Microsoft Tech Video Demo Shows Off Power of Xbox One Cloud

[Worgen]

Yeah, that's an enormous load of crap. Cloud computations mean delays of at least 10 milliseconds (if you have an optic fiber line running from your PC to a cloud server 1 meter away), while graphic calculations work on a scale of nanoseconds (1 millisecond = 1 000 000 nanoseconds). While cloud computing can handle running an AI for a whole crowd of NPCs, graphic calculations just aren't the same.

Even if you needed the cloud for ai, which you don't. I would think the lag in response time would be quite noticeable, I mean it needs to account for player actions so you would have a constant stream of back and forth data so you would end up with lag like you do in any multiplayer game.

Yes, but in the case of AI, 10-50 milliseconds isn't even noticable (average reaction time is 200 ms). Simulation of graphic processes that require constant input from player (such as turning your head in FPS) are much more demanding and would feel very "floaty" even with 10 ms lag

Running ai is one of the lightest weight things games do anymore, it probably takes more processing power to run a modern menu screen. The only conceivable way I can see an ai needing to be run on the cloud is if it was a form of drm.

 

[wickedmonkey]

Sooooo... they've invented dedicated servers? Welcome to 1996, console players.
Let's hope at least that this is the beginning of the end for that P2P multiplayer garbage.

 

[SecondPrize]

Ah yes, the rebranding of the always online requirement is coming along nicely.

 

[Ninmecu]

I even made up a drinking game, take a shot every time they say "high end computer" without specifying the specs, or mention "The Cloud" like it's some mystical thing. All in all, not too impressed. =/

 

[The Lunatic]

Ha. You guys ready for the best part?


Demo on the first PC, was a different demo than the second.


Second has other buildings in the background, first didn't have those.

Who knows what else could be different, they're literally giving us nothing to go off.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

If they repeat "power of the cloud" enough times people might start to believe it. This is the kind of delusional crap that is making Microsoft obsolete. We're moving towards more open systems and more control on the client side, and these idiots want to take all the control away from you and put it into this "cloud" that is supposedly more powerful than a black hole. But that's a fuckin' lie and they know it. This might impress some 15 year old Xbox players and soccer moms who want to pretend to be tech savvy, though. And that might be enough for Microsoft to stay afloat for a few more years.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

This is nonsensical...
Of course a FULL blown datacenter could help out greatly - in theory, for one it should be packed with GPU's and not just CPU's- but MS is NEVER EVER going to just give away the computing capability PER XBOX of "multiple high end gaming PC's" as they state it in this clip.

How is this economical for them? Datacenters use massive amounts of power, and the processing capabilities could be sold (and ARE) instead. I guess in 5 years when XBONER is incapable of producing enough texels and polygons to compete this might be a small crutch for some selected AAA (first party!) games. But beyond that, this has no businessmodel whatsoever except brag about it in Marketing BS

 

[Hero in a half shell]

This is nonsensical...
Of course a FULL blown datacenter could help out greatly - in theory, for one it should be packed with GPU's and not just CPU's- but MS is NEVER EVER going to just give away the computing capability PER XBOX of "multiple high end gaming PC's" as they state it in this clip.

How is this economical for them? Datacenters use massive amounts of power, and the processing capabilities could be sold (and ARE) instead. I guess in 5 years when XBONER is incapable of producing enough texels and polygons to compete this might be a small crutch for some selected AAA (first party!) games. But beyond that, this has no businessmodel whatsoever except brag about it in Marketing BS

I believe the original idea was that they would have had hundreds of thousands of 'FREE' GPU and CPUs at their disposal in the shape of unused Xbox Ones lying on standby in people's homes, ready to act as 'the cloud'. Obviously this was completely idiotic in the real world, so it was canned pretty quickly. They still haven't released any details about how they are going to acquire the hardware to fill that gap, and if the problems with the "Azure cloud" in South Africa leading to them cancelling Titanfall altogether are anything to go by, they better have some pretty damn infallible systems planned if this is going to be anything other than the whitest of white elephants.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

So Microsoft has come out and actually gone into depth onto their whole "cloud" BS. And people still aren't impressed.

