Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
Sounds like the same stuff I've been saying in threads, but nobody comments.
That's because it's a load of nonsense.
Sounds like the same stuff I've been saying in threads, but nobody comments.
That's because it's a load of nonsense.
Wait, I don't understand. If cloud is so important to the power of the system how can you play offline then? Sorry if this had been already discussed.
The fundamental problem is that if any critical processing is offloaded onto the cloud, your internet connection state becomes the single most important element in the entire pipeline.
You lose that connection... boom. That connection slows or is throttled by local or ISP traffic, how does the system react. Some data (video streams for example) you can adaptively correct by lowering resolution, but not all data is as amenable to that sort of treatment.
Bottom line is of course if this functionality is not available across the board, multi-platform titles wont touch it.
It's hardly different from what Gaikai does and will do on PS4. Both stream games from servers, the local console is only used as a screen and for the controller.
I suppose you can indeed offload some of the calculation locally on your console, but there's hardly a point if you can get the whole frame from a remote server. It's just making things more complex. You're better either streaming the game from the cloud or running the game fully locally.
Cloud gaming could be great but latency and the need to be online constantly will limit that,at least for now.
Nope! I'm just describing what might be theoretically possible with Cloud based processing.
To be sure, I think it's a pretty goddamn complex technical and even economic issue. And that might be enough to torpedo the kind of cloud based processing MS are attempting to allude to here.
But at the same time, I know that I can't say with certainty that they haven't figured this stuff out.
I'll simply take the wait and see approach, while keeping in mind that it's not outside the bounds of possibility for cloud processing to work in real time rendering scene with low latency requirements.
This has nothing to do with Gakai. Zero.
It's hardly different from what does Gaikai. Both stream games from servers, the local console is only used as a screen and for the controller.
I suppose you can indeed offload some of the calculation locally on your console, but there's hardly a point if you can get the whole frame from a remote server. It's just making things more complex. You're better either streaming the game from the cloud or playing fully locally.
Cloud gaming could be great but latency and the need to be online constantly will limit that,at least for now.
It's nothing like Gaikai. Like you said, Gaikai renders the whole game and then pushes the game to the console, which just acts as a screen.
But Azure won't be doing that. Developers will just push certain tasks to the cloud. Azure will do the computations and then pass the result back to the console. The console still does most of the heavy processing.
So what ? So it's half cloud, half local. What does it bring to the gamer ?
Why do that when you can just run the game on the cloud ?
Ok, so the article says you can do things like advanced lighting. Yes you don't have to update lighting, and ambient effects every frame... but with the latency.. how many frames WILL it take? How disconnected will those effects be from the actual thing you're rendering? What if you start to turn quickly. You'll have a HUGE disconnect from where something like a real time light shaft would be vs where it SHOULD be.
Why ? Explain me what's different. It's running games from the cloud.
What does it bring if part is local and part is remote ? For me, as a gamer.
I'm not telling you what it brings to the gamer. I'm telling you why it's nothing like Gaikai, which is what you originally said.
As to why you wouldn't run the whole game on the cloud, well, you would need greater speed/bandwidth to do that (due to the large amount of data that needs to be passed). With Azure, less speed/bandwidth would be needed.
I'm not telling you what it brings to the gamer. I'm telling you why it's nothing like Gaikai, which is what you originally said.
As to why you wouldn't run the whole game on the cloud, well, you would need greater speed/bandwidth to do that (due to the large amount of data that needs to be passed). With Azure, less speed/bandwidth would be needed.
Every time I hear the work Cloud I laugh a little then die inside a bit.
That word has been used and abused and used some more for years now.
It takes a lot less speed/bandwidth if the game code is already stored in the cloud and all you need to do is send button inputs and receive a video stream in return.
Sounds interesting, but I suspect no third party will bother with this unless Sony implements it too. Which means MS looses this advantage.
Gaikai would be able to do it too for PS4, you just have to send isolated numbers instead of whole frames, the tech is already here.
In the real life though, current local CPU can do such calculations (crowd behaviour, AI...) very well alone without the need of cloud gaming.
The main calculations are linked to the frame rendering itself (visual effects), not AI or anything else. Our CPUs don't need external power for anything except graphics.
What I mean is the main benefit of cloud gaming lies in rendering the frames themselves on the remote server, the only part which really benefits from more power.
Gaikai streams video only.
Cloud computing processes CPU cycles but (usually) does not do video cycles.
180 degrees different, even though both are on a "Cloud" infrastrucutre. BUt one is streaming, the other is computational.
And if you talk to developers, it isn't graphics that is always the bottleneck on software, but more often the CPU, especially on a closed system. Just everyone sees "graphics" and is the only thing they process as an improvement or work.
Any cloud cluster can do compute in the same way. There's no server clusters that can only do streaming or only do compute lol. Still doesn't mean it's feasible mind.
That's because there's no reason to back down from deliberately unsubstantiated, obfuscated PR nonesense - it would defeat the purpose of obfuscating in the first place!They are obviously not backing down from the Cloud part, even with all the questions still rolling in.
Sounds like the same stuff I've been saying in threads, but nobody comments.
Excuse for constant-internet-required DRM and nothing more. Don't believe the lies.
It might be fine if they are talking about virtual servers/machines as they can spin up and turn off as many servers as they like (well that their hardware can take). Also it's not likely someone will play a game 24 hours a day so when one console is not using cloud computing the server resource's can be used by someone else.
I'll admit I've not exactly read much into this sort of thing, but I'd be willing to bet that having to stream a 1080p video for a number of hours would use more bandwidth than what MS are proposing with Azure.
Why do you think that?
It sounds promising. People thinking that the cloud couldn't offer any benefits for gaming are putting their head in the sand instead of being open minded. There are a lot of already immediate applications for cloud based computing, stuff like procedural generated worlds, statistics for game rules, lighting, etc all would work just fine and stuff like procedural worlds would make some games a lot more replayable when starting a new game could potentially be a brand new game world as well.
It's too early to get too excited but I suspect people just writing this off as "DRM" are just being negative for the sake of bitching.
pre baked lighting looks awful, much less "next gen".
That's not true. On nearly every PC game benchmark, the GPU has been overwhelmingly the potential bottleneck for higher frame rates. Solid CPU designs remain stable for much longer periods of time.And if you talk to developers, it isn't graphics that is always the bottleneck on software, but more often the CPU, especially on a closed system.