Support NeoGAF

[Captain Tuttle]

While I'm not as dismissive of cloud technology as most on here MS really has to shut up and show us what it can really do, not just tell us. Same with Kinect.

 

[jem0208]

PSNow is only streaming video (literally from a PS3 in a server rack it seems) - it's not doing any computation - with a tiny bit of bandwidth for control input. It's not calculating physics, sending them back and updating the GPU, or running complex AI. And the cloud is not just sending data back and forth, it's got to match up in the game with your local data. It's no good calculating awesome burning rubber physics if your car is already round the first ingame corner before it gets the calculation back from the cloud.

Vita Remote Play at 30fps is great for many games as long as they aren't 60fps arcade games, and most PS3 games had controller lag when you played locally anyway, so they'll probably be fine.



Or this.



You've been told over and over, it's nobody else's fault that you aren't getting it.

Yes it's streaming video however there is still lag due to you having to wait for your input to be sent from your console to the server which is then handled by the servers PS3 which is then sent back to your console in the form of video.

This lag is going to be the same or comparable to cloud computations.

I'll say it again, if this lag is bearable enough that even controller input can go through it, why can't background tasks such as AI be handled with same lag?

There's also the fact that any mp game which handled physics server side already proves this works. The way cloud computations works is that you'd essentially be getting a dedicated server all to yourself.



Edit: to everyone saying cloud computations are much more complex, I agree with that. I'm arguing that latency isn't as large an issue. As evidence by the fact that PS now is playable.

Also obviously we aren't going to see the cloud handle tyre physics active soon, however it could handle something like the ai for a crowd of pedestrians or the physics a building blowing up the distance.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

Of course it otherwise the game wouldn't be playing at all, it's doing all the computation physics etc at the multiple PS3's at the data centre, you wouldn't be interacting with the game otherwise.

The difference is the server doesn't have to [sync] you with your graphics in order to perform some small part but rather does the thing which whole sale. Which is why a developer I believe said if we reach a point with low enough latency and high enough bandiwidth to make use of cloud capabilities inside a game outside of AI you may as well stream the whole thing rather than in parts, the requirements are fairly similar.

I said the cloud data needs synching with the local data in that sentence you just quoted, and that's a massive problem when they're already having bandwidth issues communicating data across the motherboard on the xbone.

Playstation now is really just the equivalent to running a super-long HDMI cable and controller lead from a PS3 in the next county, of course it's doing the computation because it has to run the game.

Yes it's streaming video however there is still lag due to you having to wait for your input to be sent from your console to the server which is then handled by the servers PS3 which is then sent back to your console in the form of video.

This lag is going to be the same or comparable to cloud computations.

I'll say it again, if this lag is bearable enough that even controller input can go through it, why can't background tasks such as AI be handled with same lag?

There's also the fact that any mp game which handled physics server side already proves this works. The way cloud computations works is that you'd essentially be getting a dedicated server all to yourself.

Okay then:

If it can do it, why aren't they letting every x360/xbone/Windows user download that Build demo and see it for themselves? I can guarantee if they did that, and it worked, word of mouth would sell this thing far better than a powerpoint presentation to a studio audience.

 

[funkypie]

If Sony believes their PlayStation Now service can offload 100% of all computational and graphics processing to the cloud and stream the rendered video output over the internet to gamers then in fail to see why MS couldn't beef up the Xbone with some extra power from the cloud as well.

I wish people wouldn't immediately bash MS.

another one has fallen for the cloud gimmick. For a start stop calling it 'the cloud'

it is simply a server. Also there is a massive difference in streaming a game with lag and a game that is running on your local machine and at the same time being 'beefed up' by some server miles away.

absolute ridiculous comparison.

 

[Mike Works]

Console wars make people say the silliest crap, I swear.

 

[TrueGrime]

While I'm not as dismissive of cloud technology as most on here MS really has to shut up and show us what it can really do, not just tell us. Same with Kinect.

Can't speak for the cloud but for me the kinect is definitely worth having. Even just for the navigation alone. The controller is not faster than voice commands. It's a great tool to navigate the UI and voice command use in a multitude of games as been decent. What I want them to do is expand on the head motion that's in use for BF4. That was a great and underrated addition to the game.

 

[jem0208]

Okay then:

I'm not trying to argue that MS' marketing is any good.

 

[softie]

Xbox 360 owners everywhere agree with you.

Yeah, because if the 360 wouldn't use the cloud just as the Xbone or PC version, it would've been even below 600p, had more tearing, even when in 30fps mode?
Dammit cloud is a beast!

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Oh... WOW.

Yep, believe it, and I would gladly say it again. It's petty console wars garbage.

