Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cloud XBox (Games)

Xbox One: Cloud Will Quadruple the Power, Says Microsoft 400

Posted by samzenpus
from the silver-lining dept.
New submitter geirlk writes "Toms Hardware reports that 'Group program manager of Xbox Incubation & Prototyping Jeff Henshaw recently told OXM that for every console Microsoft builds, it will provision the CPU and storage equivalent of three Xbox One consoles in the cloud. This allows developers to assume that there's roughly three times the resources immediately available to their game. Thus, developers can build bigger, persistent levels that are more inclusive for players.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xbox One: Cloud Will Quadruple the Power, Says Microsoft

Comments Filter:
  • by Billly Gates (198444) on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:21AM (#43832799) Journal

    I know Nvidia has been experimenting with the idea and it has been mentioned here before many times.

    I would not be surprised if MS teams up with them but from my impression it is not ready for prime time. Latency is bad and home ISPs suck. -eg my fiber FIOS is not capped at 200k a second! Need to pay $155 a month to unlock it back to where it was last year?!

    With ISPs given a free ride to get rid of Net Neutrality they are deprioritize anything unless they double dip the consumers and site owners each way here in the US. Large textures with little latency being pipped back pre-rendered seems out of reach.

    • by hairyfeet (841228) <.bassbeast1968. .at. .gmail.com.> on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:02AM (#43833097) Journal

      Is MSFT gonna buy out all the ISPs? If not then who cares, the combination of shitty service and bandwidth caps will make this a non starter for a good 70%+ of the population if the states I've been to are any indication.

      As Jim Sterling points out [escapistmagazine.com] MSFT is pretty much giving the finger to everybody that doesn't have 1.-A ton of money and 2.- Incredible broadband, but the very same people that are left already have better devices to do the same thing such as gaming PCs, smart TVs, its the same stupid as hell strategy they did when pricing the Surface and that worked out real well didn't it?

      Looking at these next gens I can see two positives, 1.- It'll make guys like me that sell and build affordable gaming PCs a LOT of money and 2.- With any luck the crackers will break this thing and then when MSFT can't give the damned things away because nobody wants their DRM-paloza we can pick 'em up and crack them and make halfway decent HTPCs out of the things like we did the original Xbox One.

      But as far as an upside for the consumer? Sorry, not seeing one. Hell anybody with a PC less than 5 years old can pick up an HD4850 for like $40 and be able to play pretty much any game out there, most with medium to high settings thanks to how long the consoles have held back the PC and by Xmas I expect to see the HD7750 if not the HD7770 for less than $65 and those on average are 40% faster than the 4850 while using half the power.

      Lets face it PC gaming has never been cheaper, heck AMD quads have been going for just $50 online, and thanks to there being competition on both the hardware and the software the price is going down all the time. Now you can buy games from Steam,GOG,D2D,Origin,Desura, box games from Amazon, with so much competition you can have more games than you can ever play for practically nothing AND you get online MP for free AND there are literally thousands of FTP games to choose from...lets face it, all MSFT is doing is making going to the PC a better choice. YOU control the hardware, YOU control the software, YOU choose whom to buy what from, its just a better experience now that MSFT has taken all the positives away from the console.

      • by LordNimon (85072) on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:33AM (#43833301)

        As Jim Sterling points out MSFT is pretty much giving the finger to everybody that doesn't have 1.-A ton of money and 2.- Incredible broadband,

        I have a ton of money and incredible broadband, and I still think that Microsoft is giving me the finger with the Xbox One.

      • First, I prefer PC games and gaming. However, you say:

        Now you can buy games from Steam,GOG,D2D,Origin,Desura

        as if that's a good thing. I started with Steam a long time ago due to the Valve first-party titles and so I've kept active there, but I have intentionally avoided all of the others. The last thing I want is to have half a dozen different "platforms" that I have to use to manage and play my games. This is in fact an argument in favor of consoles -- all your games in one place. Playing hide and seek with your games -- needing to remember that Mass Effect 1 is on a DVD from Amazon, Mass Effect 2 is on Steam, and Mass Effect 3 is in Origin -- is stupid.

