Support NeoGAF

[Pistolero]

The point is that non of these systems was the most powerful.


I would rather PS4 win because it seems like a better system but saying that it's going to win just because it's more powerful is short sighted.

The PS one was the most impressive system upon its release (effective power, elegant architecture and simple tools; the excat opposite of Saturn) and produced wowing games. The PS2 was sold on the promise of being technologically superior to the Dreamcast and delivered on it. People love to rewrite history.

 

[dose]

a Ship in the middle of a big body of water CPU & GPU only rendering & simulating the what's close to you but the things off in the distance are being pre calculated & rendered before you get to them.

What exactly would need calculating and rendering? If it's 3D you could approach whatever is in the distance from any angle, so pre-rendering it makes no sense whatsoever. In fact none of your post makes any sense.

 

[koryuken]

a Ship in the middle of a big body of water CPU & GPU only rendering & simulating the what's close to you but the things off in the distance are being pre calculated & rendered before you get to them.

Joke post?

 

[Angelus Errare]

a Ship in the middle of a big body of water CPU & GPU only rendering & simulating the what's close to you but the things off in the distance are being pre calculated & rendered before you get to them.

So basically LOD...

 

[fastford58]

If anyone really bought into that cloud bullshit....well then they deserve Xbone.

 

[3rdamention]

it could be a compute job that the devs would have offloaded to the GPU but now can use the Cloud leaving the GPU resources free to be used for better graphics.

Or they could have made a more powerful system to start with to get better graphics....

 

[MasLegio]

I just don't get how they are going to sell the power of the cloud without always-online. I mean I guess it has potential but how are they going to allow an 'offline' version of a game without severely impairing it?

they have not planned to allow that

if you want to play offline you should buy the 360, that is their philosophy

http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/27/43...none-the-risks-of-an-internet-required-gaming

I broached some of these concerns with several Microsoft executives at last week's event.

The message seemed to be: If you don't like the Xbox One then stick with the Xbox 360.

Don Mattrick, president of Interactive Entertainment Business at Microsoft, told me that the decision to require internet for the Xbox One was driven by a desire to create a console unleashed from the technical limitations of today's not-entirely-connected society. Microsoft had a decision to make, he said; either create a console planted in the present or look to the future and create a device built on the concept that one day the internet will be as available as electricity or telephone service.

"Gamers want the best experiences possible — and they want a future-proof system," he told Polygon.

"Now, with Xbox One, we're stretching the canvas again so creators can design for the cloud with every game they make," he said. "In the next decade, every great game will tap the power of the cloud to deliver richer, more immersive worlds. We have a great offline game system in Xbox 360 that gets better when it's connected. We could have made another offline console, but then offline would have been the lowest common denominator design point for developers. We chose to take the progressive path."

 

[hesido]

The fact that we are even discussing the feasibility of cloud computing for games through what MS is implying is a PR Win for Microsoft. Really, this is something to be laugh at, at best.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Existing real world examples and technologies is the evidence.

But you say that as if there's some monumental amount of evidence to look at. The cloud has barely been used in gaming (namely Sim City even though some argue it doesn't, which then leaves us with how many games that use the cloud to show as evidence?). Cloud computing is a relatively new area. Azure is only 3 years old, and before that Amazon released EC2 in 2006. Cloud computing is used in a lot of web technologies today, and works great. Most major websites generally use the cloud in some fashion (such as Reddit). Most "evidence" in this space is based on research, not shipping games.

I'm not saying all of their cloud computing claims are true. However, I do think there is potential. I really don't think MS would spend billions investing into Azure only to have it not be useful to games. Nobody has to believe them right now, but I'm certainly interested in waiting to see what they show. The GDC talks on this subject are going to be very interesting to pay attention to next year as well to hear developers thoughts on it.

 

[Mael]

Huh people really think that 3rd parties will bother using tehcloud for computations when they couldn't bother with the ps3's SPE?

But you say that as if there's some monumental amount of evidence to look at. The cloud has barely been used in gaming (namely Sim City even though some argue it doesn't, which then leaves us with how many games that use the cloud to show as evidence?).

