• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Crackdown 3 uses cloud-based physics processing to enable environmental destruction

Im all for cloud computing 'enhancing' gaming experience, but there is a fine line between a tech demo, decent game and fancy lights, and click bait headlines. Time will tell :)
 
Shrinnan said:
Well, it's pre-alpha gameplay, and for all we know, they could be focusing on gameplay oriented things like framerate (and even resolution). It's way too early to tell, and this is also the first game really trying this. I imagine if this works that it'll only get better and better. Also, as was already said, this just looks like the next step in Crackdown's specific art style.

The singleplayer won't be using the cloud, so in Crackdown's case it may not matter, but games like Destiny could definitely benefit from this due to the online-only nature (not that Destiny will specifically).
Click to expand...

Oh no doubt. I expect it to look a lot better come release. That said, they've actually reduced the number of particles and debris breaking away from individual buildings based on the initial Cloud physics demo, compared to this gameplay trailer, at least by the looks of things. Presumably this was done to reduce the load and make other elements of the game more feasible, e.g., having greater draw distances, more buildings within the city etc.
 
nib95 said:
It's not concern, it's called an opinion lol. And people tend to offer them for things that publishers show them in trailers, demo's and all the rest. The opinions range from positive, e.g., "man that destruction looks awesome", or "holy shit, the lighting looks amazing", or "damn these effects look amazing", but equally, sometimes the opinions are negative, e.g. "man the textures look really flat", or, "why are there so many jaggies" etc. These are all done with the knowledge that the games shown are still works in progress, and still have time to improve. Being shown before release however, does not nullify the opinions, or mean they cannot be offered.

Unless of course you're doing one of those, you're only allowed to offer an opinion if it's positive type things. Because you seem to have no issue with praising elements of this yet unreleased game, nor with me doing the same….
Click to expand...

Me? No. I haven't commented on the graphics of this 1 year out game.

Mind you, my confusion was more with the comparison to released games with a different artstyle completely. I mean, in all honesty, Crackdown was never known as a looker, so I'm not sure what nitpicking the visuals a year out achieves.

Also remembering that everyone already knows the Xbox would struggle to make such a game look amazing given all that goes on in a Crackdown game. Even if you took the destruction away, there'd still be a tonne of crazy physics and stuff going on.

Also this

m0dus said:
To those already trying to break down what you are currently seeing: it is an alpha. You are missing the forest for the trees by nitpicking this early in development. What has been shown are broad strokes, meant to give you an early idea of what to expect. Don't take this developer to task for Matrick-era marketing speak.
Click to expand...
 
wtshaolin said:
I don't know. Live fees make a lot of money.
Click to expand...

This is true (not _that much_ per user / per year though), but the only profit you could truly attribute to crackdown 3 would be the number of user*years you *gained* thanks to crackdown 3 (impossible to know precisely of course, but that does not change the point).
 
So are people with low Internet speeds able to take advantage of this? FWIW my download speed is 100 kbps-ish. Upload is lower than that.
 
nib95 said:
Oh no doubt. I expect it to look a lot better come release. That said, they've actually reduced the number of particles and debris breaking away from individual buildings based on the initial Cloud physics demo, compared to this gameplay trailer, at least by the looks of things. Presumably this was done to reduce the load and make other elements of the game more feasible, e.g., having greater draw distances, more buildings within the city etc.
Click to expand...

If you rewatch the BUILD demo though, you can see that the explosion points don't actually make any sense. You have pillars exploding from the inside into many pieces, which simply couldn't ever actually happen from a rocket shot from the outside. The Crackdown demonstration is actually significantly more convincing as actually being a building, and not some sort of clay model that chunks are being blown off in all directions, but only seem to impact a small radius.

Honestly the BUILD demo looks rather unimpressive by comparison now.
 
nib95 said:
That's the assumption, and they have a year or so to prove that, but so far outside of the physics, the game ins't exactly an absolute stunner, not in terms of it's visuals, lighting, textures, animations or IQ. Then again, it's single player might be much better looking, or not if campaign gameplay doesn't use cloud.

crackdown-3201508-04-15008-1438711956.jpg


If leveraging cloud for physics computation leaves you more resources to use elsewhere, in terms of urban open world cream of the crop graphics on the Xbox One, these are the kinds of visuals Crackdown will compete with.
Click to expand...

