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

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

Saw thread title. Saw number of pages in only 5 hours.

*Nods expectantly*

I wish they'd stop with this sort of stuff. I mean, I understand why they're saying it, they just need to choose their words better.
 
Trup1aya said:
Smh... It doesn't matter how they use the server... A rented server is a rented server is a rented server... If your game is online, servers will be rented... Point blank period. And you'll be paying for that server whether your are maximizing it's utility or not...
Click to expand...

This is completely false, of course it matters what the servers are doing. Running cloud computations means you will require orders of magnitudes of VMs over P2P server matching making hosting.

Not to mention Azure servers could go from running a Crackdown session one hour to running Office 365 the next.
 
Hockeymac18 said:
But the Milo demo wasn't even a real demo that people played with/used...this is clearly not the same thing. Other than people wanting to be skeptical of a MS product. Healthy skepticism is fine, and I encourage it - but this comparison is not a good one.
Click to expand...

LyleLanley said:
But the Milo demo wasn't nearly as detailed of a technical demo as the 10 minute Crackdown demo. I think the skepticism was warranted when the game was first announced with just a trailer but this seems to be taking it a bit to far.
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally agree! But remember, in this thread we've had people say that the destruction is completely the same as in Red Faction and that a PS4 could do the same level of destruction by passing the physics calculations to it's cores.
 
Apathy said:
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
Click to expand...
I think the technical prowess to use that servers in the way it was shown is the real advantage MS has over any other game developer. Anyone can rent a bunch of servers but no one has done before what MS is doing now.
 
With respect to the cost to keep this going, there is what I'm thinking.

The CPU performance of an XBO is likely to be less than half that of a top of the line AZURE CPU.

But to scale the CPU utilization to support many game sessions, only a few servers are used to get to about 20x CPU performance, because that's what's affordable in terms of scalability right now.

In the future however, we could see the ratio go to 40x or even higher. It would require further investment from MS to upgrade the AZURE servers as time goes on, but there are other factors that drive that today that pretty much ensure that will happen so, we have every right to expect that what is shown here is only what is economical right now. In the future however it could get that much more impressive. Imagine what could be done with 80x, they might be able to recreate entire server side physics driven lakes and rivers, weather systems for wind and rain that impact blades of grass and cloth objects and etc.

Definitely a time to be excited!

I'd like to see an open world persistent RPG where each NPC has a cloud A.I. that plays the game and levels steadily and who only plays at certain times of the day so you can run into and interact with them. Many different A.I. playing at different times world wide and of different classes, skill levels and experience. The twist is that the A.I. work against the human player base. That's right!, Man vs. Machine! Xbox gamers vs AZURE!

I'd want a Halo Wars themed scenario where we players have to win victories for territory against the covenant.

Season 2, switch sides!
Season 3, the Flood!
Etc. etc.


Or maybe Rare's Pirate game will do something like that.
 
Bam Bam Baklava said:
Is it wrong to want to see the delivered final product in action? That's all I'm saying. People want to use this video as the end all be all "discussion is over!" trophy. But in reality, we're still waiting to experience this cloud power for ourselves.

The naysayers and the believers are both eager to make final conclusions, but in reality, both sides have to wait a long time to see what's really going on.
Click to expand...
No. It works. It's been proven to work.
 
Rain City Gamer said:
Resolution difference is subjective, I agree. what I was referring to was the console "Becoming more powerful" because of the cloud compute. It is still the same console hardware wise. The cloud stuff is intriguing, and there is no doubt the Crackdown 3 tech demo was impressive but my post was more about "It's still the same tech in the box" than it was about starting a res war. My guess is that whatever the res/framerate for C3 will end up being, the cloud won't impact that. If I am wrong than that is a win for gamers and more specifically Xbone Owners (Which I will be one soon)
Click to expand...

Of course its still the same tech in the box. Nothing about the cloud will make that more powerful.

Freeing up resources by offloading may, however, allow developers more local cycles for things like resolution and frame rate. But that's yet to be seen how it will affect Crackdown 3.
 
Collingwood said:
Saw thread title. Saw number of pages in only 5 hours.

