Support NeoGAF

[USC-fan]

I disagree most strongly. If you re-read through the beginning part of this thread, you'll see that the majority opinion is that the "power of the cloud" is bullshit marketing speak, and has been since the beginning.

As has been proven today, it's definitely not bullshit.

Yeah, they probably jumped the gun by starting to talk about something that was merely a pipe dream for them, and that's how they got in trouble. Their marketing and PR team latched on to it and they went on and on about it with almost nothing to show for it.

Now, the argument on whether the tech is ideal for a consumer environment is another argument altogether and would probably be worthy of a new thread once we get some more data.

Its bullshit.

If it wasnt bullshit the whole game would be using it not just some mode in a multiplayer match.

You cant double down in these crazy claims with a huge "*"

 

[ZOONAMI]

Nvidia's grid is a shining example of cloud power. Shit is amazing. I know not related to MS cloud power talk, but still.

 

[Overside]

As has been mentioned, this is geometrical data. We're talking kilobytes and megabytes here. Basically, if Xbox Live works for you, there's no reason this won't either.

Bandwidth isnt the problem, if all we needed was bandwidth, all of microsofts crazy claims wouldnt just be doable, theyd be chump change. Its latency. Its not how wide, or how much data you can send at once, its how fast can electricity travel.

Even here, in this perfect closed environment, you can see the updates and the corrections, they are very frequent, (not in the good way, as in its updated so frequently and consistantly that its indistinguishable from client side, but in that its often enough to see it happen consistently), and happen on a large scale. Debris is contantly warping to a new location or changing trajectory with each packet thats recieved, or flat out blinking out of existince as it didnt make the cut in time.

Further more, once a peice of geometry is 'activated', or sent server side, it no longer interacts with other objects that have been 'activated', they just all clip through each other, they only interact with geometry thats still tracked client side.

These issues will get exponentially worse, the farther away from the server you get, or as other factors that affect latency are introduced. It may get really really bad when its first introduced to a live environment for a while.

Basically, its exactly all the shortcomings certain people made note of the first time the cloud destruction was shown.

Still, its pretty dang cool.

 

[lord_lad]

The power of the cloud disappeared because its application were ho hum.....

Some more NPC in titanfall.....and ????

 

[Pathfinder]

Its bullshit.

If it wasnt bullshit the whole game would be using it not just some mode in a multiplayer match.

If they allowed cloud computing in single-player, it would require an always-on Internet connection.

And then we would have complaints of a whole different nature.

 

[USC-fan]

Bandwidth isnt the problem, if all we needed was bandwidth, all of microsofts crazy claims wouldnt just be doable, theyd be chump change. Its latency. Its not how wide, or how much data you can send at once, its how fast can electricity travel.

Even here, in this perfect closed environment, you can see the updates and the corrections, they are very frequent, and happen on a large scale. Debris is contantly warping to a new location or changing trajectory with each packet thats recieved, or flat out blinking out of existince as it didnt make the cut in time.

Further more, once a peice of geometry is 'activated', or sent server side, it no longer interacts with other objects that have been 'activated', they just all clip through each other, they only interact with geometry thats still tracked client side.

These issues will get exponentially worse, the farther away from the server you get, or as other factors that affect latency are introduced. It may get really really bad when its first introduced to a live environment for a while.

Basically, its exactly all the shortcomings certain people made note of the first time the cloud destruction was shown.

Still, its pretty dang cool.

its why they are only using it when the game is hosted on the server already. It wont work any other way.

If they allowed cloud computing in single-player, it would require an always-on Internet connection.

And then we would have complaints of a whole different nature.

Thats not the problem. Its a tech problem.

 

[Rimon-hanit]

This was a very petty bump, just make a new thread.

 

[Overside]

The power of the cloud disappeared because its application were ho hum.....

Some more NPC in titanfall.....and ????

Some really cool, albeit noticably irregular mass scale destruction.

I bet it will be much less distracting from a in game stand point.

 

[Trup1aya]

Azure and Thunderhead are/were the exact same thing. Officially, both are labelled as Microsoft Cloud now.

Using the same infrastructure for two totally different types of customers...

The specifics for the cost to game developers were never revealled publically, but we do know it isn't that same as the rate MS charges other business...

 

[Melchiah]

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.

