Support NeoGAF

[On Demand]

That bump was not worthy. What exactly did you prove? We already knew Crackdown was suppose to be using the cloud. All we saw is more footage of it supposedly in use.

Am i missing something?

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

it's about ethics in videogame hype

 

[Rembrandt]

That bump was not worthy. What exactly did you prove? We already knew Crackdown was suppose to be using the cloud. All we saw is more footage of it supposedly in use.

Am i missing something?

the entire front page, second one, etc. evidently.

 

[On Demand]

the entire front page, second one, etc. evidently.

Yeah i saw that. Do we have hands on real time game play and more details about how exactly the cloud is being used for CD?

 

[USC-fan]

Love they are doubling down on 20x numbers. Should have given up on this cloud nonsense after the marketing failed the first time.

So 3-4 years after console launch we get this example of cloud compute. Which only work when the game already running on the server. I'm shocked it doesn't do anything it was billed as.....

 

[Pathfinder]

Yeah i saw that. Do we have hands on real time game play and more details about how exactly the cloud is being used for CD?

They are apparently demo'ing what they have of the game so far this week at Gamescom.

We're hoping for a leak.

 

[Rembrandt]

Yeah i saw that. Do we have hands on real time game play and more details about how exactly the cloud is being used for CD?

Hands on press game play? No, of course not, because it's pre-alpha. Supposedly they're playing it live for some xbox after event today. and it's handling the destruction. But regardless of the entire lack of details, the first page is full of wrong posts now.

Love they are doubling down on 20x numbers. Should have given up on this cloud nonsense after the marketing failed the first time.

So 3-4 years after console launch we get this example of cloud compute. Which only work when the game already running on the server. I'm shocked it doesn't do anything it was billed as.....

How else would it work? Idk much about the tech at all.

and what cloud nonsense if it's in actual use?

 

[jailbird20022]

That bump was not worthy. What exactly did you prove? We already knew Crackdown was suppose to be using the cloud. All we saw is more footage of it supposedly in use.

Am i missing something?

• Crackdown 3 using cloud for destruction physics in MP
• He's waving it around as vindication that the cloud isn't useless
• Trying to claim crow - He's failing

Mean titanfall uses the cloud but no one was trying to claim crow then.

 

[Rembrandt]

• Crackdown 3 using cloud for destruction physics in MP
• He's waving it around as vindication that the cloud isn't useless
• Trying to claim crow - He's failing

Mean titanfall uses the cloud but no one was trying to claim crow then.

There weren't posts like this about Titanfall's bots:

Not likely to be what you and Rembrandt are peddling. It'll be a shoulder shrug feature like bots in titanfall and 'divertards' in Forza.

maybe there were, but this thread was mainly talking about crackdown and people's doubts about it/the cloud. gameplay footage is out and here we are.

 

[Mors_Verigo]

God, certain people here are so salty towards Xbox it's ridiculous. Were people expecting some sort of groundbreaking cloud-related news at Gamescom or something? I feel people are still upset with MS because of E3 2013, even though they've turned things around after they hired Phil Spencer, who's been great and has a pulse for what gamers want.

Microsoft, since then, has done a pretty good job of listening to their fans. For example they update the console monthly, which has a lot to do with consumer feedback. More than can be said about PS4 or Wii U, and the snail like pace it takes for them to update things.

The system has come a long way since a very shaky launch, no need to wait for an opportunity to shit on them for everything they do. E3 2013 is done with. Get over it.

 

[iMax]

That bump was not worthy. What exactly did you prove? We already knew Crackdown was suppose to be using the cloud. All we saw is more footage of it supposedly in use.

Am i missing something?

I think it's purpose was to address the cynicism that many members had on here in the past, you know, like this:

Well it looks like the cloud talk is back.

I just can't see in what conceivable way this cloud thing is going to help with XB1's performance compared to PS4. Hardware is hardware. Magical tricks from the sky can't change that.

Unless I'm missing something. In which case somebody please enlighten me....

 

[Trup1aya]

Hm...