To me it looked rather impressive, but since people think it'll require having a super-internet connection (and mine struggles at loading Steam browser pages) this gets a giant "meh, not for me".

 

[goldenheart323]

I'm not tech expert, but I'm pretty sure it's FAR easier to calculate stuff happening OFF screen than on. That "demo" is far from convincing.

 

[Under_your_bed]

Here, let me add my two cents!

Also, I highly doubt blowing up a building into smaller and smaller chunks is an "experience gamers have never had before"....

 

[misg]

As interesting as breakable physics demos are, it's been proven time and time again that people won't actually care until the chunks are capable of breaking each other. For instance, BF4's Shanghai skyscraper is a scripted event where destroying the supports causes it to buckle in an effectively 9-11 itself. The reason it is scripted is because if it was left up to the standard physics, the falling tower would land on its side completely intact. Current physics demos are only cool looking when outside forces exert pressure. They account for gravity, but not mass or Newton's Third Law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. (this could simply be because developers would then be required to make structurally sound buildings, and hiring an architect is expensive)

Actually you'd need an engineering tech, so the cost wouldn't be too bad in that regard also, I'm a Red Seal carpenter and I could design a lot of building in a game that won't fall down (That said I won't try building a skyscraper in real life) As you don't have to account for how for the thousands of details or wind that sort of thing. If you look at I think it was Red Faction Guerrilla. Not sure if that is the right game, but they actually did build real physical into that game, I remember them talking about how their designers had to work with engineers to keep the buildings from falling down. I think right now the costs are too high and there is too little experience with this type of systems in games. I do hope it does happen soon as it's really cool.

On main topic, I call BS on this I don't think MS actually pulled off much here. I'm simply not interested in Cloud gaming, I want my own system with it's own power to do the work for me.

 

[Atmos Duality]

32 FPS.
1/32 = 31ms latency limit.
That's unreliable even on a local cable connection in my region, outright impossible on anything less.

32 FPS is not that bad, but neither that great; passable by previous gen console standards.

So no, I'm not impressed, considering the number of hoops the system has to jump through in order to achieve this.
It just seems like bootstrapping for a nominal effect, not anything that will "revolutionize" gaming.

 

[Living_Brain]

The problem is that PS4 can also take advantage of the "cloud" just as well; the structure isn't stopping it. If Sony felt like it, and if this is a real thing even, they could too use the cloud.

 

[Strazdas]

so the microsfot cloud can render basic physics (you know, the kind of physics that could be rendered on a single 3 year old GPU) at 2 frames per second? You mean, using supercomptuers in the cloud is actually processing things slower than a 160 dollar GPU? What is this presentation about? how incompetent they were?

If you look at I think it was Red Faction Guerrilla. Not sure if that is the right game, but they actually did build real physical into that game, I remember them talking about how their designers had to work with engineers to keep the buildings from falling down. I think right now the costs are too high and there is too little experience with this type of systems in games. I do hope it does happen soon as it's really cool.

On main topic, I call BS on this I don't think MS actually pulled off much here. I'm simply not interested in Cloud gaming, I want my own system with it's own power to do the work for me.

All red faction games had physics. in first one you had destructible emviroment, that was abandoned since level 2. in second one you had... well nothing really. In guerilla and Armageddon you had buildings that could be destroyed and were ran on phyiscs (could fall off, break into pieaces, ect). the thing is, the physics there werent... realistic. a building could float on a shoestring (with you walking up on it to boot, because player weighs 0), and tumbling down it hits with enough force to kill you, but not enough to snap a plastic railing on the balcony.

I would LOVE if games emplored at least basic physics in there, and i wish we finally dont need to skip that due to consoles not being pwoerful enough. then again, new ones arent.

It's beyond technology period...see.. this is the thing with gaming. If your graphics are being rendered over the net well good luck playing the new street fighter game because brutha if someone on your street desides to start streaming netflix ... you will be a punching bag.

Um, what? How does anyone using thier internet on my street has any effect on my internet performance? Are you implying your infrastructure is so bad that your neighboars affect your connection? I can understand that my friend watching a HD stream in the other room may introduce some ping into the system, but a neighboar has a seperate connection.