        YOU control the software

        That doesn't really fit in with your previous statement. Games on PCs have often been more locked down with draconian DRM than their console counterparts. Console games can be resold or traded. While both of these points are in flux right now, for the time being it still feels like it's the console games that you really have "more control" over.

        play pretty much any game out there, most with medium to high settings thanks to how long the consoles have held back the PC

        Consoles haven't been holding back the PC nor made PC gaming "easier" to do on lesser hardware. What's done that is:

        - Mobile gaming.

        - Hardware outpacing (!) software for once. Intel's Core line of procs starting with Nehalem pretty much blew everything out of the water. Arriving around the same time was the (continuing) GPU revolution.

        - Shitty desktop monitors. Desktop resolutions nor pixel densities haven't improved in the last decade due to the "HD" scam that's been pulled on consumers. It used to be that every couple of years the graphics card would be driving 60-80% more pixels because the resolution was bigger (not to mention the increased color depth). Now for the last 8 years or so everyone has had a 1080 display with no improvement in sight.

        In either case, console and PC gaming aren't mutually exclusive nor dependant. Both will continue as long as they are each successful in their own regards. Which is preferable can sometimes depend on the context (sitting on a couch with friends or playing online with friends, etc). Neither needs to fail for the other to succeed.

    • by phantomfive (622387) on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:48AM (#43833405) Journal
      It doesn't necessarily need to be a high bandwidth operation. Look at this quote [slashdot.org]: "Those things often involve some complicated up-front calculations when you enter that world, but they don’t necessarily have to be updated every frame." I presume that's from the article.

      The question is, if Microsoft is building three times the CPU in their datacenters every time they build a PC, why not just throw that power into the box itself? Then you can have the same processing power always there, and no latency.

      The answeris they aren't building out that much power in their datacenters. Which means when there's a big launch, people are going to have trouble playing it.
    • To maintain your household under constant marketing surveillance. I'm waiting for Bruce Schneier to weigh in on this one, specifically. He does an excellent examination of the general case in his recent "Surveillance and the Internet of Things" [schneier.com]

      Microsoft is taking Xbox further down the road of current trends in targeting and profiling "users". The model for most web applications and nearly all mobile apps has been that of of the Trojan Horse. An apparently benign, amusing or useful set of functions is p

  • Sorry kid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by skovnymfe (1671822) on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:21AM (#43832803)

    There are currently too many people playing your new game, and the servers can't handle it, so... yeah...

    Isn't this just leading up the same chaos that is any Ubisoft game launch?

    • by FooAtWFU (699187)
      I'm interested in what happens when we assume the best of the cloud for a moment. You have a bunch of resources... and the majority of them are on the other side of a home network connection. What's your strategy here? Set up the game to run like a multiplayer client of the resources that are in the cloud? What constraints does that introduce on the user experience?
    • by RogueyWon (735973)

      You don't even need a server crash for this to go tits-up. For the kind of cloud service they're talking about to work properly, you need a very, very high bandwidth and low-latency net connection and, assuming you want to play for more than a few hours a month, no monthly bandwidth limit.

      My connection meets those criteria, but I'm willing to pay well above the average rate for my connection. The average connection is still some way short of it.

      So in reality, any developer who takes advantage of that addit

      • if they are not sending video data like on live then you likely will not need high bandwidth and eat cap fast. Also lag / ping times will not need to be very low.

        The big lag issues with on live is the control lag.

        FPS and RTS games are ok with good lag times and don't need super low ones.

    • While I can't possibly see it as being legitimately profitable to Microsoft to provide 3x processing power in Azure for every X1 sold, I will at least say that Microsoft at least owns the datacenters and the software stacks for Azure as opposed to EA or Ubisoft. It's possible that MS will be better able to handle the processing and bandwidth for this reason.

      • While I can't possibly see it as being legitimately profitable to Microsoft to provide 3x processing power in Azure for every X1 sold, I will at least say that Microsoft at least owns the datacenters and the software stacks for Azure as opposed to EA or Ubisoft. It's possible that MS will be better able to handle the processing and bandwidth for this reason.