Here's a quote from 2013, which started it all.

http://www.develop-online.net/news/microsoft-cloud-makes-xbox-one-four-times-more-powerful/0114948

A spokesperson for Xbox Australia went on to reiterate the claims to Stevivor, and stated that the Xbox One would effectively be “40 times greater than the Xbox 360 in terms of processing capabilities” using the cloud.

 

[Overside]

its why they are only using it when the game is hosted on the server already. It wont work any other way.


Thats not the problem. Its a tech problem.

Of course not. The server is the cloud. You cant use the cloud if you arent... Using the cloud.

I think I may have missed what you were saying... ?

 

[Trup1aya]

Its bullshit.

If it wasnt bullshit the whole game would be using it not just some mode in a multiplayer match.

You cant double down in these crazy claims with a huge "*"

If the whole game used it, people would be bitching because they are forced to go online to play single player? Were you not around when MS tried to make an online only console?

 

[lord_lad]

Nvidia's grid is a shining example of cloud power. Shit is amazing. I know not related to MS cloud power talk, but still.

Nvidia Grid is similiar to PS Now...

most (if not all game streaming services) rely heavily on latency more than bandwidth..

I am from Singapore and although most ppl here in Singapore has crazy bandwidth (seriously i am on 300mbps internet speed and i am considered the lower end side) but i can't still participate in the PS Now beta (using my US PSN account) due to latency despite the fast bandwidth (too many hops from singapore to US)...

For cloud computing to work (and work well), the company hosting the services must have the infrastructure the likes of Google (a datacenter in every country). Microsoft seems more poised and capable than Sony to make it work........BUT...so far, Microsoft has not went its way to convince of cloud computing in gaming. My theory is that since the Xbox team are not the most profitable division in MS (let's be honest here....The Xbox team are probably tier 2 or 3 in MS Corp in terms of importance), the number of Windows Azure servers there are able to secure for Xbox Live is limited. Certainly the Windows Azure and Office 360 teams will take priority when it comes to servers capacity division.


(P.S. Please don't be upset when i said the Xbox team are tier 2/3 in Microsoft Corp. I'm not trolling. Though i am a primary PS4 owner and will never get a Xbox, I am a MSCE and predominantly work with Microsoft Servers products in my professional life....and know a few people from MS Corp. The Xbox Team were never tier 1. The tier 1 teams are always the Windows Team, Office Team and now the Services team. Although MS had restructured to the point where such segregation of teams no longer exists, the fact is Office productivity and Windows Azure (and licensing) is where MS makes the bulk of their gold and as such, will always take precedence over everything else. It is what it is.)

 

[USC-fan]

If the whole game used it, people would be bitching because they are forced to go online to play single player? Were you not around when MS tried to make an online only console?

That didnt seem to be a problem for destiny. It clear its a tech problem and i dont see how they can solve the lag problem.

Of course not. The server is the cloud. You cant use the cloud if you arent... Using the cloud.

I think I may have missed what you were saying... ?

No the multiplayer matches is hosted on servers like PC games like battlefield have done for decades.

 

[RexNovis]

I disagree most strongly. If you re-read through the beginning part of this thread, you'll see that the majority opinion is that the "power of the cloud" is bullshit marketing speak, and has been since the beginning.

As has been proven today, it's definitely not bullshit.

Yeah, they probably jumped the gun by starting to talk about something that was merely a pipe dream for them, and that's how they got in trouble. Their marketing and PR team latched on to it and they went on and on about it with almost nothing to show for it. And you're right, it was probably partly out of desperation.

Now, the argument on whether the tech is ideal for a consumer environment is another argument altogether and would probably be worthy of a new thread once we get some more data.

We are all consumers. For the consumer this tech is, as far as we currently know, bullshit. This post does an excellent job of explaining why the tech is simply not feasible in the average consumer's home:

Bandwidth isnt the problem, if all we needed was bandwidth, all of microsofts crazy claims wouldnt just be doable, theyd be chump change. Its latency. Its not how wide, or how much data you can send at once, its how fast can electricity travel.

Even here, in this perfect closed environment, you can see the updates and the corrections, they are very frequent, (not in the good way, as in its updated so frequently and consistantly that its indistinguishable from client side, but in that its often enough to see it happen consistently), and happen on a large scale. Debris is contantly warping to a new location or changing trajectory with each packet thats recieved, or flat out blinking out of existince as it didnt make the cut in time.

