Support NeoGAF

[Septic360]

If you dare frequent sites like N4G, you will see just how much of a shock this demo has caused there. The fanboys literally lashed out on the MGS Resolution thread there citing the cloud and making fun of it lmao.

Let's be quite frank here; a lot of the 'pessimism' is borne out of this console wars bullshit. I mean, even though its early days, the cloud enabling damage at a scale never seen before is a GIGANTIC slap in the face to all those who outright ridiculed it and derided it as marketing spiel not grounded in reality. Whilst we need to see the thing running in our homes, just the fact that its announced and a feature of a game should be enough.

Rather pointless and in fact, desperate (imo) references to Red Faction etc just show a sheer insecurity in admitting that cloudgine proved many naysayers wrong. I dont see many haters holding their hands up and said, yup fuck me I was wrong. That looks amazing and the cloud isn't pure bullshit like I was saying it was.

So can we drop the concern trolling about how this title will threaten offline gaming forever (what a load of bullshit) or change goalposts?

Prima facie, this tech is brilliant and IF it works well and as planned with a mere 2-4mb download requirement then that's great.

 

[RiccochetJ]

uh huh

Do you think they're still pushing that direction? I thought they would wait a long time before they would try something like what they intended the original XB1 to be again.

 

[SgtCobra]

To be fair... if you have no numbers, but are happy to state this as fact, then you're really not doing any better a job than anyone claiming that the site leans Sony. After all, the PS3 wasn't actually getting outsold last gen. If GAF should reflect the US, then there would be more of a balance between X1 and PS4 here today, and if it should reflect global, then it should have leaned PS3 last gen too (which I'd argue it did). One thing I'm definitely unconvinced of however, is that it was anywhere near as difficult to discuss anything PS3 related as it is to discuss anything X1 related today. Not even the Wii U has that sort of issue here atm.

Yeah I'm pretty happy to state is as a fact because that's how it was in that timeframe, or did you leave the 2005-2010 part out? Lots of members were using their Xbox 360 as their primary console and specially at the start of last gen the PS3 was the laughing stock of the industry. Did that mean that NeoGAF as a whole hated the PS3 then? No not at all and the same goes for the Xbox One right now.
The PS3 sold pretty bad back then and the major lead the Xbox 360 had in the US and UK made the "lead" and close results it had in other countries a lot less when it comes to online popularity (when speaking of userbase)

 

[Hugstable]

Yeah I'm pretty happy to state is as a fact because that's how it was in that timeframe, or did you leave the 2005-2010 part out? Lots of members were using their Xbox 360 as their primary console and specially at the start of last gen the PS3 was the laughing stock of the industry. Did that mean that NeoGAF as a whole hated the PS3 then? No not at all and the same goes for the Xbox One right now.
The PS3 sold pretty bad back then and the major lead the Xbox 360 had in the US and UK made the "lead" and close results it had in other countries a lot less when it comes to online popularity (when speaking of userbase)

Do you have any examples of this? Probably need more than 1 topic too cause it seems like pretty much every topic here that is xbox related is negative, even when I struggle to find anything negative about it as someone who doesn't own an xbox.

 

[LapinAgile]

If you dare frequent sites like N4G, you will see just how much of a shock this demo has caused there. The fanboys literally lashed out on the MGS Resolution thread there citing the cloud and making fun of it lmao.

Let's be quite frank here; a lot of the 'pessimism' is borne out of this console wars bullshit. I mean, even though its early days, the cloud enabling damage at a scale never seen before is a GIGANTIC slap in the face to all those who outright ridiculed it and derided it as marketing spiel not grounded in reality. Whilst we need to see the thing running in our homes, just the fact that its announced and a feature of a game should be enough.

Rather pointless and in fact, desperate (imo) references to Red Faction etc just show a sheer insecurity in admitting that cloudgine proved many naysayers wrong. I dont see many haters holding their hands up and said, yup fuck me I was wrong. That looks amazing and the cloud isn't pure bullshit like I was saying it was.

So can we drop the concern trolling about how this title will threaten offline gaming forever (what a load of bullshit) or change goalposts?

Prima facie, this tech is brilliant and IF it works well and as planned with a mere 2-4mb download requirement then that's great.

Why would comparisons to Red Faction be "desperate", that game was great. It's also one of the few frames of reference for this type of tech. My concern is that the MP in that game really didn't have legs... the destruction was fun but not really a compelling enough reason to stick with the multiplayer. I am curious to see further info on what the MP will entail and whether this is the hook players are looking for to jump from their current multiplayer fix.