 

[David___]

Yep, believe it, and I would gladly say it again. It's petty console wars garbage.

Petty huh? http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=89549499&postcount=1239

 

[boredandlazy]

Yep, believe it, and I would gladly say it again. It's petty console wars garbage.

I don't disagree, but you saying it is like Charlie Manson saying murder is wrong.

 

[Captain Tuttle]

Can't speak for the cloud but for me the kinect is definitely worth having. Even just for the navigation alone. The controller is not faster than voice commands. It's a great tool to navigate the UI and voice command use in a multitude of games as been decent. What I want them to do is expand on the head motion that's in use for BF4. That was a great and underrated addition to the game.

Right on, I should have been clearer. I want to see it used in games as well as for navigation.

 

[Whitechocolatekrispies]

Yep, believe it, and I would gladly say it again. It's petty console wars garbage.

My comment has nothing to do with game design, it was aimed at technical expertise of the developing companies.

Performance analysis: Titanfall on Xbox 360

In summary, after a day with the Xbox 360 game, the big takeaway here is that this is Titanfall, and it does appear to be feature-complete on the older console. With just one tenth of the available RAM and far less capable silicon, it's safe to say that Bluepoint Games has more than exceeded expectations.

Face-Off: Titanfall on Xbox 360

In the end, the media black-out for Titanfall 360 has turned out to be anything but a cause for concern. Bluepoint Games trims back anything it reasonably can to preserve the core features seen in the original Xbox One release, reining in texture and geometry quality until it fits the Xbox 360's technical dimensions. Even with the loss of dynamic lighting, and use of pre-baked shadows, that the game looks so close to the source material is a huge credit to the team.

The frame-rate situation is also impressive in light of it being a game designed for a far faster platform. The game's controls come across as sluggish by comparison to the Xbox One edition, and the visuals suffer greatly for the high levels of screen-tear. Regardless, it has no aspirations to hit 60fps in the first place, meaning the 30fps lock option is a very attractive alternative - and one which would sit well on Xbox One given its own current difficulties hitting 60fps at times.

But the overwhelming impression is that Titanfall, through disciplined re-engineering of its assets and systems, is now fully playable on a much older console. It's the real deal, and while not exactly a challenge for the Xbox One release in the performance stakes, the port is arguably strong enough for players to accept a lesser experience to avoid shelling out for a brand new console. That being said, performance and resolution updates on Xbox One are still pending, where widening the gap between the two could make the upgrade more tempting.

I'd say Bluepoint did a phenomenal job with Titanfall on the xbox 360, where as Respawn fluffed it. Sub 1080p, sub 60fps and screen tearing galore.

 

[p3tran]

Petty huh? http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=89549499&postcount=1239

so, you are claiming that dead rising 3 has ...unacceptable framerate?
if yes, LOL and please write me a small list of your favorite games of the last five years so I can laugh some more!

 

[Finalizer]

I don't know what's worse, that MS is still spewing this nonsense or that there are still folks who eat it up.

It's glorified dedicated servers people; thinking it anymore than that just proves you the tool that MS is looking for in a customer.

 

[David___]

so, you are claiming that dead rising 3 has ...unacceptable framerate?

No?

Sage's posts is what you should be looking at, especially whats bold-ed.

 

[Furyous]

I'm looking forward to this statement's verification by independent sources. If it holds up then there's no excuse not to implement a PS Now like add-on for XBL. Of course Microsoft would add $10 to $20 to live based on maintenance costs. However, they could justify it by adding one free game a month.

If this doesn't hold up as true and is advertised as truth say it with me now: CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. Give them that EU fined for lying treatment.

*birdman hand rub*

 

[FranXico]

This "brave new world" of computing used to be considered one variant of distributed computing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Yes, latency still is very much an issue. The infrastructure that allows all of this to work seamlessly is simply not here yet. And yes, staged demos in controlled network environments can very easily make it look like a non-issue.

This problem will affect both "Cloud Gaming" (or whatever marketing buzz word MS is using for it) and PS Now. I'm very skeptical of both services.

Never before have I seen so many people so willing to avoid critical thinking when it comes to announcements from corporations.

 

[adin75]

So much untapped power, somebody should tell those 'lazy' developers.

 

[Hermii]

There has to be at least a few grains of truth in what they are saying. Hopefully they will detail this more at E3 and show examples of how it can be used in practice.

 

[HariKari]

This problem will affect both "Cloud Gaming" (or whatever marketing buzz word MS is using for it) and PS Now. I'm very skeptical of both services.

