to."
 

c0de

Member
I cant see how this can make all that much difference a few physics calculations made in the 'cloud'. Surely this is just something that devs could ofload onto the GPGPU cores on ps4 as it has more than Xbox to get a similar or better result as it doesn't require internet. And all that talk of most powerful console do these guys really belive their own spin or is it shear arogance that they think we will.

Hey, now both have a (not so) secret sauce. But yeah, of course the one of ps4 is better, gpgpu is worth dozens of servers ;-)
Seriously, what makes you think gpgpu could do it better?
 
Top Bottom