Further more, once a peice of geometry is 'activated', or sent server side, it no longer interacts with other objects that have been 'activated', they just all clip through each other, they only interact with geometry thats still tracked client side.

These issues will get exponentially worse, the farther away from the server you get, or as other factors that affect latency are introduced. It may get really really bad when its first introduced to a live environment for a while.

Basically, its exactly all the shortcomings certain people made note of the first time the cloud destruction was shown.

Still, its pretty dang cool.

TO anyone berating peeple for their skepticism these two posts do an excellent job of articulating why there is much to be skeptical of. I suggest you read them and seriously consider what they have to say:

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.

They have made destruction physics asynchronous and are running them on servers. Running basic physics, like collision detection, on servers is a standard procedure in online games. So that in itself is not extremely surprising. Running more complex destruction physics asynchronously certainly required some development effort and is surely not trivial. But to put that achievement properly in context, the following question have to be answered.

- 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?

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". 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.

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.

Have we seen anyone try high destructibility environments after Volition's third attempt to do so with the Red Faction series tanked just like the previous two?

I think this level of destruction with that graphical fidelity would be possible on the PS4, Xbox One, and any decent gaming rig if a developer wanted to make it happen. It's fucking lego block construction. There isn't any material deformation (other than basic shearing), phase changes, etc. evident in any of these gifs. This is an iterative step up over what Volition was knocking out of the park early last gen, Inflating the scope doesn't impress me.

Show me a game where the rockets being shot into the building actually chips away at the concrete, creating cracks, and the building then falls based on those damage patterns. Or one where the glass actually melts when explosions go off near it. Or liquids vaporizing into steam.

Also, maybe they should have actually seen how buildings go down or even how they're built. Buildings don't fall like that when explosives go off or when they're struck with a wrecking ball. They crumple and cave in, not topple over like a Jenga tower. Also, large concrete structures have rebar all through them, netting the concrete together, resulting in entirely different breakage patterns from what Crackdown exhibits.

I mean, if you're going to trumpet early 2000's tech as cutting edge proof of DA CLOUD POWA at least get a few structural engineers to make it look right.

The truth of the matter is that there is still a lot about this that just doesn't add up and if you still can't see how someone can have that mindset after reading these two posts I think you're wearing voluntary blinders when it comes to the "power of the cloud" as espoused by MS.

 

[Trup1aya]

That didnt seem to be a problem for destiny. It clear its a tech problem and i dont see how they can solve the lag problem.



No the multiplayer matches is hosted on servers like PC games like battlefield have done for decades.

Crackdown isn't destiny... Just go to the crackdown thread and look how many people were bitching about the rumors it was online only...

 

[USC-fan]

Crackdown isn't destiny... Just go to the crackdown thread and look how many people were bitching about the rumors it was online only...

That doesn't prove any point. its still a tech problem.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

No the multiplayer matches is hosted on servers like PC games like battlefield have done for decades.

cloud is servers is cloud is servers

 

[Trup1aya]

That doesn't prove any point. its still a tech problem.

What's the tech problem? The fact that offline games can't use online features?

The fact that the single player mode won't utilize this feature isn't a tech problem... It's a design decision

1) many consumers would shun the idea of HAVING to play crackdown online
2) it makes more sense to reserve server bandwidth for 2+ users than to have 1 user using that same bandwidth...

The tech surely can handle it... It would be no tougher than running a Mp session (in fact it would be easier)... But from a logistics standpoint it wouldn't make much sense for the reasons listed.

 

[USC-fan]

cloud is servers is cloud is servers

Exactly. Its why they can offload this to other servers since its already hosted on servers.

Starting to get it!

The end step would be completely hosting the game in the cloud. Like PSnow or grid. But with each step you get worse lag and higher cost.

 

[Overside]

No the multiplayer matches is hosted on servers like PC games like battlefield have done for decades.

Well, yeah, its not like the cloud is anything new. What else would it be?

"The end step would be completely hosting the game in the cloud. Like PSnow or grid. But with each step you get worse lag and higher cost."

Oh, Yeah, No, Ew. For so many reasons.

But mainly because I dont want everything I enjoy dissapearing when someone decides to repurpose the servers, or sell the hardware, or what have you.