One has defined goal that seems realistic, don't you think? Emulate or transmit a playable (not perfect, but playable) game over the internet to local hardware. One session, one user, one game. Not overly complex, like unlimited AI or some other nonsense. And if it was a bad experience, Sony wouldn't be touting it or investing so heavily in it. It would be a black mark on the brand to roll out something so desirable and have it be a miserable flop.

"Cloud compute" on the other hand is just nebulous bullshit marketing. The person that hears that is supposed to fill in the blank by design. Anyone that uses that term wants you to drool at the prospect of unlimited, decentralized computing when that's not only technologically difficult at the moment, but also nowhere near economic viability. I find it hard to believe Microsoft is going to build and invest in a ton of 'cloud' capability and then give that away for free to users of a device that doesn't have great margins to begin with.

Titanfall's servers are a more realistic example of what people can expect. Are dedicated servers that sort of scale with demand revolutionary?

 

[le.phat]

Until Microsoft gives us a compelling reason to be excited about the cloud, they need to shut the fuck up and put their money where their mouth is.

They talked about Titanfall, about how the AI offloading was supposedly allowing them to do things otherwise impossible. A last gen port comes out that, outside of obvious graphical differences, is identical.

They are not in a positon to talk about potential. They are in the spotlight because they talked so much shit in the past that everything is taken with a grain of salt. No more talk, show us. Show us a single game on the bone that is not possible on other platforms because of the cloud. A single game is all it takes to turn people into believers. And as long as that game doesn't excist, shut the fuck up or face the endless supply of mudpies and have this negative media circus drag on like a whiskey-dicked handjob.

 

[justsomeguy]

Yeah, because if the 360 wouldn't use the cloud just as the Xbone or PC version, it would've been even below 600p, had more tearing, even when in 30fps mode?
Dammit cloud is a beast!

Not sure what your point is. The fact Titanfall is even possible on the 360 is testament to the benefit of a dedicated server . Dedi/cloud does not have a big impact on rendering, but it does impact things like nr of AI, complexity of game world, etc

 

[Facism]

so, you are claiming that dead rising 3 has ...unacceptable framerate?
if yes, LOL and please write me a small list of your favorite games of the last five years so I can laugh some more!

Guys this is what senju was talking about.

 

[onanie]

You wouldn't build 2 back ends for your game I.e. Use 2 providers. Writing common code is the cheap bit - you then have qa and most critically the ongoing operational monitoring, fixes, etc. Plus there will be platform specific code for logging, automatic scaling. Etc. Utter insanity to use 2 providers just for the sake of it.

Only way you would do it is if you are just renting infrastructure as a service and writing your own cloud-like framework, but that's not really a "cloud computing" model.
Source: My day job.

How does leasing server infrastructure from the one company for two different console platforms negate the need for separate platform specific login routines, scalings, qa, monitoring and fixes for each console platform anyway?

Just wanted to clarify, since you have nominated yourself as an authority, you are a multiplatform console game developer?

 

[onanie]

so, you are claiming that dead rising 3 has ...unacceptable framerate?
if yes, LOL and please write me a small list of your favorite games of the last five years so I can laugh some more!

Just make sure your laugh is directed at the right person.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

No I'm really not.

If the game is running on the cloud, everything has lag. If this lag is bearable even for things like controller input, then why can't it be bearable for cloud computations?

What am I missing that makes cloud computations so reliant on low latency? Even more so than something like controller input?

I think someone explained it from a tech angle a while back. I'm not the biggest tech guy so I'll try to explain.

If the game is being ENTIRELY processed in the cloud, where the only thing your local box does is send the signals for your controller inputs and output the video stream to your TV, then the only thing you have to worry about is the latency between what you see and what you're doing with your controller as opposed to what's happening 'now' on the server.

But if you have *some* tasks being processed on the console and *others* being processed in the cloud, you begin to have probelms with bandwidth. There are certain things going on in your system when it's processing and rendering a game that require EXTREMELY low latency and very, very large pipelines for information. Remember all the talk about the speed of access of the XB1's memory vs the speed of access for the PS4's memory? And how the ESRAM was supposed to bridge that gap? As far as I understand it, once you start throwing cloud computations in the works, there are only certain computations that can be off-loaded, i.e. the ones that aren't as latency-sensitive or bandwidth-sensitive. And if it's something that's not latency-sensitive (such as the physics of some building blowing up off in the background, as you suggest), then it's something that's inconsequential to the user's immediate experience while playing the game and thus nearly irrelevant.

I don't know personally which ones can and can't be feasibly offloaded to the cloud, but that's at least the gist of how I understood it when the tech gurus were explaing this way back before launch during the height of all the 'cloud power' mumbo jumbo.