        To be fair, Microsoft didn't says how long they'd provide 3x processing in the cloud for each console... For example, didn't Apple's Siri get dumb [investorplace.com] or dumber [siriwiki.net] sometime after launch? Not trolling, just asking - siriously :-)

        In other words: Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results

  • by Emetophobe (878584) on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:23AM (#43832813)

    So we can assume that Xbox One games will be always-online and have server side processing ala Simcity 5... because that worked out so well for EA.

    • World of Warcraft (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ZombieBraintrust (1685608) on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:46AM (#43832969)
      I think it depends on the company doing it. World of Warcraft likely does server side processing. Simcity was just a botched attempt to do what mmo do.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Simcity is not an MMO. They tried to say it was, but it isn't.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        I think it depends on the company doing it. World of Warcraft likely does server side processing. Simcity was just a botched attempt to do what mmo do.

        of course. but I would hate waiting in queue to play starcraft 3. waiting in queue for warcraft was pretty shitty too.

      • by H0p313ss (811249)

        World of Warcraft likely does server side processing.

        Now there's an understatement. :)

      • MMOs do it that way because they have to. Otherwise they'd be hacked to hell and gone--Diablo I all over again. And even then they have to be careful. A large part of the old Final Fantasy XIV's performance problems can be chalked up to trying to do too much on the server side. That's the main reason they had to do a relaunch; the problems required a complete redesign to solve.

      • Simcity was just a botched attempt to do what mmo do.

        No. SimCity was a blatant attempt to impose DRM through the absolute lie that powerful calculations were carried out on the server.

        Simple logic would tell you that it was a lie: To claim the servers offered more power than the desktop machines is to imply EA/Maxis stood up a server farm that was "more powerful" than gamers' home rigs. Even without the GPU, you've got to figure that'd be a couple of hundred dollars (let's say $200). Figure on gamers using the game at least 20% of the time during the launch m

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:25AM (#43832825)

    It is an always connected device, unless they have come up with a way for the cloud thing to work without an internet connection.

    Of course this also means that if you lose your internet connection, then you have 1/4 the processing power to run your game.

    • by tgd (2822) on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:12AM (#43833189)

      It is an always connected device, unless they have come up with a way for the cloud thing to work without an internet connection.

      Of course this also means that if you lose your internet connection, then you have 1/4 the processing power to run your game.

      Not sure if your goal was trolling, or if you legitimately hadn't read up on it, but Microsoft stated clearly that, while games *could* require full-time Internet, the intent is for the cloud resources to be used for latency-insensitive augmentation of the game, so they'll work fine offline. But that's true of games already. Some require being online while playing, some work better while online (like Borderlands 2), and some don't care.

      All this is saying is they're going to scale their regional Azure datacenters at 3x the rate of Xboxes being sold.

      Facts aren't really the goal of Microsoft-related discussions on Slashdot, though.

  • I call bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:25AM (#43832837)

    They might have 3 times the expected peak usage but NOT 3 times the power of every XboxS sold.

    • by bondsbw (888959)

      Indeed. If it were 4 times the power of every Xbox sold, why not just pack all those extra processing units into each Xbox and skip the obvious latency problems?

      • by Jamu (852752)
        Because not everyone will be on their Xbox all the time, and Microsoft might also have spare server time available for peak Xbox hours.
      • by 0123456 (636235)

        If it were 4 times the power of every Xbox sold, why not just pack all those extra processing units into each Xbox and skip the obvious latency problems?

        1. Not all people will be playing at the same time, so you can reduce the hardware costs by only paying for half as much hardware (say).
        2. If you put the extra processing in the Xbox, you couldn't force people to buy a new game by shutting down the servers for the old one.

        Just about everything Microsoft has done since Windows 7 seems to be based around lockin in and monetization. This looks no different.