 

[I Want Your Cat]

Well all i know is that i'm now a believer. I saw the gifs. This is actually pretty awesome.

 

[gamechanger87]

That doesn't prove any point. its still a tech problem.

How?

Go back and read my posts from Kampfheld whom was on target with every bring he said about this game. What is the tech problem?

He said they may need to limit destruction in an so campaign because at some point you won't have a city anymore.


Also, can we get some reactions from people whom saw the live demo tonight? I really want to see people's reactions when this game does what it says it's going to do because it's doing it now. I think a lot of you crapping on it seem to be of a certain view.

 

[Pathfinder]

Also, can we get some reactions from people whom saw the live demo tonight? I really want to see people's reactions when this game does what it says it's going to do because it's doing it now. I think a lot of you crapping on it seem to be of a certain view.

I'd love to get some reactions and/or footage of the game being played off-stage.

 

[gamechanger87]

Exactly. Its why they can offload this to other servers since its already hosted on servers.

Starting to get it!

The end step would be completely hosting the game in the cloud. Like PSnow or grid. But with each step you get worse lag and higher cost.

This is just the transfer of positional data. Not game streaming. You literally tell the game to move x particle by y based on calcs on the server.

 

[Tallshortman]

If they allowed cloud computing in single-player, it would require an always-on Internet connection.

And then we would have complaints of a whole different nature.

We already have always on internet games, they certainly don't have cloud servers doing significant computations for the local hardware. It is a pipe dream because the current infrastructure makes it such, DRM or "bad PR" is not the reason is can't be implemented in consumer games.

 

[ZOONAMI]

Nvidia Grid is similiar to PS Now...

most (if not all game streaming services) rely heavily on latency more than bandwidth..

I am from Singapore and although most ppl here in Singapore has crazy bandwidth (seriously i am on 300mbps internet speed and i am considered the lower end side) but i can't still participate in the PS Now beta (using my US PSN account) due to latency despite the fast bandwidth (too many hops from singapore to US)...

For cloud computing to work (and work well), the company hosting the services must have the infrastructure the likes of Google (a datacenter in every country). Microsoft seems more poised and capable than Sony to make it work........BUT...so far, Microsoft has not went its way to convince of cloud computing in gaming. My theory is that since the Xbox team are not the most profitable division in MS (let's be honest here....The Xbox team are probably tier 2 or 3 in MS Corp in terms of importance), the number of Windows Azure servers there are able to secure for Xbox Live is limited. Certainly the Windows Azure and Office 360 teams will take priority when it comes to servers capacity division.


(P.S. Please don't be upset when i said the Xbox team are tier 2/3 in Microsoft Corp. I'm not trolling. Though i am a primary PS4 owner and will never get a Xbox, I am a MSCE and predominantly work with Microsoft Servers products in my professional life....and know a few people from MS Corp. The Xbox Team were never tier 1. The tier 1 teams are always the Windows Team, Office Team and now the Services team. Although MS had restructured to the point where such segregation of teams no longer exists, the fact is Office productivity and Windows Azure (and licensing) is where MS makes the bulk of their gold and as such, will always take precedence over everything else. It is what it is.)

Except it actually works. In NA at least. It runs like a dream on my shield Android tv plugged into ethernet. Ps now runs like shit.

 

[USC-fan]

We already have always on internet games, they certainly don't have cloud servers doing computations for the local hardware. It is a pipe dream because the current infrastructure makes it such, you clearly don't understand the obstacles to such technology if you think DRM or "bad PR" is the reason is can't be implemented in consumer games.

Even with future infrastructure. i do not see how you can ever get around the lag problem. Unless we can host these servers next to the hardware. LOL

 

[Blobbers]

Power of the Cloud redeemed? Biggest megaton of 2015 honestly. Also crow threads are awesome, we mustn't condemn them. Remember that one time a guy literally bumped a 3-year-old thread to gloat about how he was right about MK vs DC? Legendary.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55845

 

[Trup1aya]

Even with future infrastructure. i do not see how you can ever get around the lag problem. Unless we can host these servers next to the hardware. LOL

Why do you think there's a lag problem to get around? This stuff is less data intensive than streaming a game or HD movie... Instead of sending a large video file, it's just positional data...

So long as there's a decent ping, there's no reason the user experience can't be enjoyable..