Can't speak for the cloud but for me the kinect is definitely worth having. Even just for the navigation alone. The controller is not faster than voice commands. It's a great tool to navigate the UI and voice command use in a multitude of games as been decent. What I want them to do is expand on the head motion that's in use for BF4. That was a great and underrated addition to the game.

So having a glorified microphone for voice commands was worth stuffing the Kinect into every box and adding an extra $100-150 to the system cost? They could've done voice commands without the Kinect by simply putting a directional mic in the front of the system bay with a small opening. I really don't get this argument. Everyone I know that says he/she is happy with the Kinect always says 'I like the voice commands'. Not 'I'm in love with Kinect Sports Rivals' or 'Just Dance is the SHIT!'. Just... "I like voice commands". Ok.... why not just a mic then? Why this big dual camera IR blasting see in the dark thingamabob that doesn't offer a very compelling GAMING experience. From a gaming perspective (which is what consoles are supposed to be for primarily), the Kinect 2.0 still hasn't justified its existence, IMO.

This "brave new world" of computing used to be considered one variant of distributed computing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Yes, latency still is very much an issue. The infrastructure that allows all of this to work seamlessly is simply not here yet. And yes, staged demos in controlled network environments can very easily make it look like a non-issue.

This problem will affect both "Cloud Gaming" (or whatever marketing buzz word MS is using for it) and PS Now. I'm very skeptical of both services.

Never before have I seen so many people so willing to avoid critical thinking when it comes to announcements from corporations.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[justsomeguy]

How does leasing server infrastructure from the one company for two different console platforms negate the need for separate platform specific login routines, scalings, qa, monitoring and fixes for each console platform anyway?

Just wanted to clarify, since you have nominated yourself as an authority, you are a multiplatform console game developer?

No need for the aggressive tone, I am happy to discuss this stuff as I find it interesting and would hope for others to pick something up. I'm not nominating myself as an expert in the manner you suggest, however my job is enterprise software development for banks, police, etc., and in particular solution architecture and dev team lead roles. Hence I have experience in taking systems from "empty whiteboard" through to into business as usual support - and hence I am interested in "dev ops" and the overall cost of maintaining systems. Part of my job is pricing up big deliveries, so I know the difference between "cost of a dev time to write code" and overall total cost of delivery.

In any system design you minimise unnecessary duplication of effort. The example you cite of system authentication is an example of unavoidable difference. Your Psn plumbing code has to be different to your xbox live plumbing code.

If you arbitrarily decided to deploy one system to azure and one to amazon, you are essentially doubling up your ops effort and you'll end up having to build plumbing code for both infrastructure platforms, azure and amazon.

If you just pick one provider, that effort and ongoing monitoring effort are obviously lower than with two completely different services.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

I'm looking forward to this statement's verification by independent sources. If it holds up then there's no excuse not to implement a PS Now like add-on for XBL. Of course Microsoft would add $10 to $20 to live based on maintenance costs. However, they could justify it by adding one free game a month.

If this doesn't hold up as true and is advertised as truth say it with me now: CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. Give them that EU fined for lying treatment.

*birdman hand rub*

It's quite telling they haven't let Digital Foundry have a good look at it working, other than that Respawn puff-piece I'm not sure they've done that, or have they?

Yeah, because if the 360 wouldn't use the cloud just as the Xbone or PC version, it would've been even below 600p, had more tearing, even when in 30fps mode?
Dammit cloud is a beast!

Not sure what your point is. The fact Titanfall is even possible on the 360 is testament to the benefit of a dedicated server . Dedi/cloud does not have a big impact on rendering, but it does impact things like nr of AI, complexity of game world, etc

Of all the people you could respond to, you pick that bibbling loon. And honestly, if the cloud tech works like they say then there's no reason the X360 version shouldn't have been lifted to a higher state of graphical consciousness as well.

 

[mindsale]

It will be cool when they actually demonstrate this or when we've reached broadband ubiquity where going offline won't cripple the graphics or AI. In theory, off-site computing sounds awesome. I hope they can pull it off this generation.

 

[Stare-Bear]

It's been almost a year with weather forecasts by Microsoft about infinite clouds and all we've seen so far was a not-so-impressive physics demo running on a beast of a pc.

 

[justsomeguy]

Of all the people you could respond to, you pick that bibbling loon. And honestly, if the cloud tech works like they say then there's no reason the X360 version shouldn't have been lifted to a higher state of graphical consciousness as well.

Haha, I'm on my phone and watching footy, so replies are relatively random ;-)

The claims in the OP say cloud is there for processing not rendering, altho if titanfall was all computed locally then the 360 version would probably be about 10fps

Right time to play some fifa.