My argument is independent of the use case and did not devalue the technological accomplishment. If you read my post, you will find that I actually do the opposite. Reading it might also help you to engage in what I actually wrote.

I read what you wrote, and it was full of shit...

The fact that you can allocate virtual servers and use them as you please was never disputed. The debate was about the scope of applicability of such servers to running a game, as well as the economic feasibility of doing that.

Unless you have access to Microsoft's books, or knowledge about how they intend to offer such utility to other developers, your speculation is just that, speculation... If MS didn't see this as economically feasible, then they wouldn't have invested in all of the tech to make it work... That said, they do already own the infrastructure, and it is already running, might at well use that capacity.

- How much processing power is actually used for these calculations per collapsing mash?
- Are collapsing buildings reused for all connected players in a shared online match, and if so, between how many players are they shared?
- What was the development effort of building and testing such a physics component?
- How expensive is it to run these servers?

Why is any of this any of your concern? Are you paying for the servers? The only question worth asking is can this be done on local hardware... We know the answer is a resounding no! There's no need to muddy the waters, it's a technical feat, and MS is footing the bill to make it happen. End of discussion...

Looking at what is happening in these gifs, I strongly suspect that the processing resources required for a single collapsing structure are way less than "20x".
[/b]

What the hell are you basing this on? Oh yeah, your ass calculations. Sure a single structure wouldn't need 20 xbox's to happen... But the system needs to be able to handle more than a single structure collapsing structure, and also run the rest of the game...

As others have said, that collapsing mash just does not look "20x" more complicated than similar things seen in other games. You could likely reach that number by aggregating everything that is happening at the same time in that shared online world. But if that world is shared by, lets say, 20 players, the figure loses its impact. "20x" for 40 players is less of a talking point than "20x" per player.

Again more ass figures... In what shared world scenario does your computational output vary by the number of users? In a typical shared world console game, regardless of how many people are in a session, the output his limited by the hardware of A single user... What this is doing is taking the physics load off of local machine.. The number of users in the session is irrelevant.

But what we do know is that a single Xbox one could not handle the physics calculations that were on display in the demo. Would it take 20 xb1 to perform such a scene locally? We'll never no for sure, but to date, there isn't a single console game in existence that displays so many physics calculations occurring at once... And we don't even know if the demo was even close maxing out the capabilities of their tech. And they have yet to implement other items that will also put a load on the system (traffic, pedestrians, enemy combatants, etc) nor do you know how much of the world will need to be processed at once... If it's like previous crackdowns, and players (at least 8 at a time in this demo) can be fairly spread out, and each capable of leveling multiple buildings at a time, then the system would have to be able to handle an amazingly unpredictable amount of destruction simultaneously if they want to guarantee a smooth experience. That's where the 20x comes in.

The more important point, though, is the question of development efforts and server costs. As I argued in earlier threads, it makes no sense to build such a thing, unless your game absolutely needs it, or you explicitly want to have a tech demo. It increases development costs and it creates server costs. Since destruction is something that has obviously already been done on much weaker hardware, a developer would, under normal circumstances, just create a physics components that scales well with the local hardware that is available. It's easier, cheaper, and creates virtually the same game. My prediction is that, for these reasons, this will remain an insular case.

Again, more ass comments. It makes sense to build this if the game you want to make exceeds the limits of the hardware it's being developed for.

 

[m@cross]

Wow this thread is confusing...

Is this people showing that the Cloud is utter bull shit compared to the marketing lies of MS?

Is this MS fans claiming the Crackdown video proves that the MS marketing lies where actually truths?

Is this some guy pulling out his rainy day told yah so post a bit premature and spilling gas on a fire that should have stayed dormant....

Seems all a bit childish and not worth discussion....

 

[Rembrandt]

I think it's purpose was to address the cynicism that many members had on here in the past, you know, like this:

Lmao, not surprised.

Wow this thread is confusing...

Is this people showing that the Cloud is utter bull shit compared to the marketing lies of MS?

Is this MS fans claiming the Crackdown video proves that the MS marketing lies where actually truths?

Is this some guy pulling out his rainy day told yah so post a bit premature and spilling gas on a fire that should have stayed dormant....