 

[SwolBro]

Yeah I'm pretty happy to state is as a fact because that's how it was in that timeframe, or did you leave the 2005-2010 part out? Lots of members were using their Xbox 360 as their primary console and specially at the start of last gen the PS3 was the laughing stock of the industry. Did that mean that NeoGAF as a whole hated the PS3 then? No not at all and the same goes for the Xbox One right now.
The PS3 sold pretty bad back then and the major lead the Xbox 360 had in the US and UK made the "lead" and close results it had in other countries a lot less when it comes to online popularity (when speaking of userbase)

The difference here is (and i'm not talking only about gaming) people like to see Microsoft as a whole get hated on. They never shook off their 90s anti-trust look. I don't meet anyone that actually enjoys seeing Sony get wiped out of a tech segment (like they've been in TV)

There is hate for microsoft as a whole, even though their Xbox division is a pretty awesome segment of their business they still get shit.

I"m an apple guy, go to one of their forums and see the hate MS gets lol.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I wonder how much persistence there will be with vehicles in such a mode. Obviously there would have to be a hard limit on their respawn or the game would slog.

As an aside, we don't need another derail about why people thread shit.

If someone posts misinformation or a drive-by, post a link or information correcting them and laugh if processing the information rustled their jimmies. Psychoanalysis on the gaming side isn't really worth pursuing after 15 years of console competition.

 

[oldergamer]

Do you think they're still pushing that direction? I thought they would wait a long time before they would try something like what they intended the original XB1 to be again.

They aren't. They are not pushing this agenda since backing away from it at launch. Crackdown has both single player and multiplayer game play ( Online & Offline ). Imo the argument about not wanting online only games vanishes when they say it has single player.

The only thing someone could potentially complain about is that the experience online and offline is different. However, that is always going to be the case with multiplayer games. It will never simulate playing against humans perfectly.

 

[Synth]

Yeah I'm pretty happy to state is as a fact because that's how it was in that timeframe, or did you leave the 2005-2010 part out? Lots of members were using their Xbox 360 as their primary console and specially at the start of last gen the PS3 was the laughing stock of the industry. Did that mean that NeoGAF as a whole hated the PS3 then? No not at all and the same goes for the Xbox One right now.
The PS3 sold pretty bad back then and the major lead the Xbox 360 had in the US and UK made the "lead" and close results it had in other countries a lot less when it comes to online popularity (when speaking of userbase)

Well, 2005-2010 would actually be my first 5 years on the site... so I wouldn't really call it fact, as apparently your perception of those years differs from mine. I don't think any of us are talking about the site as a whole, because that doesn't really exist. Just members, their views, and common or extreme they may be.

Definitely not really suitable for a long discussion here though.

 

[Alx]

I dont see many haters holding their hands up and said, yup fuck me I was wrong.

There have been several messages like that to be honest (I'm not sure their authors could be qualified as "haters", but from their own admission they were "non-believers" ). But of course people quickly admitting they were wrong are less visible than others arguing over and over.
Anyway, I agree that even if it remains to be seen how efficient, widespread or entertaining that technology can be, one has to admit that it exists. MS said they would be using the cloud to offload some heavy processing from the console, and they showed exactly that. At least now we should be (mostly) over with the opinion that "the cloud is bullshit", it's a progress.

 

[Trup1aya]

uh huh

I'm sorry man, 'slippery slope is never a valid argument. The entirety of any slippery slope argument revolves around assuming a "possibility" is an "eventuality" without any data to truly suggest one outcome is more likely than another...

It's by definition a logical fallacy...

In this case there is absolutely no demonstrable mechanism to prove that if Crackdown3 in successful, all future Xbox exclusive games will require an online connection in all modes...

 

[Truespeed]

Bookmarking this thread as "Future Crow: The Thread". :lol:

Healthy scepticism is GOOD but come on, embrace something that looks like it is real and looks cool. Even if it's not on a platform you own!

I recall the same early enthusiasm for HoloLens and then reality happened and we were presented a version with the viewport of a large postage stamp.

 

[New002]

There's no economically sound reason to make EVERY game require online features... The market wouldn't respond well to it. Sure there may be some games that go this route, if that's what it takes to allow the developer to realize it's vision... but it will never be all...

This slippery slope argument needs to stop... It's baseless... MS sells a lot of games to people who like to play offline and they know that now more than ever...