*Nods expectantly*

I wish they'd stop with this sort of stuff. I mean, I understand why they're saying it, they just need to choose their words better.
Click to expand...

They = Games Radar? MS didn't say this. They've been messaging cloud compute very carefully over the last few days.
 
Garrett 2U said:
You'll have to pay for a lot more servers to run this than to run some leaderboards lol.
Click to expand...

Again, your paying for that server to run you leaderboard or your matchmaking or whatever, even when people aren't actually online. It's wasteful.

Vs only paying for exactly what you need when you need it...
 
Here is the hardware running this stuff:

Microsoft’s cloud server architecture is based on a modular high-density chassis approach that enables efficient sharing of resources across multiple server nodes. A single 12U chassis can accommodate up to 24 server blades (either compute or storage), where two blades are populated in each 1U slot. Each compute blade features 10 Intel dual-core Xeon E5-2400 processors.
Click to expand...

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2014/01/27/closer-look-microsofts-cloud-server-hardware/
 
Bear Cub in Sky said:
They = Games Radar? MS didn't say this. They've been messaging cloud compute very carefully over the last few days.
Click to expand...

I know, but David Jones being asked and then nodding in agreement isn't really the same? He could have easily just explained how it helps offload processing without "confirming" that Cloud compute will make the console the most powerful. That's all.

AgentOtaku said:
Sounds like our true successor to Red Faction Guerilla :)
Click to expand...

I know you've added the smiley to indicate a half joke, but your post history tells me you believe this deep down. Comparing the destruction levels of these two games is kind of dumb really. Guerrilla has some pretty noteworthy destruction, especially for a last gen game, but it's not even remotely on the same level.
 
FordGTGuy said:
Renting cloud infrastructure to run matchmaking and leaderboards is completely different to renting cloud infrastructure for cloud computing.

Not sure why you think this is the same thing or has similar costs.
Click to expand...

Renting cloud infrastructure for cloud computing is also extremely common, just not in the game industry. It's a new development MS is pioneering, nobodies arguing that. But claiming that only they will capable of it is not very forward thinking. If the market is there for this type of thing others will surely enter the space, regardless of whether they own the infrastructure or not. The real question is whether the market (devs/publishers) will feel it's worthwhile, or will feel any pressure from consumers to adopt it.
 
Nafai1123 said:
Renting cloud infrastructure for cloud computing is also extremely common, just not in the game industry. It's a new development MS is pioneering, nobodies arguing that. But claiming that only they will capable of it is not very forward thinking. If the market is there for this type of thing others will surely enter the space, regardless of whether they own the infrastructure or not. The real question is whether the market (devs/publishers) will feel it's worthwhile, or will feel any pressure from consumers to adopt it.
Click to expand...

Show me a single example of a game renting third party servers for extreme cloud computations in a AAA setting.

I'll be waiting.

You're sitting here arguing that Sony could do it because companies renting servers already for P2P matchmaking and leaderboards. This is complete non-sense, the only reason Microsoft can do it Is because they are the second largest cloud company in the world.
 
Bam Bam Baklava said:
Oh really?
Click to expand...

I do think a healthy amount of skepticism is completely justified. I personally think that it's going to completely explode and MP won't be playable on the first day. And possibly for a bit after that as well. It is encouraging though to see reports from people who've had hands on and say that at least at this event, it's working as advertised.
 
RiccochetJ said:
Oh, I totally agree! But remember, in this thread we've had people say that the destruction is completely the same as in Red Faction and that a PS4 could do the same level of destruction by passing the physics calculations to it's cores.
Click to expand...

The first part of that is obviously ridiculous. As for the second part I have no idea if a PS4 could do this, as I'm not a developer, but I seriously doubt it.
 
FordGTGuy said:
This is completely false, of course it matters what the servers are doing. Running cloud computations means you will require orders of magnitudes of VMs over P2P server matching making hosting.

Not to mention Azure servers could go from running a Crackdown session one hour to running Office 365 the next.
Click to expand...

sure, the processes in the case may be more complex, but one is only paying for the instances when those processes are being run...

Versus a p2p solution, which is a flat charge for servers even if the demand isn't there. Or leads to service interruptions if demand is higher than expected.