Seems all a bit childish and not worth discussion....

Earlier in this thread we even talked about waiting for crackdown footage. We have it so the thread was bumped.

 

[LukasTaves]

It was always spin, and transpired to be little more than what most of us predicted it would be, solid back end to boost the networking side, Eg dedicated servers and the like. Not this boost to local graphics rendering that would magically improve the Xbox One's performance 2-3 times over like Microsoft was selling. Obviously cloud compute has potential and real benefits (see Crackdown, Forza etc), but no where near the degree Microsoft were originally boasting. Not whilst remaining financially sensible or developmentally feasible anyway.

I honestly think it was mostly just misleading damage control to reduce the performance difference narrative that was becoming ever more obvious between the PS4 and Xbox One, and to give additional merit to their cloud investments and infrastructure. Hell, we even had people like Pennello come in here on GAF out spout nonsense too.

If the cloud is providing enough grunt to make it possible a game or scenario that xbone wouldn't be able to run on its own, how it's not increasing performance?

Yeah, I know the distinction, but what many people were simply saying that the cloud would in any way whatsoever provide anything concrete on the actual game performance. And apparently today they've proven wrong. The cloud is enabling the game to use significant more resources than it could running on xbone only.

 

[On Demand]

They are apparently demo'ing what they have of the game so far this week at Gamescom.

We're hoping for a leak.

Hands on press game play? No, of course not, because it's pre-alpha. Supposedly they're playing it live for some xbox after event today. and it's handling the destruction. But regardless of the entire lack of details, the first page is full of wrong posts now.

Yeah so that's what i mean. Still just demo's and talk about how it makes games better. There's no actual game out yet that uses the cloud and is doing things that couldn't be done without it. The bump for the crow eating was too soon imo.

I think it's purpose was to address the cynicism that many members had on here in the past, you know, like this:

And what's changed since then?

 

[Enter the Dragon Punch]

I read what you wrote, and it was full of shit...

Are you gonna counter what he said or just shit the thread up?

 

[Synth]

Ah yes.... I remember this thread... lol

 

[Pathfinder]

Yeah so that's what i mean. Still just demo's and talk about how it makes games better. There's no actual game out yet that uses the cloud and is doing things that couldn't be done without it. The bump for the crow eating was too soon imo.

And what's changed since then?

No, today we had actual pre-alpha gameplay.

Yes, still a demo. But it's also in-engine gameplay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_nZ1xYyj6A

The thread bump is called for.

 

[iMax]

And what's changed since then?

Did you even read your own post?

 

[BriGuy]

maybe there were, but this thread was mainly talking about crackdown and people's doubts about it/the cloud. gameplay footage is out and here we are.

Still comes off as a bit premature though. I'm not sure you can point to a pre-alpha in a tightly controlled "people will literally lose their jobs if this doesn't go off without a hitch" setting as representative gameplay footage, but I suppose time will tell.

Meanwhile, you've succeeded in turning a skeptical and overly cynical thread into a oddly vindictive and juvenile thread instead. Not much of an improvement.

 

[Rembrandt]

You're saying to wait until they show the game, then when we see the game you're going to say that we should wait to play it ourselves. I'm saying that it's clearly working in some form and they've shown us the backbone of the game running which is what matters for this discussion.

Predicted the future.

Still comes off as a bit premature though. I'm not sure you can point to a pre-alpha in a tightly controlled "people will literally lose their jobs if this doesn't go off without a hitch" setting as representative gameplay footage, but suppose time will tell.

Meanwhile, you've succeeded in turning a skeptical and overly cynical thread into a oddly vindictive and juvenile thread instead. Not much of an improvement.

Why have threads on any game before release if we're going to assume they're going to have drastic overhauls before release? We're going off what we have and the pre-alpha footage, which people wanted to see to know it exists, is an indication that the tech is working. People have the right to be skeptical, but people were in literal denial about the cloud existing or being used in a substantial way in any game, but they're wrong.

I think this thread is pretty funny since people seem upset that the footage is out.