      • by Dekker3D (989692)

        Having 4x the power would, naively, cost 4x as much. Having 3x extra power in the cloud means it can be used for other things when you turn your xbox off. Like, boosting the power of other xboxes. Many people probably use their console at most an hour a day on average. So you could get 24 times as much out of processing power in the cloud.

        That said, eww. Good thing I wasn't planning to buy an Xbox anyway.

      • Re:I call bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Somebody Is Using My (985418) on Monday May 27, 2013 @12:41PM (#43833665) Homepage

        Alternately, Microsoft may be intending to do something along the lines of OnLive; that is, render the game on the server (with it's "4-times-the-power-of-a-single-XBoxOne" servers) and then stream the output to the player.

        Of course, you still have tremendous latency issues, unless you stick those servers in every ISP across the country (something Microsoft could afford far better than OnLive). With the increased CPU power of the new console, the stream could better compressed, resulting in better picture quality as well.

        There are a number of advantages to this for both Microsoft and the developers. Games would no longer be limited by the hardware of the console, for instance, which would not only mean better graphics and larger worlds, but longer life expectancies for the consoles since its hardware doesn't need to be replaced as often (who needs faster GPUs and bigger HDDs when everything is "in the Cloud"?)\. Microsoft can keep selling the same basic model for years, with only minor tweaks and chrome, negating the need for expensive R&D. Publishers get better control of their products; it kills used game sales, they can obsolete older games to create a market for the newer versions, and they can data-mine the players. Plus, Microsoft gets paid for running the servers!

        For the customer, there are fewer advantages, of course. But what corporation really cares about what the customers want these days?

  • Server downtime (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:26AM (#43832843)

    Sounds amazing! I can't wait for all the articles about hammered servers on release and server maintenance.

    • by Skiron (735617)

      ...and wait for a leap year or February 29th - that will be fun.

    • It will be funnier than the EA episode, because all the titles will stop working every time one of them is a hit.

      Good thing I won't buy one of those...

  • Sounds great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by king neckbeard (1801738) on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:27AM (#43832849)
    I can't wait until MS decides that the servers running my favorite game aren't profitable anymore, so I am incapable of playing it anymore.
    • by Nyder (754090)

      I can't wait until MS decides that the servers running my favorite game aren't profitable anymore, so I am incapable of playing it anymore.

      With MS throwing the hat in on stuff that doesn't make them a profit, i figure a year at the most for most games.

    • Re:Sounds great (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fcrick (465682) on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:02AM (#43833091) Journal

      Ironically, this approach will likely produce the opposite effect. For example, you can't really play Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 at all anymore, multiplayer. Why? Because the only way to play is to run a peer-to-peer game with whoever else happens to be playing. Chances are, they are all far away, and their internet connection sucks, so the game just sucks as a result, and you have to buy the newest version to actually get good connectivity.

      If you're building your game to leverage server resources, players just connect to a datacenter, and get matchmade with other players there, likely pairing players with similar latency. Even if there are relatively few people playing, you'll probably get a pretty good experience, as at least one end of the connection for all players is pretty solid.

      It seems like the whole point of the system is to actually address this very problem. Game publishers don't need to invest so much in hardware, and server resources are made available to games on a need basis. If you're game has 50 players, it'll probably do just fine with a server running on a virtual machine somewhere along with 20 other games on the same hardware. Microsoft could still screw up on the total capacity side when they're hit with a big release, but smaller games will likely benefit.

      • I'm not seeing how it addresses the problem. Online multiplayer sucks if nobody else is online, or the people online are all far away. Even if you use a central server, it doesn't really need to have that much processing power, and if only one player has decent latency, it's not going to make a good match.

        However, there are a number of good games that are not online multiplayer or have core functionality that isn't online mulitplayer. Under this system, they will not be able to be played 10 years from
        • by fcrick (465682)

          I agree the 'processing power' part sounds a bit silly - I'll be waiting to see if that's anything other than like...streaming?