I don't think it's TOTALLY unreasonable. To me it seems to be a pretty safe bet that that's Microsoft's end goal given the original launch plans. Always online with gaming enhanced by the cloud (I know I know but that's their spiel). The question is when will they try again? If Crackdown is a huge success they may try to make a strong push with always-online enhanced games this gen, but I imagine they'll take it slow. By the end of the gen MS may be pushing out online-only enhanced titles in force with the hopes of shifting over completely for the following gen. Or maybe they won't try again for two gens? I think it's the end-goal though. Though maybe they have changed course with Spencer at the head.

I kind of think of it like Live maybe? Where these days paying for multiplayer in the console space isn't unusual.

Will this technology be enough to provide experiences that are revolutionary enough where we can't go back? I imagine that might be what Microsoft is thinking.

Fun to think about it all anyways.

 

[Hugstable]

I don't think it's TOTALLY unreasonable. To me it seems to be a pretty safe bet that that's Microsoft's end goal given the original launch plans. Always online with gaming enhanced by the cloud (I know I know but that's their spiel). The question is when will they try again? If Crackdown is a huge success they may try to make a strong push with always-online enhanced games this gen, but I imagine they'll take it slow. By the end of the gen MS may be pushing out online-only enhanced titles in force with the hopes of shifting over completely for the following gen. Or maybe they won't try again for two gens? I think it's the end-goal though. Though maybe they have changed course with Spencer at the head.

I kind of think of it like Live maybe? Where these days paying for multiplayer in the console space isn't unusual.

Will this technology be enough to provide experiences that are revolutionary enough where we can't go back? I imagine that might be what Microsoft is thinking.

Fun to think about it all anyways.

Doesn't Crackdown have an offline Single Player though?

 

[Bsigg12]

Doesn't Crackdown have an offline Single Player though?

Yes, which a lot of people seem to be overlooking.

 

[SgtCobra]

Do you have any examples of this? Probably need more than 1 topic too cause it seems like pretty much every topic here that is xbox related is negative, even when I struggle to find anything negative about it as someone who doesn't own an xbox.

I'm unable to search for threads which were made several years ago because of the "PS3/PlayStation 3" tag that is pretty prevalent, I'm also on vacation right now and don't have a lot of time to do some research for some internet discussion. If you feel better then don't consider the stuff I said as a fact. I thought it was well known that the Xbox 360 was noticeably more popular than the PS3 back then. You can try to search for the E3-2005/2006 era stuff, the "lol Blu Ray" stuff, losing exclusivity, price related things, multi plat games, exclusives etc etc

Well, 2005-2010 would actually be my first 5 years on the site... so I wouldn't really call it fact, as apparently your perception of those years differs from mine. I don't think any of us are talking about the site as a whole, because that doesn't really exist. Just members, their views, and common or extreme they may be.

Definitely not really suitable for a long discussion here though.

Who are "us"? Because I'm only talking about the people calling GAF some Sony loving forum that hates the Xbox One, I don't think you qualify as one of them.
It's just that the point I'm trying to make across is that when something is more popular and sells better, the reactions and buzz regarding it will be more positive than for the console with less sales as seen with the PS3 and Xbox 360 last gen. My perception of it back then was that the Xbox 360 was the more popular console and I can't really imagine people seeing something different.
And yeah you're right, we're totally derailing the thread right now.

 

[Trup1aya]

I don't think it's TOTALLY unreasonable. To me it seems to be a pretty safe bet that that's Microsoft's end goal given the original launch plans. Always online with gaming enhanced by the cloud (I know I know but that's their spiel). The question is when will they try again? If Crackdown is a huge success they may try to make a strong push with always-online enhanced games this gen, but I imagine they'll take it slow. By the end of the gen MS may be pushing out online-only enhanced titles in force with the hopes of shifting over completely for the following gen. Or maybe they won't try again for two gens? I think it's the end-goal though. Though maybe they have changed course with Spencer at the head.

I kind of think of it like Live maybe? Where these days paying for multiplayer in the console space isn't unusual.

Will this technology be enough to provide experiences that are revolutionary enough where we can't go back? I imagine that might be what Microsoft is thinking.

Fun to think about it all anyways.

Sure it's a reasonable SUSPICION. But again, your already labeling it an eventuality, despite having nothing more than suspicion, a hunch and a previous grievance...

It's just as possible that after the Xbox reveal fiasco, MS will be eternally content with the middle ground: offering a variety of games, some online only, some offline only, and some with on and offline functionality. This strategy appears to be working very well for them...

Still, my point remains: slippery slope is inherently an invalid argument , because it regards an assumption or suspicion as fact.

