-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
"The Power of the Cloud" - what happened?
- Thread starter JohnnyFootball
- Start date
It's not a problem for Destiny, because you can't actually play Destiny singleplayer....
Jesus...
Let me back up.
the tech debate goes back to when all this was announce. How exactly would the cloud increase the performance of the xbone xxx% as Microsoft stated?
The only true way was to off load each part of the game engine to the cloud and send back data to the console. But how do you do this without insane cost and lag? Some people thought they would only send off physic/sound/gfx/etc calculation to the cloud. The engine will still run on the local console but have to "wait" for the physic or whatever to be sent back. So here come the problem with the latency and bandwidth.
What is really going on is just like every other server hosted multiplayer game. The "secret sauce" seem to being using multi VM or just off loading the physic to another server. We really dont have exact detail i believe on exactly what they are doing. In theory you could just run it on a single "high end" server.
But this is only increasing the "physic" and not increasing the console power 10x or whatever because it takes such a niche thing and its costly. it makes perfect sense why it only work in the multi player mode where the game is already in the "cloud" and why it only works with physics.
Really the whole problem with anything is just how MS choose to market this "feature." They completely over sold it.
so you're saying what we've seen today won't be what we play in the beta next year?
you're rambling. this could work in a single player game, but it would have to be always online. since it isn't, the single player has limited destruction. they delivered because it went from proof of concept to an actual gameplay video with a beta coming next summer for us to try. how is that not delivering? people said we would have no tangible effects from it, but we have a game that depends on it for destructible environments in its multiplayer game.
did you even read those quotes? the first expands upon the 20x more powerful thing, something none of us were really debating because none of us truly know and the second is asking for a pipedream because the destruction isn't realistic enough. i've yet to see a game rival this level of destruction with this sort of density; the second poster said consoles can do it locally, but he's speaking from his ass. the first poster is just focusing on the 20x more powerful part, not saying that the tech itself isn't possible. he's basically saying that it's cheaper to do it locally and adjust based on the specs of the console itself.
You didn't answer my question.
but i'll leave just a very basic analogy here:
local:
1. player clicked a button on the cotroller
2. processor performs computation
3. device render on screen
server:
1. player clicked a button on the cotroller
2. input sent to the cloud
3. cloud performs computation
4. cloud returns result
5. device receive the output
6. device render on screen
see the difference?
the processors we have in our consoles today are good enough to produce amazing games such as driveclub, bloodborne, sunset overdrive (looks fun and fantastic) and soon uncharted 4.
But probably not Crackdown 3. Maybe we could do it all locally next gen, but if it's doable now, and it's going to be online anyway (which adds most of the steps in your second example anyway), then yay?
sono
Member
Ouch
The processors are actually pretty crappy. High-scale fully dynamic destruction is pretty much at the top of the list when it comes to heaviest CPU calculations needed.
You're partly right, but that's different. All the processing is done on the server side for PS Now, and then it's repackaged as a video.
Crackdown computing and similar mixes local and cloud, and nothing is sent to you as a video.
Again, Latency is no more a problem with this method as compared to game streaming.
Also, Latency doesn't become more of an issue simply because more objects are being tracked. It just means more positional data needs to be sent with each packet...
For example, I can go play Battlefield right now, and enjoy destructive environments in an online P2P setting... Being p2p it will inherently have more latency than a dedicated server solution like CD3 is employing. When a player blows up a wall, the action has to go from the player to the host, then the destruction is processed on the hosts cpu, then the positional information of each chunk has to go from the host, to every other player... It's a long, high latency path, However the destruction experience is still considered enjoyable at 60fps.
With CD3 solution, the information path is shortened significantly thanks to the dedicated servers. However, since the destruction is more detailed, there is more information that needs to be sent from the server to each player... So, the amount of data being sent is increased in comparison to BF, but the dependence on speed hasn't changed, and the speed of the communication has actually increased.... There's no additional lag issue in this use case over existing MP games.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
PSNow doesn't work for everyone, it's entirely network dependent. Which is kind of the point.
It's also not the same. The PSNow is showing, esentially, a video display of the game. All the calculations and rendering are done on the server, it's not just picking parts to run via a cloud service and it's not adding "graphics" to the games, they're presented "as is". Where people are taking issue is that idea that this allows for enhanced graphics by offloading a handful of calculations to the server.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
My point is that PSNow is actually a more severe example of cloud computing, because it is so latency-sensitive. Crackdown is only offloading stuff that's wasteful/can't be done on the local processor, and doesn't matter if the latency is quite high.