I'd be cool with a slight increase of these graphics if the destruction is still as nuts as the demo, hot damn! It's like the YouTube comments for Tomorrow Children "herp derp this shit don't even have backgrounds breh". The end result is dope and unique and I'm pleased with what both are going for.

Edit: not saying you were being dismissive, just pointing out that I'm cool with games doing unique stuff or having a unique look even though it may appear they falter in some aspects.
 
jaypah said:
I'd be cool with a slight increase of these graphics if the destruction is still as nuts as the demo, hot damn! It's like the YouTube comments for Tomorrow Children "herp derp this shit don't even have backgrounds breh". The end result is dope and unique and I'm pleased with what both are going for.
Click to expand...

YouTube is the absolute worst for comments.
 
Don't know why there's "Sony can do this too" talk all of a sudden. This isn't going to become widespread in game development and we still don't know if it will work the way they say it does.

Too many people jumping to conclusions off a tech demo and hype.
 
Current build have top half of building hitting the ground and bounced around like a cardboard. hardly realistic.

Just saw the old demo and wow they plain out lied about the framerate of the cloud version. You can see framerate dropping more and lower than the local version in the beginning 30 seconds yet the number for server version stays at 32fps at all times, never wavering. lol

The whole demo is probably rigged.

https://youtu.be/ECsbaO1XGBU
 
The "sony can do this too" sentiment is not exactly accurate. Microsoft has built a cloud infrastructure that allows this to happen which takes several years to do-data warehouses, azure, etc. Doesn't Sony still have a 1gb limit for cloud saving?
 
This gets me excited to see what the next wave of systems will be capable of.

Hope this works as expected and hope more games use it.
 
Looks impressive to me. If it works well can see this being a pretty big deal in the years to come.

Of course how well does this work with a questionable connection.
 
harriet the spy said:
I am sorry, but this does not make sense. Of course, sony does not need to / probably shouldn't buy their own servers. Even a company the scale of netflix uses (used?) AWS, for instance.

The thing is, running a VM has a cost. hardware cost (amortized, weak), electricity, IT and maintenance. Whether amazon operates those server, or microsoft does, those costs don't vanish.

If microsoft uses its own resources and services, it only has to pay those exact costs.
If sony buys from aws, it has to pay those exact costs, plus whatever the margins amazon makes on those costs.
My point is: that margin is very thin, so the two costs are very comparable. Neither is a great value proposition, especially if it's given away against a one time revenue.


There are plenty of arguments why cloud computing is not a great idea for gaming. You just choose to ignore them.

If you think about it, it's unusual that we are told about 'how' those achievements are given. It's the equivalent of saying 'don't judge my product based on its merits, but rather on how hard i worked to offer them to you', which should not enter a consumer's appreciation of said product

If no one had known about azure running titanfall AI or drivatar, I doubt people would have paid nearly as much attention to the features (this is not saying they are bad, but that we wouldn't have cared as much about how they were delivered).

The reason it's marketed that way is not because the titanfall AI is so impressive, or even crackdown physics being that much of a gamechanger - it's because it also constitutes a promise of something even more exciting down the line. A promise I personally doubt they will deliver too much on.
Click to expand...

The maintenance costs associated with Azure are covered my MS's existing server business... There's no added cost of using Azure for Xbox live games... They don't need to rely on game sales revenue to cover azure server operations costs...

In contrast, a company renting servers in the same capacity is paying so that the provider can make a profit. As "thin" as you think the margins are, the associated cost isn't negligible... and certainly aren't comparable to MS' cost savings... Especially not at the scale at which MS is making use of them.. If it were, all developers would be using dedicated servers for every game instead of using a P2P solution. The ONLY reason they don't, is because it costs too much...