 

[nib95]

I recall the same early enthusiasm for HoloLens and then reality happened and we were presented a version with the viewport of a large postage stamp.

And the Xbox One's power difference, and Kinect, and Milo, and Cloud for the last few years up until this demo. I personally think it's the real deal, it's not even impressive enough not to be really, but I also completely understand why some people are skeptical. Microsoft has a history of...colourful marketing...and cloud computation, what with its reliance on networking and internet connections, unsurprisingly might garner more skepticism (see Sim City, Master Chief Collection, DriveClub etc).

 

[New002]

Doesn't Crackdown have an offline Single Player though?

Sure does! I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom. Just trying to think though where things may go eventually. I'm not concerned about any of it really.

Sure it's a reasonable SUSPICION. But again, your already labeling it an eventuality, despite having nothing more than suspicion, a hunch and a precious grievance...

It's just as possible that after the Xbox reveal fiasco, MS will be eternally content with the middle ground: offering a variety of games, some online only, some offline only, and some with on and offline functionality.

You're right. That's also a possibility. All I'm getting at is that what the person you quoted said isn't entirely unreasonable. You are right in that it's not a given, but it could very well happen, and I don't think that's some crazy far-fetched idea. That's all I think that's where they are going eventually but I could totally be wrong.

 

[Synth]

I'm unable to search for threads which were made several years ago because of the "PS3" tag that is pretty prevalent, I'm also on vacation right now and don't have a lot of time to do some research for some internet discussion. If you feel better then don't consider the stuff I said as a fact. I thought it was well known that the Xbox 360 was noticeably more popular than the PS3 between 2005 and 2010.

Who are "us"? Because I'm only talking about people calling GAF some Sony loving forum which hates the Xbox One, I don't think you qualify as one.
It's just that the point I'm trying to make across is that when something is more popular and sells better, the reactions and buzz regarding it will be more positive than for the console with less sales as seen with the PS3 and Xbox 360 last gen.

And yeah you're right, we're totally derailing the thread right now.

Sorry, I was meant to type "either of us", as in me and you. The site is made up of posters, and as an aggregate those posters may have a tendency (for example 16bit Nintendo seems to routinely crush 16bit Sega here in any sort of poll, despite how close that gen was)... but obviously there's still individualism, otherwise there wouldn't even be anyone to complain about it.

 

[GnawtyDog]

I agree with OP's new title.

 

[Trup1aya]

I recall the same early enthusiasm for HoloLens and then reality happened and we were presented a version with the viewport of a large postage stamp.

People are still excited for Hololens... V1 just won't be the version to deliver the experience gamers want. Surely subsequent versions of it will have a larger viewport...

I'm not sure what that has to do with crackdown... Though it would be cool to watch some have some cloud powered destruction projected on my table top.

 

[zer0blivion]

I don't think it's TOTALLY unreasonable. To me it seems to be a pretty safe bet that that's Microsoft's end goal given the original launch plans. Always online with gaming enhanced by the cloud (I know I know but that's their spiel). The question is when will they try again? If Crackdown is a huge success they may try to make a strong push with always-online enhanced games this gen, but I imagine they'll take it slow. By the end of the gen MS may be pushing out online-only enhanced titles in force with the hopes of shifting over completely for the following gen. Or maybe they won't try again for two gens? I think it's the end-goal though. Though maybe they have changed course with Spencer at the head.

I kind of think of it like Live maybe? Where these days paying for multiplayer in the console space isn't unusual.

Will this technology be enough to provide experiences that are revolutionary enough where we can't go back? I imagine that might be what Microsoft is thinking.

Fun to think about it all anyways.

Cloud-based physics processing doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a single-player game, but it makes a ton of sense for multiplayer. There's an element of randomness to physics calculations that would result in synchronization problems in a multiplayer game if the physics were calculated by each individual client. Having the physics calculated by the server allows dynamic destruction that is consistent across all the clients in the game. The physics calculations would only need to be done once for all the players, rather than once per player.

In single player games, it makes a lot more sense to calculate the physics locally.

 

[New002]

Cloud-based physics processing doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a single-player game, but it makes a ton of sense for multiplayer. There's an element of randomness to physics calculations that would result in synchronization problems in a multiplayer game if the physics were calculated by each individual client. Having the physics calculated by the server allows dynamic destruction that is consistent across all the clients in the game. The physics calculations would only need to be done once for all the players, rather than once per player.

In single player games, it makes a lot more sense to calculate the physics locally.