If PSNow works, then cloud computing in Crackdown sure as hell works.
Are you maybe looking at this the wrong way? Don't think about it as "freeing up local resources" so much as creating additional effects that aren't possible on a single local console.
Pathfinder
Member
But the processors are not nearly as capable of performing the calculations required for all of the physics in the multiplayer mode in Crackdown 3.
Obviously local is better, but the only way something like that would be possible this gen is with cloud computing to do most of the heavy lifting.
RealityCheque
Banned
if the processors on the (x1) console are not capable -- at least for what the developers of crackdown 3 are trying to achieve, i also don't really see how processing from the server side will help them.
looking at the live demo, how they try to destroy "burj al arab" i supposed, is not really realistic and what at least I saw there all look like wireframes and set pieces crumbling down and even the physics is way far off and all of it anyways doesn't really represent real destruction scenario.
if that is what they are trying to do, then let me say that those are all just still goal-reaching and to me at least, the technology is not yet totally "there" and still for me that I am not convinced that they have proven something about how the cloud will make a game better.
PSNow is a game being fully run and rendered on a server or separate machine, and simply video streamed to the player. That is not the same thing as having the cloud carry out separate and specific computations that would have otherwise been done at a local level, and have them done in conjunction with local level rendering.
Pathfinder
Member
Give it time. As the game development progresses, we'll get more and more tidbits about how everything works and how the server-side calculations will work.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
Yes. I know that. As stated above.
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
Incredibly, you appear to have no problem remembering and accessing quotes from ask those posters who have expressed doubts about the claims MS have made about the cloud.
justgames7604
Member
I think the point the point he/she is getting at is that from a computational point of view having a cloud server run an entire game then stream that game is a much heavier task requiring shit tons more bandwidth too. So if a game can run on a cloud server for millions of users then why cant a shared map that multiple players are using at once have its destruction physics be calculated on a cloud server too.
I think...
The denial is still running strong I see.
I wonder what these people are gunna say when people are blowing up entire cities at home next year.
Also, regarding the lack of destruction in SP, it makes a lot of sense if you consider it from a game design perspective. It would be a bit ridiculous if you were to just flatten half the city. The city would have to magically fix itself each time you loaded the game. It would completely break the game and make it impossible to actually design missions etc.
It doesn't matter as much in MP as the point of that mode is to fuck around blowing shit up with friends. In SP you have objectives and missions which just wouldn't work with that level of destruction.
I wonder what these people are gunna say when people are blowing up entire cities at home next year.
Also, regarding the lack of destruction in SP, it makes a lot of sense if you consider it from a game design perspective. It would be a bit ridiculous if you were to just flatten half the city. The city would have to magically fix itself each time you loaded the game. It would completely break the game and make it impossible to actually design missions etc.
It doesn't matter as much in MP as the point of that mode is to fuck around blowing shit up with friends. In SP you have objectives and missions which just wouldn't work with that level of destruction.
justgames7604
Member
Well it would also make orb hunting impossible.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
Exactly. I didn't think I needed to be quite that explicit, but apparently I did!
He, btw ;-)
Audioboxer
Member
It has been too sunny, not enough clouds around.
The use for destruction in multiplayer is very smart. Multiplayer means a guarantee of an online connection, so no questions about 'what happens if I'm offline'. Major destruction should help with latency mitigation. Assuming you're throwing a bomb or firing a rocket, you have a second or two before the explosion. Enough time to send the imoact point up to the cloud and get the information back to the local client before it hits. I assume it'll be doing something like just playing back the animation on the Xbox, and the cloud is sending the actual calculations back - a bit like a realtime cutscene streaming data off the disc. Probably sending key frame data for each block, and letting the console interpolate between them.
Of course MS wants this to turn into a narrative about 'the power of the cloud' and a belief by people that this gives Xbox one a big boost and lots of games will be better for this. But there are still lots of hurdles to having this be more widespread
- latency. Some games can use cloud processing for slower things that can mask latency but not all can.
- bandwidth. What if you don't have decent broadband? Enough to play multiplayer, but not enough for additional data for cloud processing? does the developer need to code for both situations?
- cost. MS can either subsidise the cost of azure servers for crackdown, or simply eat it. Not everyone will be able to.
- lifetime service. How long will those servers be up for? We are already getting MP servers shut down quite quickly - will we be losing more features in games when they turn off the cloud processing elements after 12-18 months?