As Far as drivatars are concerned, the method of delivery is irrelevant... It's just an awesome feature... The fact that azure made it possible is not why people find it interesting.
 
m0dus said:
To those already trying to break down what you are currently seeing: it is an alpha. You are missing the forest for the trees by nitpicking this early in development. What has been shown are broad strokes, meant to give you an early idea of what to expect. Don't take this developer to task for Matrick-era marketing nods.
Click to expand...

fixed

112010-Jason-Bateman-nodding-gif-Imgu-0AV3.gif
 
rolling said:
Current build have top half of building hitting the ground and bounced around like a cardboard. hardly realistic.

Just saw the old demo and wow they plain out lied about the framerate of the cloud version. You can see framerate dropping more and lower than the local version in the beginning 30 seconds yet the number for server version stays at 32fps at all times, never wavering. lol

The whole demo is probably rigged.

https://youtu.be/ECsbaO1XGBU
Click to expand...

Well only the rubble is slowing down, probably what youd expect from an early tech demo of server sided physics calculations.
 
justgames7604 said:
Well only the rubble is slowing down, probably what youd expect from an early tech demo of server sided physics calculations.
Click to expand...

No, it's plain old framerate drop. It affected the projectile and camera movement as well. I don't see how early tech demo has anything do with fake framerate counter. It's faked. The frame counter looks ridiculously fake anyway.
 
rolling said:
No, it's plain old framerate drop. It affected the projectile and camera movement as well. I don't see how early tech demo has anything do with fake framerate counter. It's faked. The frame counter looks ridiculously fake anyway.
Click to expand...

Why are you fixated on this? We're way past this now.
 
rolling said:
No, it's plain old framerate drop. It affected the projectile and camera movement as well. I don't see how early tech demo has anything do with fake framerate counter. It's faked. The frame counter looks ridiculously fake anyway.
Click to expand...
The projectile doesnt slow or stutter at all. It looks like it when you focus on both the rubble falling and the shooting. But its clearly not.
 
rolling said:
No, it's plain old framerate drop. It affected the projectile and camera movement as well. I don't see how early tech demo has anything do with fake framerate counter. It's faked. The frame counter looks ridiculously fake anyway.
Click to expand...

Who gives a crap about their early tech demo now?

Real, edited, "fake", whatever... They have a live playable demo that shows they're on track.
 
Pathfinder said:
Why are you fixated on this? We're way past this now.
Click to expand...

That's because someone else brought it up in here so I took a look. Maybe you should direct your anger at him?

justgames7604 said:
The projectile doesnt slow or stutter at all. It looks like it when you focus on both the rubble falling and the shooting. But its clearly not.
Click to expand...

It did. I don't even know what you are talking about seriously. You can't have one part of the scene drop frame and not another.
 
rolling said:
No, it's plain old framerate drop. It affected the projectile and camera movement as well. I don't see how early tech demo has anything do with fake framerate counter. It's faked. The frame counter looks ridiculously fake anyway.
Click to expand...

But how sick does the demo look a year later?

Imagine next year when the game releases :O
 
FullMetalx117 said:
The "sony can do this too" sentiment is not exactly accurate. Microsoft has built a cloud infrastructure that allows this to happen which takes several years to do-data warehouses, azure, etc. Doesn't Sony still have a 1gb limit for cloud saving?
Click to expand...

You think that only platform holders that actually own server infrastructure can do this? The whole purpose of cloud infrastructure is to provide virtualized computing services to people not having the infrastructure in the first place. Sony or Nintendo for that matter can use AWS if required.
 
SystemBug said:
Um yes you can. The refresh rate of the debris might be lower than the projectile
Click to expand...

So what is point of the demo with the frame counter showing higher frames than the local version when it's not if that's the case? Which is not, in this case it's dropping frames everywhere. Regardless it looks worse than the local version but they tried to fake it with the frame counter.
 
Maybe they will just see the costs as advertising for their cloud. Titanfall was used in Azure ads. When they are aiming for $20bn cloud revenue in 2018 the costs of this game are pretty irrelevant.
 
rolling said:
So what is point of the demo with the frame counter showing higher frames than the local version when it's not if that's the case? Which is not, in this case it's dropping frames everywhere. Regardless it looks worse than the local version but they tried to fake it with the frame counter.
Click to expand...