Gotcha. So pretty useless for single-player huh? Interesting. Crisis averted for my doomed future then? At least as far as single-player games are concerned? Works for me!

Thanks for the knowledge

 

[Hugstable]

Gotcha. So pretty useless for single-player huh? Interesting. Crisis averted for my doomed future then? At least as far as single-player games are concerned? Works for me!

Thanks for the knowledge

Honestly I'd like to think a huge company like Microsoft isn't that dumb to where they would take the policy that placed them in the position they are today and try to implement it just a few years later without thinking people would notice. It's just way too out there and feels like a conspiracy more than anything.

 

[New002]

Honestly I'd like to think a huge company like Microsoft isn't that dumb to where they would take the policy that placed them in the position they are today and try to implement it just a few years later without thinking people would notice. It's just way too out there and feels like a conspiracy more than anything.

I hear you, and I agree. I don't think they'll try it again next-gen. Seems too soon given what happens this gen. Heck, maybe they won't ever try again lol.

 

[not_so_special]

You say that, but the phrase SonyGAF was coined long before the PS4. Long before the PS4 was a success. The only real difference now is that it was much easier to be critical about Microsoft and the Xbox One than it was the 360.

thats bs the ps3 was panned like hell the first 3 years except exceptions,and microsoft lost their favour when they got into the kinect horror zone,pleople dislike microsoft for a lot of things some stupid some valid,its good to know spencer is a more likeable guy,im not a big fan of ms path on the last years and i have 3 360,2 xbox one and two surfaces,i like their products,but man some times they are stupid as hell,with all the money they have on the bank they can become a much better thing,i hope the spencer era is the first step on this

 

[gollumsluvslave]

Seriously exciting tech demo, it's great.

As someone who doesn't YET have either an Xbone (likely to get one with Halo 5 tho) OR PS4 and has no real agenda, I think a couple of observations could be made to temper the hype a little bit.

1. Whilst it is an astonishing tech demo, there is still a way for it to go to be a real game in real homes. We are all used to downgrade in graphics, there is the possibility of downgrade in physics - even Dave Jones himself admitted that the demo was NOT representative of gameplay.

2. Look at the issues that Microsoft and 343 have had with Halo MCC - even with their Azure infrastructure and the crazy amount of testing, MCC was still broken at launch, and 343 stated that it was something that could ONLY have been found out in a release / production environment. Crackdown and the usage of Azure looks to be so much more complex than playlists and matchmaking, so Microsoft / Reagent will have to test this bad boy like crazy

3. Let's hope the ambition that Dave Jones showed with APB and how that ended up is not repeated with Crackdown.

So unlike a lot of the marmite reactions in this (and other Crackdown) threads, I'm actually on both sides of the camp:-

1. It's an undeniably amazing tech demo, and it proves the cloud compute CAN work.
2. There is still a lot of time before Crackdown releases for things to go wrong / get changed and I remain sceptical as to how it really performs when released in the wild.

But I'm REALLY excited about it

 

[Trup1aya]

Gotcha. So pretty useless for single-player huh? Interesting. Crisis averted for my doomed future then? At least as far as single-player games are concerned? Works for me!

Thanks for the knowledge

I wouldn't say it's useless in single player... You obviously can leverage the additional processing power... Of course you'll piss off anyone who doesn't want to play online..

But it's definitely the most elegant solution for physics in multiplayer.... Even P2P games handle physics this way, however since the hosts CPU is hamstrung by server duties, everyone's CPU ends up being hamstrung because anyone could end up being host.

 

[VanWinkle]

Really cool technology. Enables local hardware to do things that traditionally can't be done with local hardware.

Has nothing to do with Xbox One, though, or any "effective" power. Just a cool new use of technology in games, that happens to be done in an XB1 game.

 

[Journey]

Honestly I'd like to think a huge company like Microsoft isn't that dumb to where they would take the policy that placed them in the position they are today and try to implement it just a few years later without thinking people would notice. It's just way too out there and feels like a conspiracy more than anything.

Is this the next concern? Whats the difference between making a game multiplayer only and having a single player campaign that needs to be connected to work? Are we expecting every single game to use this technology? How do we go from hardly any games outside of Crackdown will support this, to every single game will be forced to use it, therefore making XB1 an online only console?

 

[Journey]

Really cool technology. Enables local hardware to do things that traditionally can't be done with local hardware.

Has nothing to do with Xbox One, though, or any "effective" power. Just a cool new use of technology in games, that happens to be done in an XB1 game.