 

[TalentBurke]

Can't speak for the cloud but for me the kinect is definitely worth having. Even just for the navigation alone. The controller is not faster than voice commands. It's a great tool to navigate the UI and voice command use in a multitude of games as been decent. What I want them to do is expand on the head motion that's in use for BF4. That was a great and underrated addition to the game.

It's only faster to move around the UI with voice command because it was designed to be used with kinect. The UI would be a lot more simple if there wasn't kinect. And I don't think voice command is worth an extra $100.00. Just an FYI the playstation 4 has voice command but I honestly don't care for gimmicks like that. I've never used Siri on my iPhone or the voice command on my ps4.

 

[onanie]

No need for the aggressive tone, I am happy to discuss this stuff as I find it interesting and would hope for others to pick something up. I'm not nominating myself as an expert in the manner you suggest, however my job is enterprise software development for banks, police, etc., and in particular solution architecture and dev team lead roles. Hence I have experience in taking systems from "empty whiteboard" through to into business as usual support - and hence I am interested in "dev ops" and the overall cost of maintaining systems. Part of my job is pricing up big deliveries, so I know the difference between "cost of a dev time to write code" and overall total cost of delivery.

In any system design you minimise unnecessary duplication of effort. The example you cite of system authentication is an example of unavoidable difference. Your Psn plumbing code has to be different to your xbox live plumbing code.

If you arbitrarily decided to deploy one system to azure and one to amazon, you are essentially doubling up your ops effort and you'll end up having to build plumbing code for both infrastructure platforms, azure and amazon.

If you just pick one provider, that effort and ongoing monitoring effort are obviously lower than with two completely different services.

You already have two separate "plumbing code" simply from supporting two different console platforms, often by separate teams. Similarly for infrastructure monitoring. Having each platform use a different server will not double the overall effort that a multiplatform company is already expending.

 

[Malio]

Has no one photoshopped 32 xbox360s duct-taped together yet?

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

Haha, I'm on my phone and watching footy, so replies are relatively random ;-)

The claims in the OP say cloud is there for processing not rendering, altho if titanfall was all computed locally then the 360 version would probably be about 10fps

Right time to play some fifa.

Oh yeah, it only talks about CPU time, but there's still likely a point where that data will need to be represented onscreen somehow. And you're only really as 'fast' as your slowest bandwidth, so anything too ambitious (that isn't already achievable) could in theory clog up the whole system.

As much as it may seem like I aren't, I'm genuinely interested in this and want to know whether it can actually work, or not. I'm just erring on the side of the sceptical (but definitely not skeptical) at the moment.

Has no one photoshopped 32 xbox360s duct-taped together yet?

Even duct-tape can't contain all that power, we might as well move straight to dilithium crystals.

 

[wildfire]

I'm so fucking tired of this. I understand that theoretically their statement is accurate. Given the right circumstances client side and server side with a robust enough connection that processing power can be used. Who is that useful to though? No one has access to the setup to make this viable yet, why even bother touting this as some kind of feature.

Actually Japan is in the top 3 of most connected countries. They definitely could make use of the Cloud. The problem is that most devs have to make games with world wide infrastructure in mind.

If MS had a bunch of Japanese developers at this conference saying they were going to make games for their country utilizing this tech then it would make their claims believable but that's obviously what they didn't do.

 

[LiamR]

Oh great. Another console warz thread. Why can't we just have a rational discussion about this without it descending into some pathetic squabble over obvious fanboy agendas? Every Xbone thread on GAF seems to be nothing but this. They're just boxes, people. Try to remember that.

While I'm not as dismissive of cloud technology as most on here MS really has to shut up and show us what it can really do, not just tell us. Same with Kinect.

This.

 

[Rolf NB]

Of all the people you could respond to, you pick that bibbling loon. And honestly, if the cloud tech works like they say then there's no reason the X360 version shouldn't have been lifted to a higher state of graphical consciousness as well.

Can we drop this please? Servers do not improve graphics. We've had wildly profitable server-hosted games for over a decade. WoW. DotA. LoL. Guild Wars. Whatever MMO or MOBA you can think of. There has never been a client-run game where the server delivers additional pixels to improve the display.

Titanfall servers are not OnLive or Gaikai. They host the multiplayer session. They receive player actions, update the game's state, determine who shot whom, and relay the updated state to the clients. They do not render graphics period.

It is a natural thing for a multiplayer host to calculate NPC actions centrally. You wouldn't want each client to calculate the AI actions redundantly. They can and will disagree on AI actions, as AI action is influenced by unpredictable player action, and not all clients will have a complete, timely view of all player actions at the same time (coz it's the internet and it has latency!). Having to deal with client-side interpolated/predicted actions in absence of real-time updates is bad enough. It's not necessary to burden yourself with another layer of this for AI. Just run it on the server.