Parts of a game/scene can run at different framerates.

Racing games for example. They can have locked 60fps gameplay with 30fps reflections.

It's possible for debri in the early build to refresh slower than the CORRECT framerate counter.

Oh, and like I said...doesn't really matter seeing the new gameplay demo.
 
Does the scale of the city look weird to anyone else? I don't know why it does, or if that's even it, and it's bothering me that it looks off to me. :(
 
If they actually show what their final game will look like with and without server side physic, then it can still turn out worse than a future game from another platform and this could bite back pretty hard.

Ms should probably step away from those power comments in the future so it doesnt take anything away from the game itself. The game should be respected for its merits, but when pr does this, then it is thier fault for whatever comes from it.
 
Trup1aya said:
The maintenance costs associated with Azure are covered my MS's existing server business... There's no added cost of using Azure for Xbox live games... They don't need to rely on game sales revenue to cover azure server operations costs...

In contrast, a company renting servers in the same capacity is paying so that the provider can make a profit. As "thin" as you think the margins are, the associated cost isn't negligible... and certainly aren't comparable to MS' cost savings... Especially not at the scale at which MS is making use of them.. If it were, all developers would be using dedicated servers for every game instead of using a P2P solution. The ONLY reason they don't, is because it costs too much...

As Far as drivatars are concerned, the method of delivery is irrelevant... It's just an awesome feature... The fact that azure made it possible is not why people find it interesting.
Click to expand...

So you're saying MS will subsidise the cost of Azure running Cloudgine processes from other customers money, and not make a cost-only charge to the Xbox division for the use of Azure services, despite these services being 'at the scale MS will be using them'?
 
rolling said:
That's because someone else brought it up in here so I took a look. Maybe you should direct your anger at him?



It did. I don't even know what you are talking about seriously. You can't have one part of the scene drop frame and not another.
Click to expand...

Lol what do you mean? The blocks will be getting server sided physics which depends on internet connect, when something goes wrong with it what the hell do you expect to happen to the physics calculations for the blocks? Do you expect everything to go to shit or as some devs have said do you expect the refresh rate on the physics to drop and the destructiin slow down?

There are plenty of examples of different parts of games running at different rates. The physics in forza run and 360hz but the game runs at 60hz.
 
jaypah said:
I'd be cool with a slight increase of these graphics if the destruction is still as nuts as the demo, hot damn! It's like the YouTube comments for Tomorrow Children "herp derp this shit don't even have backgrounds breh". The end result is dope and unique and I'm pleased with what both are going for.
.
Click to expand...

There should be no hit to gfx as this is more cpu processing power. If anything, the game will look gfxically better than the demo.
 
But what if I don't have a internet connection?

Well we have a console for you too. It's called a Xbox 360....
 
rokkerkory said:
The comparison is 20x the processing power iirc? What does processing power here really mean? gpu?
Click to expand...
I don't know because I didn't implement this. Honestly though, I want this to crash and burn with fire. It's a cool concept but the last thing I want is for devs to use this as a trojan horse to make all games always online. We are headed to that point and I'll find a new hobby when we get there but I'd like to enjoy this hobby for a little bit longer. The only reason they had to do this and not do the computation locally is because they sacrificed hardware for useless shit. We already seen companies using shitty excuses to push forced online like the new nfs. I don't need them to have anymore tools in their toolbox of shitty practises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

New physics engine Ragnarok to be used for "future Valve games" according to Erin Catto
Hype Platform 
14
473
GymWolf replied
Leaked Xbox Cloud Controllers
2
78
1K
Dorfdad replied
  • Locked
Physical Disc plants to be used for AI data centers
2
63
639
Arsic replied
Square Enix is delisting the cloud version of Kingdom Hearts for Switch 1, will be unplayable 365 days from now. No free upgrade to non-cloud version.
2
70
905
Evil Calvin replied
Jak 3 gets a PC port based on the PS2 version
6
544
VGEsoterica replied
Top Bottom