 

[True Fire]

Behold, Final Fantasy XIII on iOS. #PowerOfTheCloud

 

[renjworks]

I disagree most strongly. If you re-read through the beginning part of this thread, you'll see that the majority opinion is that the "power of the cloud" is bullshit marketing speak, and has been since the beginning.

As has been proven today, it's definitely not bullshit.

Yeah, they probably jumped the gun by starting to talk about something that was merely a pipe dream for them, and that's how they got in trouble. Their marketing and PR team latched on to it and they went on and on about it with almost nothing to show for it. And you're right, it was probably partly out of desperation.

Now, the argument on whether the tech is ideal for a consumer environment is another argument altogether and would probably be worthy of a new thread once we get some more data.

lol! exactly what was proven today?
how can cloud processing even go on par with local processing? tell me please.

 

[gamechanger87]

lol! exactly what was proven today?
how can cloud processing even go on par with local processing? tell me please.

Local is always better but unless you can pack a ton of CPUs local will struggle with computation. It's why supercomputers exist

 

[USC-fan]

Why do you think there's a lag problem to get around? This stuff is less data intensive than streaming a game or HD movie... Instead of sending a large video file, it's just positional data...

So long as there's a decent ping, there's no reason the user experience can't be enjoyable..

You are talking about bandwidth. Im talking about latency. Poor latency = lag.

large video files are cached. Latency does not matter in this files.

Local is always better but unless you can pack a ton of CPUs local will struggle with computation. It's why supercomputers exist

and servers will always struggle with latency. You have games running at 30 and 60 FPS. There is just so little time to send/process/receive data and not have lag problems.

 

[Garrett 2U]

Even with future infrastructure. i do not see how you can ever get around the lag problem. Unless we can host these servers next to the hardware. LOL

The same way every networked game gets over the lag problem? By hiding it.

You won't notice the lag in Crackdown multiplayer, and you wouldn't notice it the same if it was single player.

 

[Pathfinder]

lol! exactly what was proven today?
how can cloud processing even go on par with local processing? tell me please.

Just what kind of processors do you think are in our consoles? Tell me please.

 

[JaggedSac]

No the multiplayer matches is hosted on servers like PC games like battlefield have done for decades.

Actually, a single match is running on clusters of VMs, so not exactly the same.

 

[USC-fan]

The same way every networked game gets over the lag problem? By hiding it.

You won't notice the lag in Crackdown multiplayer, and you wouldn't notice it the same if it was single player.

Yes that the point. It just like every networked game. Its not something that gives you console 10x power. Its all silly marketing.

And you can only hide the latency so well.

 

[gamechanger87]

Yes that the point. It just like every networked game. Its not something that gives you console 10x power. Its all silly marketing.

And you can only hide the latency so well.

Latency is always a concern but more for fast twitch shooters right? For computations on where stuff should go the game will likely have predictive capability for where stuff should go. You won't notice x random block not being a foot lower in that milisecond. Physics are the best thing to off load. Latency is an issue with game streaming. This isn't that. What is your point exactly?

 

[TEH-CJ]

Microsoft moved onto DX12.

 

[Garrett 2U]

Yes that the point. It just like every networked game. Its not something that gives you console 10x power. Its all silly marketing.

And you can only hide the latency so well.

They design it based on the fact that it's going to be networked.
They don't just take a client side destruction engine and send it over the Internet.

I'm sorry it seems impossible to you, be glad you're not tackling the problem of programming it?
Luckily others have taken it as a challenge, here was a tech demo from last year showing it working.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MJfEUJ57qD8

You can drop your jaw in amazement when you try it next year in Crackdown 3.

 

[gamechanger87]

They design it based on the fact that it's going to be networked.
They don't just take a client side destruction engine and send it over the Internet.

I'm sorry it seems impossible to you, be glad you're not tackling the problem of programming it?
Luckily others have taken it as a challenge, here was a tech demo from last year showing it working.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MJfEUJ57qD8

You can drop your jaw in amazement when you try it next year in Crackdown 3.

Meh don't even bother. I give up at this point. If the game comes out and it works he will just say they could have easily done it all client side because it's so basic.

 

[USC-fan]

They design it based on the fact that it's going to be networked.
They don't just take a client side destruction engine and send it over the Internet.