This does not prove nor disprove that the AI is a task that the client wouldn't be able to run while maintaining performance. It's just something you do anyway the moment you decide against p2p, and for a central server to host your game session.

 

[Synth]

That is incorrect, unless your multiplayer code needed to be unique for each server, for some odd reason.

Simply having Azure available on PS4 is not enough to keep a developer from looking at better server farm deals elsewhere.

If you had been skeptical of Microsoft's statements in recent times, you are more often correct than not. Unfortunate, but true. All the more reason not to believe anyone unconditionally, and I'm not sure why that would be your default position.

You wouldn't be doubling up on anything that the implementations would have in common, but you would be doubling up on anything that is unique between them. You would also double up on testing anything unique between them (and would continue to do so when anything the implementations are altered), and you give people two separate companies to deal with for individual issues that each may have, rather than any issue being the same across both, with the same solutions. You would definitely be creating more (unnecessary) work for yourself. All just for the hell of it? Because you like Google/Amazon? Makes no sense. If your preference was that strong towards them, then you may as well just pay to have both implementations from them.

There's a difference between being sceptical of MS' claims, and outright deeming them false. You're doing to equivalent of having them turn up in court, the offense finds no evidence whatsoever, but you declare guilty anyway, because fuck it, they're MS. That's not being sceptical, that's blind faith (but towards them being in the wrong). You're basically doing what you accuse others of, not realising that it applies both ways.

Also, I don't actually think being sceptical of MS' statements of their own offerings (not how they compare to others) would have you being right often in the past. Most of the information that has made them unpopular was clearly stated outright. They didn't pretend not to have DRM. They didn't pretend you wouldn't need an online sign-in. They didn't pretend that their console would not only focus on gaming. What information that came directly from MS, about stuff they would know for certain has consistently been false?

No. You are comparing apples to oranges.

He mentioned things "such as AI". In that case it's not really apples to oranges. If you can stream a game fully online, with enemies that react to player actions, then cloud based AI implementations are guaranteed to be feasible under similar conditions. You could have to most complex AI processing the world has ever seen happening on the server, each enemy could be individually considering the same number of variables as a modern day championship chess computer... but at the end of it all, the response being returned to the player requires no more bandwidth than it would to update the movement of any human player online. The connection requirements to stream a game fully is many, many times more taxing by comparison, and lag would have a far more significantly negative impact.

 

[onanie]

You wouldn't be doubling up on anything that the implementations would have in common, but you would be doubling up on anything that is unique between them. You would also double up on testing anything unique between them (and would continue to do so when anything the implementations are altered), and you give people two separate companies to deal with for individual issues that each may have, rather than any issue being the same across both, with the same solutions. You would definitely be creating more (unnecessary) work for yourself. All just for the hell of it? Because you like Google/Amazon? Makes no sense. If your preference was that strong towards them, then you may as well just pay to have both implementations from them.

There's a difference between being sceptical of MS' claims, and outright deeming them false. You're doing to equivalent of having them turn up in court, the offense finds no evidence whatsoever, but you declare guilty anyway, because fuck it, they're MS. That's not being sceptical, that's blind faith (but towards them being in the wrong). You're basically doing what you accuse others of, not realising that it applies both ways.

Also, I don't actually think being sceptical of MS' statements of their own offerings (not how they compare to others) would have you being right often in the past. Most of the information that has made them unpopular was clearly stated outright. They didn't pretend not to have DRM. They didn't pretend you wouldn't need an online sign-in. They didn't pretend that their console would not only focus on gaming. What information that came directly from MS, about stuff they would know for certain has consistently been false?



He mentioned things "such as AI". In that case it's not really apples to oranges. If you can stream a game fully online, with enemies that react to player actions, then cloud based AI implementations are guaranteed to be feasible under similar conditions. You could have to most complex AI processing the world has ever seen happening on the server, each enemy could be individually considering the same number of variables as a modern day championship chess computer... but at the end of it all, the response being returned to the player requires no more bandwidth than it would to update the movement of any human player online. The connection requirements to stream a game fully is many, many times more taxing by comparison, and lag would have a far more significantly negative impact.

What would u be doubling up on that you aren't already, simply from supporting two console platforms? You would still need to test them separately, and deal with issues separately. If you prefer or are more familiar with a particular provider but want to take advantage of Microsoft's offer, it is a financially attractive solution (not for microsoft)

 

[Synth]

What would u be doubling up on that you aren't already, simply from supporting two console platforms? You would still need to test them separately, and deal with issues separately. If you prefer or are more familiar with a particular provider but want to take advantage of Microsoft's offer, it is a financially attractive solution.