          Most consumer internet connections don't compete with those at datacenters, in both speed and quality. Having one end of the connection at a datacenter makes a huge difference. I played shooters for years, and when you're playing on a server you get a consistent experience that is better than all but only the best of matchmade games going over p2p. The host can drop, their connec

          • I'm not saying there isn't an advantage to servers, just that they don't really have much of a need other than good latency, decent bandwith, and not dropping packets. The processing power of a smartphone is likely more than enough for a single match.

            SNES is not a good comparison, but it's possible your point about 10 years is valid - we'll just have to wait and see. In 10 years, you can likely buy the PC port of any 10-year old game for a few bucks.

            It is a good comparison. SNES never had to be online, a

  • Invasive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ischorr (657205) on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:27AM (#43832851)

    I read that as "more invasive for players". Which is probably true.

    Cool, it'd be extremely difficult to use computing power offsite to do real-time calculations in parallel with local calculations. But it sure would be handy for crushing the used game market if we could lie say that we needed handle things server-side so you have to be online to play the game.

    Also it would be cool to mine everything you do since it'd be easy to market. People will agree to all sorts of seemingly minor invasions of privacy for trivial gains, like free stuff, or especially if it was required to play the game. ...What am I saying. That would never happen.

  • In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by saleenS281 (859657) on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:27AM (#43832855) Homepage
    Always on. And what happens when you have a shit internet connection?
    • by Billly Gates (198444) on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:29AM (#43832865) Journal

      Or if you are in a commonwealth country like New Zealand, Canada, or Australia and have ISPs with 2 gig limits each month?

      I image lots of hi res images being downloaded over and over again can fill that cap fairly quickly

      • I'm not sure if you're kidding with the 2GB monthly cap, we're talking about cable and DSL connections here, not phones.

        I do know that my monthly cap is around 30GB though, so Xbox one is not a valid option when they announce bullshit like this. My quota is already allocated to Netflix in low-quality mode. That tells you a lot about ISPs in Canada when Netflix has to add a third, lower-quality setting just for us.

        • Nope they have 2 gig caps. I used to play with them in WOW and they would have to stop raiding for a few weeks until the cap reset on their cable.

    • Re:In other words... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by H0p313ss (811249) on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:42AM (#43833361)

      Always on. And what happens when you have a shit internet connection?

      Exactly this. This whole approach is aimed at the elite (like me) who have an excellent connection and little concern about bandwidth usage. What the gaming industry is failing to take into account is that a large part of their target market is the working poor.

      Someone else in this item brought up World of Warcraft and SimCity as examples of client-server games (Diablo III is another example of a single user game that should never have had a server). We all know how well the Diablo launch and SimCity launches went. Even WoW fails in certain circumstances. (I can't tell you how many times I've had WoW raids fail because the redneck tanking in Texas drops carrier. I don't know who the ISPs are in San Antonio, but it seems that even the mildest thunderstorm takes them out.)

      Leaving games unplayable because of poor infrastructure or outages is not going to make people happy, we have tons of examples in the past. Why Microsoft thinks they're going to have a different experience with this is beyond me.

      I think that eventually this kind of architecture will have enormous potential, but I don't see that we have the market penetration of sufficient high-quality, high-bandwidth networking.

      • by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Monday May 27, 2013 @01:01PM (#43833761)

        Always on. And what happens when you have a shit internet connection?

        Exactly this. This whole approach is aimed at the elite (like me) who have an excellent connection and little concern about bandwidth usage.

        Take a step back and remember that "this whole approach" is simply bullshit PR - there's 0% chance that any meaningful processing will be done in the cloud. MS has confirmed that the console only needs to check into the internet on the order of once a day, so they can't count on a constant connection. They therefore can't offload anything meaningful.

        Furthermore, the implication that they'll offload something that requires a lot of processing that can't be done better on one of the 8 local cores or the local GPU necessarily means they're talking about graphics. Only graphics will stress this sort of system in a meaningful way. However, offloading any significant part of graphics processing isn't at all technically feasible.

        Far too many of the comments on this story are taking MS at face value when it's obvious to anyone with any knowledge of games that the claim made by MS is simple obfuscation. As a few others have pointed out, this is the same thing as EA's vice president insisting that Sim City is highly dependent on vast server side resources even after it's been publicly demonstrated that the only thing servers do is enforce DRM.