I'm sorry it seems impossible to you, be glad you're not tackling the problem of programming it?
Luckily others have taken it as a challenge, here was a tech demo from last year showing it working.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MJfEUJ57qD8

You can drop your jaw in amazement when you try it next year in Crackdown 3.

Its easy to understand what they are doing and why it only work in multiplayer.

I saw that last year and talk about it in that thread last year. It clear what they are doing and how they are doing it.

Latency is always a concern but more for fast twitch shooters right? For computations on where stuff should go the game will likely have predictive capability for where stuff should go. You won't notice x random block not being a foot lower in that milisecond. Physics are the best thing to off load. Latency is an issue with game streaming. This isn't that. What is your point exactly?

Im not talking about input latency. You have a game running at 30 or 60 fps there just only so much time before you run into lag problems.

Its why it doesnt work in single player.

 

[Hugh Swank]

I'm looking forward to playing Crackdown-3. I don't care if they're using cloud compute or whatever. I just want an awesome game, and I liked what I saw at the Xbox briefing today.

 

[JaggedSac]

Meh don't even bother. I give up at this point. If the game comes out and it works he will just say they could have easily done it all client side because it's so basic.

Well, it could be done client side. But would require far greater computation and memory resources than exists in an Xbone.

 

[Garrett 2U]

Its easy to understand what they are doing and why it only work in multiplayer.

I saw that last year and talk about it in that thread last year. It clear what they are doing and how they are doing it.

Ok so you understand how it work smoothly in multiplayer? Great.

Now imagine you start up a multiplayer match and you're in a server by yourself.
Walaa, in just the same way, it would work flawlessly in single player.
The game would just require online.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

That doesn't prove any point. its still a tech problem.

This post doesn't make sense. It should be easier to pull off in SP than multi if the game was always online.

 

[gamechanger87]

Its easy to understand what they are doing and why it only work in multiplayer.

I saw that last year and talk about it in that thread last year. It clear what they are doing and how they are doing it.


Im not talking about input latency. You have a game running at 30 or 60 fps there just only so much time before you run into lag problems.

Its why it doesnt work in single player.

Or they could just make it an always online single player game? As Kamp said before one of the things they struggled with is that if they made single player fully destructible then you could level the entire city and wouldn't be playing anything. In addition, the verticality and orb collecting would be irrelevant.

It's not a tech issue. They had to make a design decision. If single player was fully destructible then there is no city and you can just blow up a skyscraper and kill all enemies.

 

[Nafai1123]

Actually, a single match is running on clusters of VMs, so not exactly the same.

A cluster of VMs? Sounds like a synchronization nightmare. Why not just run it on one VM?

This post doesn't make sense. It should be easier to pull off in SP than multi if the game was always online.

From a programming POV sure, from a resorce allocation POV no way.

 

[LukasTaves]

Bandwidth isnt the problem, if all we needed was bandwidth, all of microsofts crazy claims wouldnt just be doable, theyd be chump change. Its latency. Its not how wide, or how much data you can send at once, its how fast can electricity travel.

Even here, in this perfect closed environment, you can see the updates and the corrections, they are very frequent, (not in the good way, as in its updated so frequently and consistantly that its indistinguishable from client side, but in that its often enough to see it happen consistently), and happen on a large scale. Debris is contantly warping to a new location or changing trajectory with each packet thats recieved, or flat out blinking out of existince as it didnt make the cut in time.

Further more, once a peice of geometry is 'activated', or sent server side, it no longer interacts with other objects that have been 'activated', they just all clip through each other, they only interact with geometry thats still tracked client side.

These issues will get exponentially worse, the farther away from the server you get, or as other factors that affect latency are introduced. It may get really really bad when its first introduced to a live environment for a while.

Basically, its exactly all the shortcomings certain people made note of the first time the cloud destruction was shown.

Still, its pretty dang cool.

Latency in that case seems easy to hide. The cloud always knows where the player is aiming at, so even before you press the fire button the game can start receiving physics data of the simulation. And once the simulation starts, velocity data is sufficient to keep the objects animated until a more precise recalculation of position arrives.

I'm not sure I follow your comment about activated geometry, though. I think the whole point of offloading to the cloud is having all those possible collisions calculated, so they wouldn't clip each other. In the video you can even see that, when the player fires at the wall the pieces stack on each other as they should.