The server results for cloud processing would call the same functions across both platforms if they are both hosted on the same solution. You could test each of these in isolation and then they can be assumed to be working correctly in any cases when they are later called by other areas of the code. This testing has to be duplicated if the solutions are different, and if any changes are made to one, those changes must then be made to the other, and both must be retested. It is not the same.

If this work has been done for MS' platform already in order to benefit from their free servers, there doesn't appear to be much reason to go for a different implementation elsewhere. You've already done the work, and you've tested that it does in fact function correctly. Why would you prefer extra work that you're comfortable with over no work at all at this point?

The only way I can see it making sense is if you initially created the game for the other platform with no X1 version intended, and then you decide to port it. At this point it becomes a choice of whether you want to simply pay the extra to use your previous solution on X1, or do the extra work required to get the free servers. In any other case it just seems silly.

Also why is it a financially attractive solution if each service is continuously price matching each other?

 

[USC-fan]

I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like they're lying about their infrastructure. They aren't. If they say they pretty much can guarantee and assure that 3 XB1s worth of computing power is available through their cloud infrastructure per XB1, I don't see what's so difficult to believe about that.

Now, sure, obviously there is a clear effort to market going on here, and it paints an almost misleading picture of what this truly means in the here and now, but as far as there being interesting immediate future and long term future potential for something like this in the console space, that's something I don't have a very hard time believing at all. They're already taking advantage of the exact infrastructure they're referring to in a number of games already released for the system, only in more familiar and traditional ways (as in dedicated servers for multiplayer gaming), not in the "omg 3x more power per XB1 to make your games better" kind of way, but if Microsoft makes using it as convenient as they say, I don't see why more creative applications can't emerge further down the line.

They did, after all, show off a pretty cool physics based destruction demo at BUILD, so I could see less overthetop uses for it down the line. I don't think anybody is expecting far easier 1080p or 4k gameplay to come out of this, but I don't see why some interesting things couldn't be done in games with this kind of infrastructure. I mean, it still largely depends on whether Microsoft can prove that it can be used in more creative or interesting ways for serious games, and if they can also manage to make it as accessible to developers as they suggest. We'll see, but I'm not going to immediately laugh and mock it. I would love for this stuff to not end up just being talk, because that would make me that much more excited about my purchase.

So, toss me in the cautiously optimistic camp.

Its pure pr bs.

Didnt titanfall just come out for 360, so guess the 360 now has the power of 3x xbone...lol.

Just completely silly.

 

[jem0208]

It's the difference between having a custom product assembled in China and shipped complete to you, or having a person use parts fabricated in China to fabricate a custom product for you.

There are going to be different challenges to either.

For PSN now you will have issues about unavoidable input lag and the need for decent download bandwidth to stream the video. It'll probably be used most for games that aren't too concerned with latency like many jRPG's.

For XB offloading the problems is most calculation heavy tasks are also latency sensitive like most physics, most dynamic lighting, or most graphics calcs.

Most tasks that are NOT latency sensitive and calculation heavy could be done before hand and put on disk (like the lighting in Forza). Doing it on the server is inefficient.

So you have a very small class of problems were offloading can help and in most cases reasonable approximations exist that are close to as good as doing it for real. So you'd be spending a lot of money on engineering for something only marginally better than approximating it and you open it up to a lot more failure conditions. It's not that practical.

PSN now isn't proof of the same concept. They're just sending pictures and taking input. A much simpler problem. How ever we haven't seen it out in the wild in people homes; where latency will more readily rear it's ugly head and where bandwidth average 3-5 mb/s. So far PSN now and XB1 proof of concept demo's are run under controlled conditions. It's likely to function a lot worse in practice.

I think the most practical application for the cloud is AI, which is already being done.

You could have crowds of pedestrians react dynamically to events, strategy games where the enemy AI is calculated server side etc.

Also physics is a viable use of the cloud, Battlefield calculates it's physics server side doesn't it? Any mp game using dedicated servers calculates everything server side and they generally work perfectly fine. I don't see how having single player games using dedicated servers is any different to that.

Its pure pr bs.

Didnt titanfall just come out for 360, so guess the 360 now has the power of 3x xbone...lol.

Just completely silly.

Huh? That statement makes no sense...

There's also the fact that the 360 version also uses the cloud: http://gamingbolt.com/titanfall-uses-shared-cloud-for-xbox-one-xbox-360-and-pc

 

[Synth]

Its pure pr bs.

Didnt titanfall just come out for 360, so guess the 360 now has the power of 3x xbone...lol.

Just completely silly.