This is rich, it's almost as if it hurts to give MS or Xbox any credit for setting up the infrastructure and investing in this technology to make it actually happen. B.. B.. But is has nothing to do with Xbox One, just so happens that Crackdown will only be available on Xbox One, and XB1 is the only console that we know so far that will employ this technology.

 

[Trup1aya]

Really cool technology. Enables local hardware to do things that traditionally can't be done with local hardware.

Has nothing to do with Xbox One, though, or any "effective" power. Just a cool new use of technology in games, that happens to be done in an XB1 game.

Yeah, MS goes out on a limb, supplies the infrastructure, funds the development of the neccisary middleware, and invests in the R&D to make this technology a reality for their platform... Yet it has nothing to do with their platform.

 

[M52B28]

I wasn't really expecting destruction in Crackdown 3, but if it's in, cool, but to me, it's not even much of a big deal.

For me, if they just make the city much larger than Crackdown 1 & 2, I'd be happy. Add more guns, semi customize-able cars, and random events/gang leaders: That's the perfect Crackdown.

Quite honestly, I'd rather have the game be like the rest of the Crackdowns with static but semi destructible buildings (Blowing off chunks of concrete, walls, holes in the ground).

I'm not exactly sure why some people are finding it hard to believe that the stuff being done by "The Cloud" or whatever you want to call it is real.

Whatever. The game looks good, and I'm stoked for it.

 

[A.Romero]

The video does look very cool. I was totally skeptic about the "power of the cloud" thing, I thought it was a marketing thing. My reasoning was that in my mind the network interface was too slow to really obtain anything worthwhile from servers in another location.

I'm pleasantly surprised and this certainly makes me wonder what's in the future for this kind of concept.

Good job Microsoft.

 

[Liabe Brave]

Also all the rubble remains, all of it.

This is definitely not true. You can see in the videos some smaller physical chunks disappear after staying at rest for a few seconds. Also, some of the concrete debris you see is particles, and those don't stick around either.

And if you actually watched the demo you can hear David Jones talking about how the buildings are bult with steel, glass, concrete, etc with every floor accessible.

Yes, though he mentions accessibility only in the sense that players can make their own doorways. It's pretty clear the buildings don't have realistic architecture (steel core is simplified, windows don't meet the walls they're in, etc.). And the glass doesn't act like glass. You can see huge chunks of facade fall and hit the ground, and the rows of windows from multiple floors are still intact.

(Kampfheld quotes.)

Notice that he said the framerate of the physics was only 12fps. Some folks in the thread believe the Gamescom demo is also running simulation lower than screen update. (I haven't been able to track down a downloadable video to verify myself.)

He also says there's no clipping at all, but that's not the case in the Crackdown 3 demo. You can see lots of clipping when physics chunks get near permanent geometry.

The tech is cool, but there are clear limitations even under these ideal conditions. I'd love to see how it handles worse latency.

 

[Frog-fu]

Didn't they already say that basically anyone that can stream Netflix at HD will be able to use this? That doesn't seem like a high benchmark at all.

 

[Liabe Brave]

Didn't they already say that basically anyone that can stream Netflix at HD will be able to use this? That doesn't seem like a high benchmark at all.

The bandwidth needed will be low, yes. The potential issue (as with all online multiplayer) will be latency. We don't know yet how their tech will handle high ping.

 

[SilentRob]

What were your thoughts on the demo?

I really didn't expect too much after the disappointing trailer during the briefing.

But it really was the most impressive, exciting game I have seen during my 3 days full of presentations and hands-on-demos. It reminded me of the first time I used VR (which was actually just this week, too) and how speechless it left me. It's an astounding technical leap. I really, really know that this may sound like hyperbole, I would be sceptical, too, but it's honestly how i feel.

That's awesome. I'm jealous that you got to play this. Did it perform well? Framerates? Any glitches?

It performed well, there were a few animation-hangups and the like. Nothing that's not expected this far from release. No framerate-problems but the game wasn't running on a retail X1, neither was Scalebound in the press presentations (I was very confused for quite some time when Scalebound ran at a buttery smooth framerate until I noticed the lack of a console). I'm not sure how X1 Development Kits are looking these days, but I'm fairly sure that's what it was running on. The few Durango Kits that got leaked in 2012 looked almost exactly like normal PC towers (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-evolution-of-xbox-one-as-told-by-sdk-leak) and that's what these machines they were playing the games on looked like, too.

Nice try, Mattrick.
Really though, any more details?