The fact that azure is flexible is what makes It cost effective over traditional rentals. I have no idea what you mean to imply by mentioning that it can switch between applications in the fly.
 
Trup1aya said:
What the hell are you talking about? If your game is online, in needs servers... Whether your using the servers to host multiplayer matches, or using it for compute, or some combination of both, you still need servers. And that costs $.

Azure is an on demand server service. If an applications requests a server for something, an idle VM responds to the request. You only play for the time VMs are handling your requests

With typical server rentals, you rent a server, and pay for it until your rental is up, whether it's actively being used at all times or not.
Click to expand...

What on earth, What don't you get? If a third party pays for servers they do not get infinite compute power. They do not get to run whatever they want on it. They have a choice of

1) hey I've got a multiplayer game which requires minimal computational power/space/instances etc. do I
a) Predict my usage well. Maybe pay less if I predict it properly to pay for reserved compute. Pay more if I predict badly.
b) Pay as you go with autoscaling

2) hey I've got a multiplayer game which requires a lot of computation do I
a...same as a above
b...same as b above

2) is more expensive regardless of whether you choose a or b because you are paying for the higher tier compute plans that have a higher price per hour cost because you require more cores, more storage, more instances or whatever you computational requirement is. It is not a case of "I'm paying for servers anyway because my game is multiplayer so I can implement this at no cost". basically you've either misunderstood what "this" means in this post

Sevyne said:
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.
Click to expand...

Trup1aya said:
Huh? Third parties pay for server rentals anyway... This would allow them to use servers on demand instead of trying to estimate load... It could potentially save them money to use Azure for their multiplayer suite...
Click to expand...

or you're not understanding that paying for a server does not grant you infinite computational power.
 
LyleLanley said:
The first part of that is obviously ridiculous. As for the second part I have no idea if a PS4 could do this, as I'm not a developer, but I seriously doubt it.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not a PS4 is not capable of 20x the CPU capacity of a Xbox One using GPGPU.

If part of a GPU could outmatch 20 CPUs we would be using CPUs in our computers.

Trup1aya said:
sure, the processes in the case may be more complex, but one is only paying for the instances when those processes are being run...

Versus a p2p solution, which is a flat charge even if the demand isn't there.

The fact that azure is flexible is what makes I'd cost effective over traditional rentals. I have no idea what you mean to imply by mentioning that it can switch between applications in the fly.
Click to expand...

The point is that traditionally a server farm would idle and wait for clients to connect, Azure servers can spin up on demand and are not dedicated to only a single game or application.
 
FordGTGuy said:
Show me a single example of a game renting third party servers for extreme cloud computations in a AAA setting.

I'll be waiting.

You're sitting here arguing that Sony could do it because companies renting servers already for P2P matchmaking and leaderboards. This is complete non-sense, the only reason Microsoft can do it Is because they are the second largest cloud company in the world.
Click to expand...

Why could not Sony just rent cloud computing as well for games?
 
Killroyskbg said:
Why could not Sony just rent cloud computing as well for games?
Click to expand...

It would by EXTREMELY expensive to rent that kind of power with global availability.

Remember Microsoft just isn't doing this for the US, it's being offered globally.

It requires as low of latency as possibly, it requires scalability with massive amounts of available power on demand.
 
The latencies kill it as evident by the animations running at less than 30 ticks. MS keep trying to make the cloud is a game changer but it's really a solution in need of a problem. They tried it with drivatars, bots in Titanfall and now this. While this is the most visually impressive application of the cloud it sort of reeks of tech demo.

It requires as low of latency as possibly, it requires scalability with massive amounts of available power on demand.
Click to expand...

It requires some Amazon AWS instances. There's no secret sauce here.
 
FordGTGuy said:
Show me a single example of a game renting third party servers for extreme cloud computations in a AAA setting.

I'll be waiting.

You're sitting here arguing that Sony could do it because companies renting servers already for P2P matchmaking and leaderboards. This is complete non-sense, the only reason Microsoft can do it Is because they are the second largest cloud company in the world.
Click to expand...