The Brooklyn Bridge for only $3000, just give me your bank account info via PM

 

[PaulLFC]

they have not planned to allow that

if you want to play offline you should buy the 360, that is their philosophy

http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/27/43...none-the-risks-of-an-internet-required-gaming

Or a PS4...

 

[Ploid 3.0]

As someone who's worked in an industry driven by cloud for the past 7 years (specifically F2P online games), im surprised by responses like yours.

The D3 and Sim City examples are bad because these are gameplay forms that existed before the cloud and performed BETTER without it. It was modified to keep exchanging handshakes and data with the cloud to continually verify that this was a real copy of the game. Of course there are legitimate reasons like the Diablo 3 cloud model being essentially what it took to play multiplayer with other persons online (continually exchanging data with server on where you are in the map and what action you are doing to what item, and cloud telling your client to render where your friends are and what they are doing).

Making them cloud based even for single player only hurt the experience with lag and one additonal req in online.

To summarise your attempt to justify cloud by claming cloud DRM in two recent big titles that forced constant verifications that the game was a real copy has no argumentative weight and proves nothing (you use an example that shows the very problems to try to prove a point to the problem at hand).



What are legit reasons for cloud?
- basic gameplay design being always multiplayer centric
- minimal client / minimized loading times, so data is being streamed to you as you play; see browser games

Oh no, I wasn't trying to justify them. I hate that they are both tied to online. I died so many times to desync solo in D3 that I cursed the day I bought it. I was mainly talking about the crappy state they are in currently. Microsoft seeing them selling well initially and probably went around the offices patting themselves on the back.

 

[M°°nblade]

At release they were the most powerful.
PS1 delivered 3D gaming to your livingroom, it was a paradigm shift.
PS2 evolved that significantly, it's promise of supercomputer on a chip was the center of the hype.
PS3 is looking to end up #1 this gen in a year.
PS4 outlook is looking really swell right now.

Where's that excellent KevY2K post when you need it.

Right here

I'm so frustrated by this power thing. The PS2 came out more than 18 months before the Xbox. The console gen was decided before the Xbox was released; it could have been weaker than the PS2 and it would not have mattered. The whole conversation is meaningless; it does not reveal anything about consumer choices or consumer tastes.

However, if you examine the PS2 in the context in which it was released, you would surely realize that power was a key component of how the system was marketed to consumers. You would know:

• That the hardware components were given humanizing marketing names like "Emotion Engine" and "Graphics Synthesizer"
• That the PS2 was reported on in the media as being a supercomputer ("Sadaam Hussein is importing them TO LAUNCH MISSILES!")
• That the famous "PS9" ad linked the PS2 to a chain of consoles so powerful it became part of your mind
• That Kutaragi spoke about the PS2 as having "Toy Story like graphics" and that players would "jack into the matrix"

Stop being so intellectually dishonest. The PS2 was a monster when it came out. That power mattered.

Yes, it's true that, "The most powerful console has never won the generation!!!!111" But such an observation is facile and meaningless. The SNES and Genesis went head to head on power. The early days of the PS1 vs. Saturn was nothing but a 3d pissing match. The N64 was all about power and it debuted with a paradigm-shifting 3D title. The Dreamcast was a powerful machine ("it's thinking") and the PS2 came out and blew it away.

Am I saying the most powerful machine wins? No. Am I saying power is very important? Absolutely. Even this generation more consumers chose HD gaming machines than non-HD gaming machines and there is the possibility that the PS3 will close out the gen in first place.

So stahp.

 

[Freshmaker]

i thought everyone knew it was bullshit..

smh

Even if it was true, the first Bethesda title to appear would likely disable the entire beast.

 

[Patrickv27]

Bbbbbusted. You should have like gazillion bits/sec for this work I think haha.

 

[Burbank_]

Dispense atmoshperic nanoswarms for processing power --> singularity --> wins console war.

 

[JohnnySasaki86]

The point is that non of these systems was the most powerful.


I would rather PS4 win because it seems like a better system but saying that it's going to win just because it's more powerful is short sighted.

Not true. PS2 won at the time, as in the early battle, because it was the most powerful. I know I know xbox was more powerful, but it came a year later, so its kinda of exempt and a separate issue. PS2 vs DC, and PS2 vs Xbox wasn't an apples to apples comparison. So let me explain.