Pretty much all the details are already out there regarding the structure of the game (Singleplayer/Coop-City VS Fully distructible Multiplayer-City) but I think the presentation itself was really, really interesting in the way it was put together. They found some genious ways to visualize this abstract contept of the "cloud".

First, and there has already been some talk about that in this thread, there were bars on the left side of the screen - each bar represented the processing power of 1 Xbox One. It was pretty much always powered out and the more havoc we were wreaking, the more bars appeared (and went away again after we calmed down a little). They kind of used this as a high score system, telling us that the most the dev team got with this demo that day was 14 times the processing power, challenging us to "beat" that.

Additionally, they spoke a little about the server structure: One dedicated sever doesn't seem to be enough to process all of the destruction in the city, so different buildings are actually "located" on different servers. They visualised that by painting the buildings in the colors of their respective server - Buildings on Server 1 were red, Buildings on Server 2 were green etc. They made a building located on one server (red) crash into a building located on another server (green) and showed how it actually changed colour - from red to green, showing that it dynamically switched servers without any noticable lag. That was part of the same demo I was talking about before, the one I got to play myself, and the color-coded buildings were simply activated by the press of a button, so it didn't seem scripted or fake to me.

They aren't talking about the game structure of the multiplayer mode at all yet (I asked if we are able to change from one fully destroyed map to another whenever we want, if it will be reset for everyone at some point etc. but got told they would be talking about that later.) For now they seem to be focused on really showing that the destruction is real and on explaining the difference between SP and MP. I think that's a good decision because I would not have believed any of what they showed me was actually real if they didn't spend quite some time on trying to explain to us how and why it actually works.

 

[PhatSaqs]

Is this the next concern? Whats the difference between making a game multiplayer only and having a single player campaign that needs to be connected to work? Are we expecting every single game to use this technology? How do we go from hardly any games outside of Crackdown will support this, to every single game will be forced to use it, therefore making XB1 an online only console?

lol. Someone should make a list of some of the crazy concerns brought up in this thread. I think "this is wasteful" is one of the better ones.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

The video does look very cool. I was totally skeptic about the "power of the cloud" thing, I thought it was a marketing thing. My reasoning was that in my mind the network interface was too slow to really obtain anything worthwhile from servers in another location.

I'm pleasantly surprised and this certainly makes me wonder what's in the future for this kind of concept.

Good job Microsoft.

Considering how much shit they were slinging at launch of the XBO...while it is great if they are not full of it in this instance I am still wildly cautious about buying into anything they say at the moment.

 

[Black_Stride]

Is there a technical reason why they can't implement the cloud computed destruction also in single player? Seems weird to restrict it to online-only.

Probably not.
But if you had ever actually played a crackdown game, you would know that orb collecting is one of the most fun things to do in the game, orbs are like crack.

If i can just blow up a building and drop the orb down, why waste time upgrading my agility when i can just set up charges or whatever and blow the building up and slowly walk to the orb?

If the orbs arent affected by gravity, then accidentally blowing up the ledge leading to orb X would make it nigh impossible, to fully impossible to get the orb. There would be a chance of game breaking accidents if the fully destruction was in SP, and it would change the whole Crackdown feel.

So its a design choice, because the game is still crackdown, and we still need our crack....err orb fix.
There might be limited destruction in SP, but that doesnt need cloud computing.

 

[FyreWulff]

Is there a technical reason why they can't implement the cloud computed destruction also in single player? Seems weird to restrict it to online-only.

It would require you to be always online to play the game.

Using it in multiplayer is less abrasive towards customers and requires them to pay for Gold to experience it, which offsets their costs for the Azure instances.

 

[Frank Serpico]

So does the destructible environment not work if playing offline?

 

[shinnn]

https://twitter.com/crackdown/status/629720279078408192

Sounds like they will release the MP separated from the full game? Otherwise they should say BETA or something.

 

[FyreWulff]

So does the destructible environment not work if playing offline?

Yes, but it also won't work because it's only in online multiplayer anyway.

 

[Hockeymac18]

I really didn't expect too much after the disappointing trailer during the briefing.

But it really was the most impressive, exciting game I have seen during my 3 days full of presentations and hands-on-demos. It reminded me of the first time I used VR (which was actually just this week, too) and how speechless it left me. It's an astounding technical leap. I really, really know that this may sound like hyperbole, I would be sceptical, too, but it's honestly how i feel.



