Microsoft Claims "Cloud" Will Quadruple Power of Xbox One

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Microsoft Claims "Cloud" Will Quadruple Power of Xbox One

xbox one hardware

Microsoft says that every Xbox One console will be backed by the equivalent power of three more Xbox Ones "in the cloud."

It is a time of chaos. The great console powers have unsheathed their latest and most powerful weapons, brandishing them at the cowed masses and vowing scarlet tides of great woe and furious wrath for those who fail to bow before them. And yet, from somewhere amidst the sea of grey faces and downcast eyes, a voice calls out:

"What does this mean?"

That voice should get a little louder in the wake of comments by Jeff Henshaw, the group manager of Xbox Incubation and Prototyping, who claimed that the power of the cloud will effectively give every XBox One console four times its built-in processing and storage capabilities.

"We're provisioning for developers for every physical Xbox One we build, we're provisioning the CPU and storage equivalent of three Xbox Ones on the cloud," he told OXM. "We're doing that flat out so that any game developer can assume that there's roughly three times the resources immediately available to their game, so they can build bigger, persistent levels that are more inclusive for players. They can do that out of the gate."

Very interesting - but what does it mean? First and foremost, it's pure marketing, promising big things while remaining uselessly vague. And even if we take him at his word - Xbox One here, Xbox One Cubed there - the obvious implication is that some games will be out of the reach of anyone who can't get on the cloud, or if the cloud just happens to float away for awhile for one reason or another. That leads inevitably to another two-tier scenario, similar to that created by the Xbox 360 Core (and later the Arcade), in which Microsoft can claim that a persistent internet connection isn't required - something, for the record, it has already done - but woe betide anyone who tries to use it that way.

Source: OXM

Permalink

It's simple. The "cloud" is going to give the Xbox One the awesome computational power to pull off levels of detailed simulation to rival that of SimCity 2013.

"We're provisioning for developers for every physical Xbox One we build, we're provisioning the CPU and storage equivalent of three Xbox Ones on the cloud," he told OXM. "We're doing that flat out so that any game developer can assume that there's roughly three times the resources immediately available to their game, so they can build bigger, persistent levels that are more inclusive for players. They can do that out of the gate."

Except they can't because that would require the player to be always online which I don't think any sane developer is going to assume after the shit storm that was Sim City. I'll call it right now, this will, most likely, be a complete waste of money and resources by Microsoft.

Ah yes, I can't wait for all my games to pop up an Error 37 message.

Great, so that means that the games are server reliant and useless without access or when the servers finally die.

They can now literally pull the plug on your back library.

Screw. That.

So now it will suck FOUR times as hard.

See it doesn't require a constant internet connection, only if you want to use it.

The Cloud is still going to be bottlenecked by your internet connection, which is pretty variable across different regions, so it's not something anyone should be counting on.

Plus, I'm sure you'll need to pay Microsoft a subscription fee for the privilege of accessing "The Cloud"...

So even single player titles that use the Cloud are going to be unplayable when the servers eventually die.

Best plan ever ¬_¬

Zachary Amaranth:
Great, so that means that the games are server reliant and useless without access or when the servers finally die.

They can now literally pull the plug on your back library.

Screw. That.

I'm half convinced at this point that this is all an elaborate troll (not your post, the Xbone), and that at E3 they're going to come and all like "Oh boy! You totally fell for it, it was hilarious! Now here's our actual next-gen console that doesn't suck..."

I can but hope can't I? Surely a company as huge as Microsoft, greedy they may be, can't have become as sucessful as they are by being this dumb?

I love that they saw the SimCity debacle and went "Gotta get me some o' dat!"

Incidentally, their boast is a little too specific and quite frankly smells very strongly of bullsh*t.
So...

Unless you're someone like me who only gets 10 megabits down and 1 up. There's no way their cloud would be able to improve anything on my network

if i took a drink for every piece of good news about this console id be a very sober man indeed

So you no longer own the computing power of your machine, it's being provided for you via external means.

Lack of sense of ownership is always a great experience for the customer. Not to mention it sure does sound future proof, doesn't it?

Using Cloud-based resources to improve end-user performance is a great concept and holds a lot of potential. Unfortunately, that's all it is: potential. The technology just isn't there yet. The infrastructure isn't up to spec in most of their market area. And ISPs certainly don't help with their download limits and bandwidth throttling.

Sure, it's interesting to try and include the capability, and maybe someday something can be properly done with it. But until then, it's best to just file this away with their other "innovations", like the HD DVD.

Yay more server reliance and more of the fun times had we have had with them in the past all over again. But don't worry about that, think about the power! 4 times the power to be exact! And it is all down to the Almighty Cloud! Praise be to The Cloud! Gaze upon its magnificence and weep glorious tears of joy!

Seriously, given the that this given that all this cloud computation will likely be heavily reliant on a good internet connection, unless The Cloud is Microsoft's codename for its team of wizards I cannot see this being of any use or anyone wanting to be anywhere near a game that uses these systems after Diablo III & SimCity.