 

[m@cross]

Lmao, not surprised.



Earlier in this thread we even talked about waiting for crackdown footage. We have it so the thread was bumped.

Ok, so it is MS fans feeling the Crackdown footage was enough proof to call out skeptics of the MS marketing claims.

Seems a bit premature and very childish, but to each his own I guess.

 

[Frog-fu]

Wow this thread is confusing...

Is this people showing that the Cloud is utter bull shit compared to the marketing lies of MS?

Is this MS fans claiming the Crackdown video proves that the MS marketing lies where actually truths?

Is this some guy pulling out his rainy day told yah so post a bit premature and spilling gas on a fire that should have stayed dormant....

Seems all a bit childish and not worth discussion....

It's very simple really.

At the inception of this thread, to the question: "what happened to the power of the cloud?" many posters called it BS, claimed it was nothing but PR babble and that it would never amount to anything substantial.

What we have now - what we've actually had since last year's MS Build if I'm not mistaken - proof is that "the power of the cloud" as MS advertised, i.e. cloud computing to improve games, is real. It works, it's a big part of Crackdown 3. It's being demoed live right now at Gamescom.

However, rather than accept that they were wrong, the posters that claimed the aforementioned things are shamelessly moving goals posts and trying to downplay the degree to which they were wrong by fixating on the "20x more powerful" figure that MS gave today (i.e. not months ago when this thread was made) - even though that's not what was at contention when they first posted in this thread.

As Rembrandt proved by pulling up their posts: these posters were outright denying that MS could deliver on what they promised and they turned out wrong because MS did in fact deliver.

 

[Javin98]

So this thread was bumped to prove that the power of the cloud isn't just bullshit marketing because a pre alpha footage of Crackdown uses it and almost the entire thread is wrong? LOL, ok.

 

[Pathfinder]

So this thread was bumped to prove that the power of the cloud isn't just bullshit marketing because a pre alpha footage of Crackdown uses it and almost the entire thread is wrong? LOL, ok.

That is correct.

 

[Rembrandt]

Ok, so it is MS fans feeling the Crackdown footage was enough proof to call out skeptics of the MS marketing claims.

Seems a bit premature and very childish, but to each his own I guess.

Why would that not be proof unless people truly believe that this game won't use the cloud at all? If the game launches without using any cloud processing then people were right, but as of right now, they're not. The game wouldn't even launch if it didn't use it.

 

[Javin98]

That is correct.

LOL, I wish I could have such wishful thinking.

 

[On Demand]

That is correct.

And it's wrong. lol. It doesn't really prove anything.

Yet anyway.

 

[Pathfinder]

And it's wrong. lol. It doesn't really prove anything.

I honestly don't understand how some people can keep denying it. We've seen the proof today.

 

[Javin98]

I honestly don't understand how some people can keep denying it. We've seen the proof today.

So I suppose you have a copy of Crackdown in your XB1 now? I wouldn't call supposedly pre-alpha footage "proof".

 

[Almighty]

So this thread was bumped to prove that the power of the cloud isn't just bullshit marketing because a pre alpha footage of Crackdown uses it and almost the entire thread is wrong? LOL, ok.

From what I can tell it seems it was bumped because while a lot of Microsoft's marketing about the cloud before the One hit still looks to be mostly bullshit some people were wrong when they said that the cloud will do nothing. Sure it still looks like Microsoft over-promised, but a few things they mentioned(based on footage of a game still in development) are being delivered so eat that crow ye of little faith.

 

[Rembrandt]

And it's wrong. lol. It doesn't really prove anything.

Yet anyway.

So I suppose you have a copy of Crackdown in your XB1 now? I wouldn't call supposedly pre-alpha footage "proof".

So you two honestly believe there's a chance that game will launch with no use of the cloud? The one feature they've been touting in the one game co-developed by a company that specializes in cloud computing?

and why "supposedly?" they're playing it live at xbox fan fest.

really?

 

[Pathfinder]

So I suppose you have a copy of Crackdown in your XB1 now? I wouldn't call supposedly pre-alpha footage "proof".

This again?