Dude, you aren't even reading what I wrote. I'm not SPECIFICALLY talking about the game industry. Cloud compute is used in MANY industries and guess what? Those companies that use it don't have to own the infrastructure. Why do you think that it would be any different for the game industry moving forward? MS is the first, and based on your assumption they will be the last because they are the ONLY ones that can do it. I'm contending that if this is untrue for EVERY other industry out there, why would it be true for the game industry?

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not even talking about Sony in general, I'm talking about any developer or publisher.
 
Killroyskbg said:
Why could not Sony just rent cloud computing as well for games?
Click to expand...

Theoretically I assume they could if they were willing to fork out the money.

Are the Gakai servers able to do this sort of thing? I'm honestly asking I have no idea. Because if they're not, they're paying either Amazon or Microsoft to use theirs which means they'd stop once it's no longer cost effective so unless the game they make that's built to use them has a fallback, then I doubt they'd bother.
 
Three said:
What on earth, What don't you get? If a third party pays for servers they do not get infinite compute power. They do not get to run whatever they want on it. They have a choice of

1) hey I've got a multiplayer game which requires minimal computational power/space/instances etc. do I
a) Predict my usage well. Maybe pay less if I predict it properly to pay for reserved compute. Pay more if I predict badly.
b) Pay as you go with autoscaling

2) hey I've got a multiplayer game which requires a lot of computations do I
a...same as a above
b...same as b above

2) is more expensive regardless of whether you choose a or b because you are paying for the higher tier compute plans that have a higher price per hour cost because you require more cores, more storage, more instances or whatever you computational requirement is. It is not a case of "I'm paying for servers anyway because my game is multiplayer so I can implement this at no cost". basically you've either misunderstood what "this" means in this post





or you're not understanding that paying for a server does not grant you infinite computational power.
Click to expand...

My argument was never that renting servers grants infinite computational power...

My argument was that using an on demand service incorporates efficiencies that could stand to lower the costs of operating an online game.
 
Nafai1123 said:
Dude, you aren't even reading what I wrote. I'm not SPECIFICALLY talking about the game industry. Cloud compute is used in MANY industries and guess what? Those companies that use it don't have to own the infrastructure. Why do you think that it would be any different for the game industry moving forward? MS is the first, and based on your assumption they will be the last because they are the ONLY ones that can do it. I'm contending that if this is untrue for EVERY other industry out there, why would it be true for the game industry?

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not even talking about Sony in general, I'm talking about any developer or publisher.
Click to expand...
Folding@Home on PS3, right?
 
FordGTGuy said:
It would by EXTREMELY expensive to rent that kind of power with global availability.

Remember Microsoft just isn't doing this for the US, it's being offered globally.

It requires as low of latency as possibly, it requires scalability with massive amounts of available power on demand.
Click to expand...

Well then it must cost MS as well having there servers used for their own product instead of other business. If crackdown sell good it will require more servers so that wont help either or am I wrong?
 
Nafai1123 said:
Dude, you aren't even reading what I wrote. I'm not SPECIFICALLY talking about the game industry. Cloud compute is used in MANY industries and guess what? Those companies that use it don't have to own the infrastructure. Why do you think that it would be any different for the game industry moving forward? MS is the first, and based on your assumption they will be the last because they are the ONLY ones that can do it. I'm contending that if this is untrue for EVERY other industry out there, why would it be true for the game industry?

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not even talking about Sony in general, I'm talking about any developer or publisher.
Click to expand...

Those companies also only offer those kind of services by regions and only support those regions based on what can be provided.

Microsoft has to provide it to every region they game will be available in and have mostly the same experience in every region.

You can't compare 3D modeling cloud compute(which isn't even latency sensitive) to streaming physics computations in a latency sensitive setting.

Killroyskbg said:
Well then it must cost MS as well having there servers used for their own product instead of other business. If crackdown sell good it will require more servers so that wont help either or am I wrong?
Click to expand...

When you rent server farms those servers still cost money to idle and do nothing, Microsoft Azure has tons of applications and are constantly being reused for different purposes.

Also the difference in cost between actually renting and owning the servers.
 
Collingwood said:
Theoretically I assume they could if they were willing to fork out the money.