This is awesome, Microsoft! Now I can store my games in the cloud, which provides awesome protection from those annoying little discs that can accidentally get loaned to friends or sold at Gamestop.

Daystar Clarion:
So even single player titles that use the Cloud are going to be unplayable when the servers eventually die.

Best plan ever ¬_¬

Not that this is a problem specific to cloud games. Because you require to check in with Microsoft's servers every 24 hours, once they decide to shut down the servers for Xbone, nothing is going to be playable anymore.

ohnoitsabear:

Daystar Clarion:
So even single player titles that use the Cloud are going to be unplayable when the servers eventually die.

Best plan ever ¬_¬

Not that this is a problem specific to cloud games. Because you require to check in with Microsoft's servers every 24 hours, once they decide to shut down the servers for Xbone, nothing is going to be playable anymore.

I'm starting to think this is all just a clever ruse.

Microsoft isn't this fucking dumb, surely.

Right?

Imre Csete:
Lack of sense of ownership is always a great experience for the customer. Not to mention it sure does sound future proof, doesn't it?

Being "future-proof" is probably the only good thing about the Xbox One. The faster this thing dies, the better. Seriously, NO ONE, gamers or devs, should be touching this crap with a 10-foot pole. Instead, they should be smashing it to bits with said pole.

Daystar Clarion:

ohnoitsabear:

Daystar Clarion:
So even single player titles that use the Cloud are going to be unplayable when the servers eventually die.

Best plan ever ¬_¬

Not that this is a problem specific to cloud games. Because you require to check in with Microsoft's servers every 24 hours, once they decide to shut down the servers for Xbone, nothing is going to be playable anymore.

I'm starting to think this is all just a clever ruse.

Microsoft isn't this fucking dumb, surely.

Right?

*looks at all of Microsoft's other business lines over the last 10-15 years*

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they can be that dumb.

Daystar Clarion:
I'm starting to think this is all just a clever ruse.

Microsoft isn't this fucking dumb, surely.

Right?

I honestly don't know anymore. The sheer amount of ways they've fucked up the Xbone makes me question if any of this is actually real, or if it's just a horrible dream that I'm about to wake up from.

Three or four years now, as they discontinue this turd-parade, all the games that the unfortunate fate to be exlusive to it, will be eternally lost for humankind.

- Hey, Joe, that GOTY 2014, Quantum Break, is that really any good?
- I don't know Bob, it doesn't exist any more.

MinionJoe:
Using Cloud-based resources to improve end-user performance is a great concept and holds a lot of potential.

Not really. Even if we all had the kind of preposterous bandwidth needed to actually offload work to the cloud, and this bandwidth was somehow cost-effective, this is terrible for three reasons.

1) Even if the ability to do this worked, it is completely impractical. "The cloud" isn't just empty space, and that computer work has to happen on someone's machine. If it isn't the end-user's, it's the provider's. This means paying for the machine, upkeep, server and bandwidth costs etc. It is cheaper to have the end-user run the hardware, rather than keep some kind of gigantic cluster of PCs running 24/7.

2) It's technically impossible. Unless we're talking about running a game on a completely different machine and streaming effectively a video feed, running parts of a game on one machine but parts on another and sharing data between the two is impossible to develop for. It's like trying to design a car with two steering systems. It makes patches and bugs a nightmare. It makes the concept of mods (in fact, there would be no mods) and installation a nightmare. And in the case of hardware failure, or hardware inadequacy, coordinating your machines would be hell.

3) The end result for the user would be an increase in performance in exchange for never, ever being capable of running their game without the cloud help. Putting to one side the constant-failure of online DRM, even if the tech was there and it was efficient it would basically destroy our concept of ownership, with every game becoming always-online. I hope you can see why that might be an issue.

OT: We already did this. SimCity claimed to be running computations in the cloud (to cover their DRM), people said it was impossible, and later tests proved that EA/Maxis were lying. If this guy is making this statement officially, we shall presumably later discover that he is also lying.

"The cloud" isn't magic, and you can't just increase resources without increasing costs, not to mention the disastrous track record of this kind of scheme. I have to assume he's either lying or confused about how games work.

How much does Microsoft plan to spend per month on data transmission and server maintenance? For that mater how much is Xbox Live going to cost per month to access the cloud computing space?

Daystar Clarion:

ohnoitsabear:

Daystar Clarion:
So even single player titles that use the Cloud are going to be unplayable when the servers eventually die.

Best plan ever ¬_¬

Not that this is a problem specific to cloud games. Because you require to check in with Microsoft's servers every 24 hours, once they decide to shut down the servers for Xbone, nothing is going to be playable anymore.

I'm starting to think this is all just a clever ruse.

Microsoft isn't this fucking dumb, surely.

Right?

Windows 8....need I say more?