        The "cloud" will not and cannot have any meaningful affect on real time gaming beyond multiplayer or artificially imposed restrictions on single player.

  • Marketing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:28AM (#43832859)

    They promise the cloud
    But their promises are vapour

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:31AM (#43832885)

    So by "Power" they mean "Dependence on Mother Microsoft"

    NOPE

    • by PPH (736903)

      Yes. By power, they mean theirs, not yours.

    • by robmv (855035)

      Please mode parent AC up. Welcome to the Dumb Terminal 3.0 era (1.0 terminals, 2.0 = Network computers)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:33AM (#43832887)

    the part i found interesting was:

    "Those things often involve some complicated up-front calculations when you enter that world, but they don’t necessarily have to be updated every frame."

    so i suppose technically, instead of your xbox pre-calculating a lot of this stuff, its offloaded. it could be done intelligently too - so increase the quality and if your offline and your xbox needs to do the calculations - then they're done at a lower priority with less precision?

    the fact that its calculations which dont need updated each frame means latency shouldnt be as much of an issue. we aint streaming live game feeds here...

    • by Tridus (79566) on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:07AM (#43833139) Homepage

      Why wouldn't they do that locally on one of the many CPUs that aren't required to show the game? Just what calculations are going to be so crazy intensive and yet have a dataset small enough where it's going to be faster to transmit it, calculate it there, send the results back, and load them?

      There's almost no games that actually use four cores in a current PC, so what are they planning on doing that's going to require the equivalent of triple that while not generating (or requiring as input) a gigantic data set?

  • by The Archon V2.0 (782634) on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:37AM (#43832923)

    Cloud: Buzzword, meh.
    +
    Phone-home requirement: Disturbing.
    +
    Camera and mic that can't be disabled at all: Frightening.
    =
    I can't tell if this is 1984's telescreen or Max Headroom's rebus tape feed.

    Either way I'm not letting one in my house.

    • Given xbox gamers' tendency to explode, I'd say rebus.

  • by goruka (1721094) on Monday May 27, 2013 @10:54AM (#43833029)
    The most CPU intensive tasks in videogames are usually Rendering, Physics and AI. They work either in realtime or precomputed to some degree.
    There is rarely a situation where you want to offload computation to something that takes a while (network latency), save for maybe pathfinding or geometry regeneration but is this more like a special case and has limited uses.
    Can anyone really think of a general case optimization where this can be useful for most games?
    • by king neckbeard (1801738) on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:24AM (#43833253)
      Theoretically, there might be some usage of AI operating on an enormous map, and those outside of a certain radius could be computed with latency not being a major concern. Take Skyrim, for example. If you are in Solitude, and guards are taking down a thief in Riften or a dragon is attacking near Windhelm, then that can be handled offline fine, although I doubt anybody would care and it would likely cause a ton of glitches.
  • When Xbox Tethered bombs.
  • I read this same kind of analysis for the PS4. Does shifting more to the server side improve/decrease performance? Depends on your internet connection and network? An article I looked at emphasized the speed of the GDDR5 RAM Sony had used, how this indicated a shift towards network gaming. Is this part of the strategy of moving to a constant internet connection?
  • Cloud Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MellowBob (2933537) on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:01AM (#43833085)

    EA claimed that Simcity needed extra processing power to run. A guy hacked his game and it worked fine offline.

    WTF would a company use a expensive server for 3x the processing power of a middle level PC just for a $60-80 game?

    - Former Simcity fan and soon to be former Halo fanboy.

  • Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tridus (79566) on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:04AM (#43833105) Homepage

    This won't work for any calculations in game that are latency sensitive. Someone push a button and the game needs to react? Cloud magic won't help, you need to deal with it locally.

    It won't work for anything that's data-intensive, because they can't expect to send significant data back and forth reliably while people are already trying to play multiplayer on a lousy connection.

    Since those are the two main things where a console with this level of local power might need help... what the hell are they supposed to be using all these servers for? Sounds like another Simcity debacle in the making.