Are the Gakai servers able to do this sort of thing? I'm honestly asking I have no idea. Because if they're not, they're paying either Amazon or Microsoft to use theirs which means they'd stop once it's no longer cost effective so unless the game they make that's built to use them has a fallback, then I doubt they'd bother.
Click to expand...

Gaikai? They bought the tech itself. If that included the servers, they will be already outdated if Sony didn't invest a lot of money. Currently they are using PS3's for Psnow and probably some usual servers for infrastructure but nothing at a scale of azure. Psnow didn't even start in Europe which shows how much an effort it is to build the infrastructure.
 
Collingwood said:
Theoretically I assume they could if they were willing to fork out the money.

Are the Gakai servers able to do this sort of thing? I'm honestly asking I have no idea. Because if they're not, they're paying either Amazon or Microsoft to use theirs which means they'd stop once it's no longer cost effective so unless the game they make that's built to use them has a fallback, then I doubt they'd bother.
Click to expand...

There's also the (probably not small) matter of also building the tools/engines needed to make this run so smoothly. I know this isn't black magic, and there are other brilliant programmers out there at other companies, but I think the scale of this software accomplishment is being overlooked/trivialized.

I don't think there's anything theoretically stopping Sony (or any other publisher) from doing this, but it is obvious it's not just a matter of "got some servers, lets do this!". I imagine there's years of research here that MS has put into this that other companies would need to build up on their own (or license from cloudgine, which I wouldn't be surprised to see happen if this really takes off).
 
Collingwood said:
Theoretically I assume they could if they were willing to fork out the money.

Are the Gakai servers able to do this sort of thing? I'm honestly asking I have no idea. Because if they're not, they're paying either Amazon or Microsoft to use theirs which means they'd stop once it's no longer cost effective so unless the game they make that's built to use them has a fallback, then I doubt they'd bother.
Click to expand...

Sony is partnering with rackspace i think
http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-...ny-playstation-deploy-openstack-private-cloud
 
FordGTGuy said:
Believe it or not a PS4 is not capable of 20x the CPU capacity of a Xbox One using GPGPU.

If part of a GPU could outmatch 20 CPUs we would be using CPUs in our computers.
Click to expand...

Statement doesn't make sense. Do you mean GPUs at the end there?
For physics we ARE using GPUs in our computers. Each one is better than the other at given tasks. so yeah a GPU can be 20x better than a CPU

Cloth physics for example
_1413434492.jpg


This isn't about PS4 vs XB1 though and it certainly isn't about CPUvs GPU.

Trup1aya said:
My argument was never that renting servers grants infinite computational power...

My argument was that using an on demand service incorporates efficiencies that could stand to lower the costs of operating an online game.
Click to expand...
Ok. Then you misunderstood Sevyne's post.
 
Wonder how this will hold up with thousands of people doing this at once. If servers are lagging or something I guess the buildings will act funky?
 
Seeing who wrote the article for Gameradar, the title now makes perfect sense. How is this objective gamesjournalism?

Anyway, impressive techdemo for sure! I guess we will have to wait till 2016 to see how much is carried over in the final game.

I guess only the buildings are 100% destructable? Or can you damage streets and the like as well? And where does it end? Again, we will have to wait till 2016 to see.
 
Three said:
Statement doesn't make sense. Do you mean GPUs at the end there?
For physics we ARE using GPUs in our computers. Each one is better than the other at given tasks. so yeah a GPU can be 20x better than a CPU

Cloth physics for example
http://www.cinemablend.com/images/sections/67867/_1413434492.jpg

This isn't about PS4 vs XB1 though and it certainly isn't about CPUvs GPU.
Click to expand...

How does the statement that a PS4 is never going to outmatch 20x the Xbox One hardware by using GPGPU not make sense?(That's some Mister X Media stuff right there.)

Physics are handled heavily be CPUs too and no a few GPU cores running GPGPU will never outmatch 20x CPUs.
 
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
477
GymWolf replied
Leaked Xbox Cloud Controllers
2
78
1K
Dorfdad replied
  • Locked
Physical Disc plants to be used for AI data centers
2
63
645
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
919
Evil Calvin replied
Jak 3 gets a PC port based on the PS2 version
6
545
VGEsoterica replied
Top Bottom