Seriously, for the current generation, I had absolutely no desire to buy a PS3...for this generation, I've currently got absolutely no desire for an XBone. Really the only chance they've got is a spectacular performance at E3 in which they come out and say "Due to the reception of the Xbox One reveal, we have decided to completely overhaul the system because we value our job security. The console will be delayed in its release so that we can tweak and tune it to better be the GAMING console that our consumer base wants it to be."

What about when the servers inevitably go down? What about people like me that have slow and unstable internet (125kB/s in case you were wondering)?

If you want 4x the power of a console just get a freaking PC. This coming from a person who mainly plays on console.

Reyold:
Being "future-proof" is probably the only good thing about the Xbox One. The faster this thing dies, the better. Seriously, NO ONE, gamers or devs, should be touching this crap with a 10-foot pole. Instead, they should be smashing it to bits with said pole.

Considering you'd have to actually touch the console with the pole to smash it, I think it'd be better to just shoot them damn thing to pieces with an 18th century cannon.

As for the "developers shouldn't touch this crap", look at the facebook-comments to the article, with someone working as a developer stating flat-out that this isn't tempting to work with.

Octorok:
...the cloud ... is terrible for three reasons.

Good points. And each of those reasons expands on why Cloud-based computing really won't work in the here-and-now. But strictly as a concept, it has potential. And like you've pointed out, that potential is unlikely to ever be realized in its utopian form.

"The Cloud" is really little more than a client-server set-up on a global WAN where the clients and servers are owned, operated, and maintained by two separate entities. This definitely has tons of performance and logistics problems, just like you said. And if all the computing were offloaded onto the cloud servers, we're really regressing into a sort of dumb-terminal architecture like we had with the System 36 and AS400. Personally, I've worked with VT100 terminals enough to understand the problems with this.

In a perfect world, I wouldn't mind buying a cheap, underpowered PC if it meant I could quickly and reliably connect to some global supercomputer to crunch all the processing for me. But we don't live in a perfect world, and it's unlikely we ever will.

But hey, that's never stopped marketers from promising that we will, yeah? :)

NinjaDeathSlap:

I'm half convinced at this point that this is all an elaborate troll (not your post, the Xbone), and that at E3 they're going to come and all like "Oh boy! You totally fell for it, it was hilarious! Now here's our actual next-gen console that doesn't suck..."

I can but hope can't I? Surely a company as huge as Microsoft, greedy they may be, can't have become as sucessful as they are by being this dumb?

"To be honest, we just thought the Wii U needed a little help. Sorry if you thought we were serious."

Yeah, it's a remote hope, but still, yeah. Would be better than this being serious.

Octorok:
...we shall presumably later discover that he is also lying.

That would be my bet. 3 times as much processing power in their cloud as every single XBone sold? That's a very large investment, for very little gain.

And yet it still can't play a single Xbox 360 game. Or original Xbox game. Or an Xbox Live Arcade game. Pathetic.

How exactly is that going to work?

I mean the vast majority of any game's calculations are frame-related, wrapped in your typical game-loop.

- Get and process user input.
- Calculate AI reactions and physics.
- Render results.
- Repeat.

And you repeat that if at all possible at least 30 times per second. If you've got 50ms ping, which about as high as can be reasonably expected, then you'll still only manage 20 frames per second even if you have instantaneous results.

Sure, you don't have to recalculate NPC's AI every single frame, but you do want them to immediately react to a changed situation and not keep doing what they were until some server somewhere finally responds with their new behavior. Even with the aforementioned awesome stable 50 ping at all times that's still a real delay, add in that when your request arrives on the cloud it likely won't be processed instantly and it's processing will take some time your local system will be several dozen frames ahead already, by which time the situation could've easily changed and the amazing cloud-computed results are already outdated.

Or, to put it in words I'm sure most will understand, you know the rubberbanding and lag that happens in most multiplayer games? Where you think that Spy is actually in front of you but somehow actually behind you and backstabbing you? Where your friend runs against a wall for two seconds before teleporting somewhere else?

Yeah... That'll happen in single-player games as well with the amazing power of cloud-computing...

I thought it would help with loading of levels and faster uptake of graphics when walking through the game world. But then remembered your installing the game onto your hard drive. So have no idea what the point in cloud is. Why dont they just go for digital dl via cloud. Make the games £40 in store and £20 to downloads. That, would enable people no turn away from used games and not even worry about lending games.....because you cant....but hey getting a new game for £20 is worth it. :-)

My captcha said Thats all, folks. lol

PoolCleaningRobot:
Unless you're someone like me who only gets 10 megabits down and 1 up. There's no way their cloud would be able to improve anything on my network

HAHAHAHAH. Try 1.5 megabits peak. You'd really think the dormitories in a UNIVERSITY would have better internet.

OT: So they're taking the Sim City approach to it all. Except this time it will be for more than one game. This just keeps getting better and better :D.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.