When it came to the dreamcast, one of the big reasons it won WAS cause it was the most powerful. People were anticipating the PS2 a year before it came out and Sony hype train was in full motion about how powerful it was compared to the Dreamcast. Really hurt Sega's momentum. Now Dreamcast failed for many reasons, but the power of the PS2 was a big reason why it had so much earlier success over the DC. Due to so much demand and hype because of the systems specs, that also influenced the 3rd party support. It brought it all the games(which is really the only thing that matters is the end). Which bring me to the Xbox/GC...

Xbox being the more powerful system was null and void because by the time it got to the market PS2 had a ton of big blockbuster AAA 3rd party games like GTA3 and MGS2, with plenty more on the way. PS2 already had a stranglehold on the market. Xbox would of completely failed and probably would of never got a successor if it wasn't for a game called Halo.

So its all about TIMING. PS2 being a more powerful system worked for Sony and made a big difference in its early success and ultimate failure for the DC, but for MS it didn't matter. The point is, when all other things are equal, which they will be for PS4/XBone the power will make a big difference.

Also PS1 won because of some its technical advantages over N64, such as the CD and some other advantages it had(lack of ram or something in the N64? or peticular type of RAM?).

 

[travisbickle]

I dont know one person that turns on his console and doesnt log into Live. And even when you appear offline, you're still online. I really don't see what the issue is here. Really blown out of proportions.

Everyone I meet on the internet is online, what's the problem guys?

 

[Ravage]

MS will do whatever it takes to justify their online DRM and underpowered console. I'm sure gamers are thrilled to have all the disadvantages of MMOs (latency, lack of ownership, etc) without any of the benefits in their single player games.

 

[MasLegio]

if you make a game a service instead of a product you get more power over the consumer and the consumer gets less protection from consumer rights. It will also be easier to control the consumers behavior and the consumers spending habits.

Games on the Xbox one will not be products, they will all be services. The cloud will be an integral part of this.

In any way this is not good from a consumer rights perspective.

 

[Eusis]

Bbbbbusted. You should have like gazillion bits/sec for this work I think haha.

Latency would probably wreck it even if you could send zettabytes within milliseconds. There's still a physical distance for the single to cover and bounce back from.

Though if you could send zettabytes I'm sure streaming 4k 120 FPS video would be a joke, so who'd care about trying to make the console and server co-compute?

 

[Guymelef]

Or a PS4...

.

 

[Durante]

I'm not saying all of their cloud computing claims are true. However, I do think there is potential. I really don't think MS would spend billions investing into Azure only to have it not be useful to games. Nobody has to believe them right now, but I'm certainly interested in waiting to see what they show.

Of course a cloud infrastructure is useful for games. For example, you can host servers on it. Hosting servers is something that clouds do really well -- I wish Neogaf was hosted "in the cloud" so it could dynamically scale the hardware resources it uses e.g. around E3. But the crucial point is that the possibility of having dedicated servers is not predicated on having an always-on console or even a cloud infrastructure -- PC games have had dedicated servers since long before the term "cloud computing" was even coined, and plenty of multiplayer PS3 games also featured dedicated servers.

In any case, it's not the usefulness of cloud computing in general that's in question here (I believe AWS made 6 billion in 2012 with it, it must be useful for something), it's the particular usage scenarios presented by MS, e.g. enhancing the lighting in locally rendered games.

 

[Silly.Mikey]

Everyone I meet on the internet is online, what's the problem guys?

The point, in case youre too dense, was that out of all of my friends i dont know one that doesnt have his console connected. Not one. And unless you physically dont have it set up with the proper wireless info or dont have an Ethernet wire plugged in, even if you dont log into Live the adds will appear anyways. The 360 is already always online as soon as you set it up.

As for the people who dont connect their console, they just wont have access to the features. I doubt MS is losing any sleep over this.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Of course a cloud infrastructure is useful for games. For example, you can host servers on it. Hosting servers is something that clouds do really well -- I wish Neogaf was hosted "in the cloud" so it could dynamically scale the hardware resources it uses e.g. around E3. But the crucial point is that the possibility of having dedicated servers is not predicated on having an always-on console or even a cloud infrastructure -- PC games have had dedicated servers since long before the term "cloud computing" was even coined, and plenty of multiplayer PS3 games also featured dedicated servers.