Cloud computing is bollocks, but not because the internet is effected by your neighboars.

 

[Strazdas]

That depends entirely on how you ISP set things up. See when a ISP has service say on a city block. All the traffic tends to go through a hub. WHat tends to happen is that the hub has a given bandwidth and they typically just set the upper limit for your connection. Here's where it gets fun: if don't properly, the bandwidth is not shared between connections.. but if the hub hardware is cheap or if they're trying to get by with only allocating the minimum bandwidth required by the hub then when network activity gets very high in the area, all users will start suffering a drop in bandwidth....

Most people have already noticed that at certain times of the day their internet just seems tochug and their ping mysteriously spikes. That's what causes it. It's basically the same was what happens when your friend in the next room starts torrenting like crazy except in this case the 'ROom' can be defined as a city block, or an entire zone or geographic region.

Not all ISP's do this but many do; since it's actually cheaper for them. It allows them to stretch their bandwidth further and allows them to not have to invest in more or simply more expensive hubs. So if your ISP likes the idea of spending less,, chances are they are doing this.

Well, its true, the ISP can be a dickhead about it and set your whole neighboarhood on a single house hub. but then at this point you call them to complain, once they refuse to fix it go through the proper institutions, and if that does not help you can take thme to court. they wrote a contract to provide certain speed. they must provide it. Sadly the pings arent mentioned in contract, so you cant sue them for that.

my internet is stable at 100mbps all trhoughout the day, altrough admittedly i didnt test it 4 am in the morning as im usually sleeping at that time. The ISP i use used to do tricks like give old modems to users and stuff till they actually lost a few court cases. now they are one of the best choices in the country.

they are obliged by law to provide the services and if they fail to do that then they are not fulfilling their contract. that is illegal.

 

[Strazdas]

That contract actually says 'Speeds up to ' at no point in any contract do the guarantee a certain speed... well not for most packages any way, on certain business/corporate packages the will give you hard set speed.

Also for it to be a legal issue it has to be consistent as in throughout the entire day... most of these issues basically spike.. as in the service will run at full speed between 9am and 4pm when everyone's out and most people are at school, work, etc.. but between 5pm and 9pm your speeds will tank and your connection will chug like a mofo. but then after about 10pm to 6 am the speeds are back up. for another brief chug between 7 and 9.


This may of course change on weekends. But you see? you don't really have grounds for complaint at least that's hwat the ISP will argue... since it's only for like 8 hours out of 24 that you experience this speed drop. approx 25% of the time which is deemed acceptableby most regulatory standards... and again.. the contract says 'speeds up to'. They didn't imply a lower limit to your speed, just an upper limit. THere are packages that have a guaranteed lower limit but those are the really expensive corporate type packages or high end residential.

There's also the problem that your ISP may just be the equivalent of 'regional carrier' ie they're buying their bandwidth from a larger carrier and if the carrier's got that same hub set up... well you see where this goes...

They are obliged to provide the service but again.. read your contract... that 'speeds up to' line is a hell of an escape clause. As long as they can show their network speeds are within 50% of the listed speed for 7% of a given 24hour period on average for a given billing cycle.. the regulators can't really do a thing about it and it is perfectly legal.

First thing they teach you in law...read everything first. Even the 4pt wall of text at the back.

i dont know what your contract says. mine says that their responsibility is to provide internet at the speed of no less than 100mbps (yes, our owrding is not less than that of contract, and not up to) with a minimum of 99% uptime excluding force major situations (force major situations are excluded by the general laws anyway. for example they dont fine for lack of services if there is a hurricane and so on, because that wasnt really something they could reasonably prepare for). So they are obligated by contract to reach such speeds. of course if your getting 90 instead of 100 hardly anyone cares, but if it throttles to the point of online games that take very little bandwitch gets down thats certainly far bellow the treshold of care.
Actually it works a bit like you decribe in the opposite direction, i saw my connection exeed the contract speeds at midnight hours. thats because the cable i got supports up to 300mbps anyway and they probably have more traffic free at night from a hub.

sicne the contract specifies a 99% uptime, they would at best be able to get away with it for ~15 minutes per day here.