This point of view states that, for some reason between now and Retail, they might stop using cloud computing for destruction.

 

[Weltall Zero]

It would be funny if it wasn't so annoying and indicative of attitudes shitting up my enjoyment of gaming and talking about gaming every day of this damn gen.

/breathe

Tell me more about how you need everyone else to agree with you before you can enjoy something.

 

[leeh]

So I suppose you have a copy of Crackdown in your XB1 now? I wouldn't call supposedly pre-alpha footage "proof".

I would say so. It's not like they're going to turn round and say, "oh sorry, we can't do this game any more". Whether it has a smooth release and experience overall, that's a different story. That's proof that the cloud can help in an game, yes. Since it does add proportionally more hardware as well, it adds more power than what locally it can achieve.

 

[iMax]

It's very simple really.

At the inception of this thread, to the question: "what happened to the power of the cloud?" many posters called it BS, claimed it was nothing but PR babble and that it would never amount to anything substantial.

What we have now - what we've actually had since last year's MS Build if I'm not mistaken - proof is that "the power of the cloud" as MS advertised, i.e. cloud computing to improve games, is real. It works, it's a big part of Crackdown 3. It's being demoed live right now at Gamescom.

However, rather than accept that they were wrong, the posters that claimed the aforementioned things are shamelessly moving goals posts and trying to downplay the degree to which they were wrong by fixating on the "20x more powerful" figure that MS gave today (i.e. not months ago when this thread was made) - even though that's not what was at contention when they first posted in this thread.

As Rembrandt proved by pulling up their posts: these posters were outright denying that MS could deliver on what they promised and they turned out wrong because MS did in fact deliver.

What a glorious summary. This needs to go into the OP.

LOL, I wish I could have such wishful thinking.

And it's wrong. lol. It doesn't really prove anything.

Yet anyway.

 

[LukasTaves]

Still comes off as a bit premature though. I'm not sure you can point to a pre-alpha in a tightly controlled "people will literally lose their jobs if this doesn't go off without a hitch" setting as representative gameplay footage, but I suppose time will tell.

Meanwhile, you've succeeded in turning a skeptical and overly cynical thread into a oddly vindictive and juvenile thread instead. Not much of an improvement.

It's not that much of a controlled environment going by the press impressions.

It seems this is already running on the real azure, instead of some sort of backstage server to hide the latency, so at least seems to be the real tech at work.

And as for why they needed the stage demo to be perfect, I guess that's why they showed recorded gameplay instead of playing live.

 

[nib95]

Why would that not be proof unless people truly believe that this game won't use the cloud at all? If the game launches without using any cloud processing then people were right, but as of right now, they're not. The game wouldn't even launch if it didn't use it.

Microsoft used Cloud computing/data logging for a few games now. Eg AI with Titanfall (even though the AI is terrible), Drivatars with Forza, now destruction with Crackdown. I don't think it was ever really a question of whether cloud computing was real in any capacity, as it was already being used in games before Microsoft even boasted about it or these consoles were even out (Eg in certain MMO's, mobile games etc). I think the bigger point was or is whether it has actually offered this 10x to 20x performance increase Microsoft was boasting (with improvements to graphics, lighting, AI, physics etc), which based on the evidence, does not seem to be the case. Not really sure if what we're seeing in Crackdown could be done at a local level, but based on games from previous generations, I don't see why not, but it's impossible for us to know. The hardware is much more powerful after all. So far the use of Cloud compute has been gimmicky at best, more so considering how much Microsoft pushed and promoted it. I suppose Crackdown could change that. The jury is still out, but so far the proof is not in the pudding.

They've definitely toned down the complexity of physics and sheer number of particles in a big way compared to their initial cloud destruction demo though.

 

[Synth]

So I suppose you have a copy of Crackdown in your XB1 now? I wouldn't call supposedly pre-alpha footage "proof".

Whilst I'm fine with acknowledging that things can change between now and release... this whole "do you actually have it on you console right now?" stuff seems oddly specific here. People don't usually wait until a game's launch to dump praise on the things it accomplishes.