It performed well, there were a few animation-hangups and the like. Nothing that's not expected this far from release. No framerate-problems but the game wasn't running on a retail X1, neither was Scalebound in the press presentations (I was very confused for quite some time when Scalebound ran at a buttery smooth framerate until I noticed the lack of a console). I'm not sure how X1 Development Kits are looking these days, but I'm fairly sure that's what it was running on. The few Durango Kits that got leaked in 2012 looked almost exactly like normal PC towers (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-evolution-of-xbox-one-as-told-by-sdk-leak) and that's what these machines they were playing the games on looked like, too.



Pretty much all the details are already out there regarding the structure of the game (Singleplayer/Coop-City VS Fully distructible Multiplayer-City) but I think the presentation itself was really, really interesting in the way it was put together. They found some genious ways to visualize this abstract contept of the "cloud".

First, and there has already been some talk about that in this thread, there were bars on the left side of the screen - each bar represented the processing power of 1 Xbox One. It was pretty much always powered out and the more havoc we were wreaking, the more bars appeared (and went away again after we calmed down a little). They kind of used this as a high score system, telling us that the most the dev team got with this demo that day was 14 times the processing power, challenging us to "beat" that.

Additionally, they spoke a little about the server structure: One dedicated sever doesn't seem to be enough to process all of the destruction in the city, so different buildings are actually "located" on different servers. They visualised that by painting the buildings in the colors of their respective server - Buildings on Server 1 were red, Buildings on Server 2 were green etc. They made a building located on one server (red) crash into a building located on another server (green) and showed how it actually changed colour - from red to green, showing that it dynamically switched servers without any noticable lag. That was part of the same demo I was talking about before, the one I got to play myself, and the color-coded buildings were simply activated by the press of a button, so it didn't seem scripted or fake to me.

They aren't talking about the game structure of the multiplayer mode at all yet (I asked if we are able to change from one fully destroyed map to another whenever we want, if it will be reset for everyone at some point etc. but got told they would be talking about that later.) For now they seem to be focused on really showing that the destruction is real and on explaining the difference between SP and MP. I think that's a good decision because I would not have believed any of what they showed me was actually real if they didn't spend quite some time on trying to explain to us how and why it actually works.

Thanks for this feedback. Enjoy hearing from people that have tried it, it sounds super exciting, and potentially very groundbreaking (at least at this stage). Hopefully it translates well to the Beta next year.

https://twitter.com/crackdown/status/629720279078408192

Sounds like they will release the MP separated from the full game? Otherwise they should say BETA or something.

I suspect they mean Beta, but who knows.

 

[Pathfinder]

<snipped>

Thanks very much for the feedback. It is much appreciated.

I hope you had a good time at Gamescom!

 

[leadbelly]

If you dare frequent sites like N4G, you will see just how much of a shock this demo has caused there. The fanboys literally lashed out on the MGS Resolution thread there citing the cloud and making fun of it lmao.

Let's be quite frank here; a lot of the 'pessimism' is borne out of this console wars bullshit. I mean, even though its early days, the cloud enabling damage at a scale never seen before is a GIGANTIC slap in the face to all those who outright ridiculed it and derided it as marketing spiel not grounded in reality. Whilst we need to see the thing running in our homes, just the fact that its announced and a feature of a game should be enough.

Rather pointless and in fact, desperate (imo) references to Red Faction etc just show a sheer insecurity in admitting that cloudgine proved many naysayers wrong. I dont see many haters holding their hands up and said, yup fuck me I was wrong. That looks amazing and the cloud isn't pure bullshit like I was saying it was.

So can we drop the concern trolling about how this title will threaten offline gaming forever (what a load of bullshit) or change goalposts?

Prima facie, this tech is brilliant and IF it works well and as planned with a mere 2-4mb download requirement then that's great.

Not really. Maybe some people dismissed it completely, but the argument being made at the time wasn't that it is useless, it was that the way they were presenting it was misleading.

No one was really arguing for example that it wouldn't be really useful in the future, it was just that major graphical improvements were still probably a good way off becoming a reality. Two main problems with cloud gaming is latency and bandwidth. If you think of CPU latency times locally, there is no way server based computing could ever compete with that. There is also an obvious problem with bandwidth. Even the fastest download and upload speeds currently available are a fraction of the sort of bandwidth you will get from DDR5 ram. What this all means is that it is very difficult and extremely limited when using it for anything real-time. Where it is most useful is for things like ambient AI and physics.

So, it's not that it can't be used for anything, it is just that its usefulness is still probably more limited than how it was originally presented.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I suspect they mean Beta, but who knows.

The Xbox Wire's Gamescom roundup article explicitly called it a beta.