  • Sony and MS thinks everybody lives in a world where the connection is great, never drops and has awesome upload speeds. I live in Brazil and have fiber with 15mbps of Download and 1mbps of Upload. And I'm one of the few that have access to fiber. Most are still using ADSL, ISDN or Cable. Well, let's see what happens when two consoles with the same hardware launches in the same period.
    • by AdamHaun (43173)

      Sony and MS thinks everybody lives in a world where the connection is great, never drops and has awesome upload speeds.

      To be fair, Sony does live in that world. It's called "Japan". Not sure what Microsoft's excuse is.

  • and the PS4 will have faster system ram and better? cpu?

    the PS4 will have sheared ram at video ram speeds. Xbox shared ram at only DDR3.

  • Can anybody explain to me what do they mean with "pre-compute" or not updating every frame? And how they would achieve that? Or rather, a case where they could use it?

    The fog example is kind of okay, because you *don't* need to update the fog every frame (frame of what? Logic Frame? Render Frame? Network Frame?). But the pre-computing a scene makes no sense at all because by then you might aswell just pre-compute once and slap it on every media. Unless I'm missing something and that's not what they meant at

    • Can anybody explain to me what do they mean with "pre-compute" or not updating every frame? And how they would achieve that? Or rather, a case where they could use it?

      The fog example is kind of okay, because you *don't* need to update the fog every frame (frame of what? Logic Frame? Render Frame? Network Frame?). But the pre-computing a scene makes no sense at all because by then you might aswell just pre-compute once and slap it on every media. Unless I'm missing something and that's not what they meant at all for pre-compute?

      TL;DR: can anybody explain it to me as if I was 5 years old?

      Sure. The bad man at Microsoft is lying to us. He wants to convince you that something magical will happen in a special "cloud" that will make your game better. Sadly, there is no such magic. Instead, the cloud is going to make it so that sometimes at random you won't be able to play your games. He doesn't want you to know this, which is why he's lying.

  • Whats the point of getting a console anyways?? They are saying the consoles are so underpowered they need a boost from a network of servers?? I call Bullshit, What game is so power hungry it needs extra servers to run? None. This is a major waste of resources everything it takes to make electricity thats not necessary.
  • You have crappy, slow, or intermittent Internet, like 65%+ of the country does. Then I guess you're SOL and won't be able to play the $80 game you just bought, and won't be able to sell it either.

    Yeah, this is going to work out sooo well. It simply amazes me that no one in a position of power at Microsoft can see how retarded this plan is.

  • As there are days of clouds there are also days of cloudless skies.
  • The part I just can't see is what do I need "computed" on a server which will take longer to calculate locally? My biggest problem with the Internet is that it is the slowest part of all my computing needs. I don't buy this 3X faster crap! They can't even put 1X as fast per user equipment currently why does anybody expect that in the "FUTURE" that it will be any different?

    This is just a bunch of marketing crap so they can get free press. When it comes out it will be as lame as the Wii U is today. Microsoft

  • by asmkm22 (1902712) on Monday May 27, 2013 @02:06PM (#43834079)

    This is why Microsoft has been so vague about saying anything involving the used game market, or console-level DRM. What they are basically doing is setting up a system where publishers can build DRM right into the game under the guise of "extra processing power" so that when the backlash starts, Microsoft can sit back and tell everyone to take it up with the publishers.

    Further taking away from the idea that games will be able to use extra processing power for actual gameplay and stuff, is that game developers always aim for the lowest common denominator when setting performance benchmarks. They aren't going to design a game that can take much advantage of cloud computing because they know full not everyone has high quality broadband with no bandwidth cap. Sure, you might see the occasional turn based strategy games or flight sims using it for real-world data or weather or something, but by and large it will be ignored for any significant features.

    Microsoft knows it's about DRM, but doesn't want to take the bad press for saying so. Publishers know it's about DRM, and are willing to take the bad press for utilizing it as such.

When I left you, I was but the pupil. Now, I am the master. - Darth Vader

Working...