I'd be interested to see what CPU power is being reserved for this. Cloud services are generally quite weak regarding CPU, and I could see this game being a pretty harsh stress test when you get lots of people online at once after launch. It will be interesting to see if MS consider this a potential expansion possibility for Azure, bringing in more computing power for rental for third parties.
geordiemp
Member
The cloud will work absolutely fine for a player say in California if its next to the server thats running it. I imagine it will work fine for many states in USA.
I doubt MS will have servers in each country. I live in UK, and if there is no UK server, then the lag delay will make the experience no better than the console CPU going slow and doing the stuff itself.
Same goes for PSnow, try playing a 60 FPS fighting game remotely from a server, its a fail.
Same goes for multiplayer games when you are in UK and host is in USA...mega fail.
The question is how many servers are being located around the world to give LOCAL cloud power.
Yes it works at a game show with a server in the back room...woopedydoo.
note ; this post is about cloud power foe consoles in general...not just crackdown
Until MS talks about cloud local in UK and EU...its a complete waste of breath
I doubt MS will have servers in each country. I live in UK, and if there is no UK server, then the lag delay will make the experience no better than the console CPU going slow and doing the stuff itself.
Same goes for PSnow, try playing a 60 FPS fighting game remotely from a server, its a fail.
Same goes for multiplayer games when you are in UK and host is in USA...mega fail.
The question is how many servers are being located around the world to give LOCAL cloud power.
Yes it works at a game show with a server in the back room...woopedydoo.
note ; this post is about cloud power foe consoles in general...not just crackdown
Until MS talks about cloud local in UK and EU...its a complete waste of breath
Which is impacted more by latency. Since everything is still performed locally, key being player movement, then would you really notice if a building started blowing up 0.06 (60ms) seconds later than expected?
That too.
How exactly are you going to get an orb at the top of a skyscraper if you destroyed the entire thing 5 minutes into the game.
Dude, you obviously haven't played any of the games which use Azure since they have DC selection. They have 2 DC's with sub 30ms for the UK. For example I get 16ms from Europe West. Azure is huge, its a billion dollars division. I feel like people forget that.
It's hardly a marketed brand, it's an internal codename. Every project has a codename.
So, to summarize: you have no idea about the running costs of these servers, yet still you are confident that I am the one talking "ass", and that readily available general knowledge about running costs of servers and services in a cloud-based paradigm somehow does not apply here. Somehow, Microsoft is a business where different rules apply, and somehow they use some unknown black magic that negates these running costs.
Let me remind us how this all started: I claimed that the approach in Crackdown will be an insular one, because it makes no sense to pay for server infrastructure and service maintenance, unless the game absolutely needs it to be sold, or unless you explicitly want to have a tech demo for what you claimed during console release. If servers and services imply non-trivial development and maintenance costs, it doesn't make sense to use them as pure resources of computation for games. You would just scale the game down and save the money. Things like destruction have obviously been done before, so you can implement them at a scale appropriate to the available hardware.
Nothing that you said counters that claim in any way, unless you really want to claim that Microsoft burdens no relevant costs in running an online infrastructure just for that purpose and available to any game at no relevant cost, or that developing games that do these things involves more development effort. That would be an outlandish claim to anyone who has a faint idea about these issues. Indeed, Microsoft is charging second-party developers even for more conservative use of its infrastructure, so I really don't know on which basis you are trying to argue here. Everything you are writing is consistent with someone who has a defensive reflex against anyone who does not drink the marketing kool aid.
ManUnkindH
Member
It became sunny.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
The thing with what we're seeing done with Crackdown is that the results are not as latency-intensive. You could have a shoddy 300ms ping to the server and the destruction would still be ok because the destruction doesn't need to be as instantaneous as other events to be acceptable. And we're talking about MP here, so if your latency was high you'd be having a shit time with MP in general, not just additional cloud compute operations.
And besides that, MS does have servers in Europe. Two data centres, if I recall.
I could right a long post about this, but to keep it simple, if any platform expansion was needed for the game, it probably fell under XBL budget rather than the game. Since this game is the first and the innovater and first party, MS will most likely subsidise the running costs when launched.
Since Azure is over a billion profitable currently, Its a non-issue especially when they could make a lot of customers for Azure if this was a success.
For 3rd/2nd parties, why invest in your own platform which would cost proportionately more than using Azure?
Azure's Northern Europe data centre is located in Dublin Ireland. It may not be in the UK as such but it's as near as damn it. The Western Europe centre is based in the Netherlands (Amsterdam IIRC). Like yourself, I get great low latency connections to both.
That does not address the issue that I raised, and it also ignores what I wrote. Let me bold some relevant parts.