Isn't the claim that the cloud can provide 3x the power of an Xbox One console... not that it actually makes the console itself 3x as powerful?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the servers hosting Titanfall have significantly stronger CPUs than an Xbox One, even for the 360 version.

So technically, the claim isn't too far-fetched in this case. There is absolutely no way Titanfall on the 360 would be running like it does if all the AI had to be processed locally.

 

[onanie]

The server results for cloud processing would call the same functions across both platforms if they are both hosted on the same solution. You could test each of these in isolation and then they can be assumed to be working correctly in any cases when they are later called by other areas of the code. This testing has to be duplicated if the solutions are different, and if any changes are made to one, those changes must then be made to the other, and both must be retested. It is not the same.

If this work has been done for MS' platform already in order to benefit from their free servers, there doesn't appear to be much reason to go for a different implementation elsewhere. You've already done the work, and you've tested that it does in fact function correctly. Why would you prefer extra work that you're comfortable with over no work at all at this point?

The only way I can see it making sense is if you initially created the game for the other platform with no X1 version intended, and then you decide to port it. At this point it becomes a choice of whether you want to simply pay the extra to use your previous solution on X1, or do the extra work required to get the free servers. In any other case it just seems silly.

The work already needs to be duplicated because you have to deal with two console platforms.

Reducing the overall cost of your online infrastructure by moving half of your customer base to free servers seems to be a logical move.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Petty huh? http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=89549499&postcount=1239

Nice try, but that was a bogus attack then, and it's still bogus now. There is no comparison between a dead rising 3 that seemed to literally be running at 4 or 5 fps on a very consistent basis from the looks of it back when I made the initial post, and the much improved framerate on display as the game got much closer to release. I see nothing petty about acknowledging the clear evolution of the game's performance. Those tend to be things people who are actually interested in a game pay close attention to.

If people are going to try to use my post history to attack or troll me, that one's about as weak as it gets, because all it does is mislead those not actually paying attention to what the game was like back then by conveniently leaving out the true context of my statement in order to fool people into making ill informed judgments about what I was talking about. The different builds of Dead Rising 3 I was commenting on were like night and day performance wise. And at the end of the day, I've actually played Dead Rising 3 on my Xbox one, and the game performs just fine. Be it a digital foundry analysis, a random screen, or even an edited snippet of video with low fps count, none of it is a true substitute for actually playing the game yourself. Anyway, that's the last I'll say about that.

My comment has nothing to do with game design, it was aimed at technical expertise of the developing companies.

Performance analysis: Titanfall on Xbox 360




Face-Off: Titanfall on Xbox 360




I'd say Bluepoint did a phenomenal job with Titanfall on the xbox 360, where as Respawn fluffed it. Sub 1080p, sub 60fps and screen tearing galore.

Titanfall on xbox 360 doesn't perform nor look nearly as good as the xbox one version. Seen and played both in person, actually have the XB1 version. So, if people want to rely on a df analysis instead of their own experience, that's fine. Hell, even DF's own footage demonstrates quite clearly which version performs better. Bluepoint did just about the absolute best they could for the older 360 hardware, and in that respect the port was excellent. They've managed to get the game running in a pretty faithful, true to form manner, but it doesn't stack up as well with the xbox one version as youtube videos suggests. But, of course, I know the first thing people that don't like me saying this are going to throw my way: my preference of the xbox one version of tomb raider over the ps4 version. Yes, my view has not changed, and my simple response to that false equivalence is good luck comparing a next gen, totally locked 30fps experience to titanfall on 360 with pretty obvious visual cutbacks in multiple areas. Not the most flattering comparison.

 

[Synth]

The work already needs to be duplicated because you have to deal with two console platforms.

Reducing the overall cost of your online infrastructure by moving half of your customer base to free servers seems to be a logical move.

You're either misunderstanding me, or simply don't know anything about software development.

You can have common code across different platforms. I can create an app that runs on a web service for two completely different platforms, but have them share a large amount of common code accessed through an external API. The common code for the service does not need to be created repeatedly for every new platform that uses it, and any successful testing is valid for every platform that uses it. If I create a third party Twitter app using their API, Twitter does not suddenly need to duplicate all the testing on their end to ensure that their service still works. I only need to worry about testing my unique code for the platform I'm creating it for.

The workload is not equal. It's really as simple as that. It's not a reasonably debateable topic... especially not if the alternative server costs the same as the one you've already written an implementation for.

 

[not_so_special]

that's the last I'll say about that.

it wont be

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

it wont be

Come on now, somebody took three of his posts spanning the development and release of a game spread over months, of different builds to attack him, and he's not allowed to reply to say why it's disingenuous?