I mean, sure when it was the building demo at MS Build, then I can kinda understand how people may be assuming it wouldn't amount to anything... but I'd consider Crackdown being in development for this long, and actually being shown (beyond just a CG trailer) to be beyond reasonable doubt that the technology behind it is at the very least viable.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

Server side simulation uses more CPU than available on client.

Technically speaking, this is not a revelation, it's how the internet works.

 

[Rembrandt]

Microsoft used Cloud computing/data logging for a few games now. Eg AI with Titanfall (even though the AI is terrible), Drivatars with Forza, now destruction with Crackdown. I don't think it was ever really a question of whether cloud computing was real in any capacity, as it was already being used in games before Microsoft even boasted about it or these consoles were even out (Eg in certain MMO's, mobile games etc). I think the bigger point was or is whether it has actually offered this 10x to 20x performance increase Microsoft was boasting (with improvements to graphics, lighting, AI, physics etc), which based on the evidence, does not seem to be the case. Not really sure if what we're seeing in Crackdown could be done at a local level, but based on games from previous generations, I don't see why not, but it's impossible for us to know. The hardware is much more powerful after all. So far the use of Cloud compute has been gimmicky at best, but I suppose Crackdown could change that. The jury is still out.

They've definitely toned down the complexity of physics and sheer number of particles in a big way compared to their initial cloud destruction demo though.

I'm not quoting all those posts again that don't even mention the 10x performance.

 

[LyleLanley]

Out of curiosity, what performance is meant to be increased twenty times?

 

[Trup1aya]

Are you gonna counter what he said or just shit the thread up?

I was working from moble, if your interested the full rebuttal is there...

 

[justgames7604]

So much goal post moving. Youre gonna hurt your back from carrying them all day.

 

[mosdl]

Server side simulation uses more CPU than available on client.

Technically speaking, this is not a revelation, it's how the internet works.

Cloud just means dedicated servers essentially, nothing new

 

[nib95]

I'm not quoting all those posts again that don't even mention the 10x performance.

They don't have to. People saying Microsoft were fooling us with PR or bullshit is still accurate based on what they promised, compared to what we're seeing or have seen so far today. Requiring people to specifically mention the 10x figure or whatever else, is just semantics.

 

[Synth]

Microsoft used Cloud computing/data logging for a few games now. Eg AI with Titanfall (even though the AI is terrible), Drivatars with Forza, now destruction with Crackdown. I don't think it was ever really a question of whether cloud computing was real in any capacity, as it was already being used in games before Microsoft even boasted about it or these consoles were even out (Eg in certain MMO's, mobile games etc). I think the bigger point was or is whether it has actually offered this 10x to 20x performance increase Microsoft was boasting (with improvements to graphics, lighting, AI, physics etc), which based on the evidence, does not seem to be the case. Not really sure if what we're seeing in Crackdown could be done at a local level, but based on games from previous generations, I don't see why not, but it's impossible for us to know. The hardware is much more powerful after all. So far the use of Cloud compute has been gimmicky at best, more so considering how much Microsoft pushed and promoted it. I suppose Crackdown could change that. The jury is still out, but so far the proof is not in the pudding.

They've definitely toned down the complexity of physics and sheer number of particles in a big way compared to their initial cloud destruction demo though.

Titanfall's AI isn't terrible... it's just not designed to be difficult. The AI grunt respond very well to the various scenarios created throughout a match, and the Titans are generally pretty good overall. If they wanted to simply have the AI fuck up you, then they would.

The idea that the cloud being useful to improve the games wasn't contested is BS, sorry... I was arguing earlier in this thread extensively with numerous people discounting even the possibility of something like Crackdown coming to fruition (or even that AI could be done well).

 

[justgames7604]

I was working from moble, if your interested the full rebuttal is there...

I assume CPU performance.

 

[Hockeymac18]

I'm not quoting all those posts again that don't even mention the 10x performance.

Did MS ever actually promise improvements (let alone 10x improvement) to graphics? I know people may have implied it (based on less-than-clear wording from MS), but I'm genuinely curious if that was actually ever promised/discussed.