The fact that people actually think this is hilarious.
Where do people think we're going in the future?
For that matter, I bet there are those that criticize "power of the cloud" but will defend game streaming even though both services face the same problems.(Latency and infrastructure.)
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
Pick the orb up off the floor?
I dont get what your saying? The servers are also hosting the online games, no servers, no online. They just need more resources due to the load, but when you have thousands at your disposal, its not really an issue.
Like I said with 2nd/3rd parties. The cost of your own infrastructure is astronomical. Its more financially viable to rent from MS in this situation, considering the flexibility and since theyd probably have a less stress free launch.
Bitch Pudding
Member
What exactly did this Michael Bay-approved-trailer actually proof? Nothing. Yes, there is a lot of debris and buildungs collapsing, but where exactly is the proof that this couldn't be accomplished w/o the "power of the cloud" / a stable Internet connection? I have seen collapsing buildings before. I even fought a helicopter in one while it was collapsing.
It is very premature to talk about "proofs" for that "Power of the Cloud" and from my point of view I really doubt that a cloud is actually needed for those effects.
All I can see in this statement for now is the usual PR bullshit we are used to.
So you too think that servers and services just pay for themselves with some kind of black magic? These "thousands of servers" didn't just grow on trees to be "at the disposal" of game developers. And every server time used by service A cannot be sold to other customers.
Crackdown orbs float, dude
1)People keep bringing up latency as if it's more of a concern with this application than other current titles...
This particular technology wouldn't require data packets to be received anymore quickly than normal... It just needs packets to contain more information about more objects at once.... MP games already send us physics calculations from the host or server, and our online games work well enough... We don't need that interaction to be faster, we just that interaction to contain more data...
2) which brings us to bandwidth, another thing that shouldn't be an issue... Again, MP games already send positional data across our current internet connections... Yes, the destruction scene here would need more bandwidth than were used to using for games, but it would still be LESS bandwidth intensive that watching an HD movies. If your ISP can handle you watching Netflix then bandwidth shouldn't be a problem.
3) cost is none of your concern.. That's for MS to worry about... And surely they've run the numbers....
4) lifetime is no more of a concern here than it is for any other MP game... Destiny's gonna get shut down one day... That's doesn't mean people can enjoy their time with it now... The fact that a MP server will eventually die doesn't mean it's a lost cost to push the limits of what you can do in an online game.
cripterion
Member
It's gone, along with its 5 members. They got rocked hard by Vici.
justgames7604
Member
The orbs fucking float and fly on high rise buildings. Bloody golden snitch shit.
Azure servers are not dedicated to singular tasks, a server running a Crackdown session could be running Office 365 for a business an hour later. Azure is incredibly flexible in the tasks it can handle and its ability to scale with demand.
Sales for Crackdown will be going to the same company that is paying to run the servers.
Azure costs way less to run games than server farms that are dedicated to a single game.
http://www.microsoft.com/Environment/news-and-resources/datacenter-best-practices.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/msdatace...vide-clean-power-for-data-center-r-amp-d.aspx
J
JoJo UK
Unconfirmed Member
I think they are based in Ireland and the Netherlands, so closer to the UK than some US servers are to US based customers.
justgames7604
Member
What exactly did this Michael Bay-approved-trailer actually proof? Nothing. Yes, there is a lot of debris and buildungs collapsing, but where exactly is the proof that this couldn't be accomplished w/o the "power of the cloud" / a stable Internet connection? I have seen collapsing buildings before. I even fought a helicopter in one while it was collapsing.
It is very premature to talk about "proofs" for that "Power of the Cloud" and from my point of view I really doubt that a cloud is actually needed for those effects.
All I can see in this statement for now is the usual PR bullshit we are used to.
Youve seen real time calculated physics for entire game cities falling apart on hardware equivelent to a low end dual core with a 4 year old GPU?
Must be working at cloudgine on Crackdown then.
I wrote "server time", not "servers", to reflect exactly that.
Again, I was arguing for the general case. I already bolded the relevant parts. I don't know what more I can do for people to get what I am saying.
It's not "way less". Look for comparisons about the economics of cloud-based infrastructures compared to traditional data centers. You gain flexibility, and don't need to shoulder up-front costs, but once the load is somewhat predictable, running costs are actually the same. Microsoft subsidizes resources for selected developers, just like they subsidize important games in general. But generally speaking, the costs are not becoming non-trivial at all, which is what I was arguing would be necessary for such use cases to become a standard thing.
Similar threads
- Poll