In any case, it's not the usefulness of cloud computing in general that's in question here (I believe AWS made 6 billion in 2012 with it, it must be useful for something), it's the particular usage scenarios presented by MS, e.g. enhancing the lighting in locally rendered games.

Yes, dedicated servers have been around for a while. But the difference between hosting your own dedicated server and hosting it in the cloud is that you have 0 up-front or maintenance costs. That alone is a big benefit for hosting dedicated servers in the cloud rather than on servers the publisher bought.

The scenarios the cloud will be useful for are purely up to the developer and what they think is right for their game. MS just listed a few possible scenarios that they probably have demo's for internally. It's not like they were saying "the cloud WILL enhance graphics", it's just one possible option for developers. Some developers will just use it for dedicated servers. Others will go a step further and host parts of their simulation on the cloud, or run portions of their AI on the cloud. There likely will be a developer who will use the cloud to enhance the graphics in some way at one point.

We shouldn't expect all of these scenarios at launch though. It will surely get used for more scenarios as time goes on, and especially as they'll be updating the platform for developers too depending on what they're asking for. So if we look forward to the games coming out for 2015 or 2016 that will use the cloud, the way they will be using the cloud is going to be very different to how the launch games will use the cloud.

I'm hoping that they show off some cloud-specific features at E3, just so we can actually see this system in action. I'm much more interested to hear what they're telling developers though, and it's possible we'll also hear some details at BUILD in June if they talk about Xbox development.

 

[onQ123]

Not true. PS2 won at the time, as in the early battle, because it was the most powerful. I know I know xbox was more powerful, but it came a year later, so its kinda of exempt and a separate issue. PS2 vs DC, and PS2 vs Xbox wasn't an apples to apples comparison. So let me explain.

When it came to the dreamcast, one of the big reasons it won WAS cause it was the most powerful. People were anticipating the PS2 a year before it came out and Sony hype train was in full motion about how powerful it was compared to the Dreamcast. Really hurt Sega's momentum. Now Dreamcast failed for many reasons, but the power of the PS2 was a big reason why it had so much earlier success over the DC. Due to so much demand and hype because of the systems specs, that also influenced the 3rd party support. It brought it all the games(which is really the only thing that matters is the end). Which bring me to the Xbox/GC...

Xbox being the more powerful system was null and void because by the time it got to the market PS2 had a ton of big blockbuster AAA 3rd party games like GTA3 and MGS2, with plenty more on the way. PS2 already had a stranglehold on the market. Xbox would of completely failed and probably would of never got a successor if it wasn't for a game called Halo.

So its all about TIMING. PS2 being a more powerful system worked for Sony and made a big difference in its early success and ultimate failure for the DC, but for MS it didn't matter. The point is, when all other things are equal, which they will be for PS4/XBone the power will make a big difference.

Also PS1 won because of some its technical advantages over N64, such as the CD and some other advantages it had(lack of ram or something in the N64? or peticular type of RAM?).

So you're saying that PS2 beat the Dreamcast because it was more powerful even though the Dreamcast came out a year before but also say that the PS2 beat the Xbox because of it's year head start even though the Xbox was more powerful?

like I was saying it's not all about power if the Xbox One becomes the product that appeals to more people then it will sell better even if PS4 is more powerful, And if the PS4 becomes the product that appeals to more people it will sell better than the Xbox One even if the Xcloud somehow make games look like CGI movies.

 

[yurinka]

I still think that this magic cloud won't help X1 games look as good as PS4 ones, even it may help in voice recognition or similar non-graphics related stuff due to latency, and will be used basically just an excuse to require 24/7 online DRM for certain games.

I think it's just a PR gimmick to justify they do 'something cool' with the word cloud as Sony will do with Gaikai game streaming or streamed matches with friends in PS4, and at the same time trying to justify with a 'secret sauce' the fake lack of horsepower when compared with PS4.

Can't wait to see multiplatform comparisions to see if they did magic or if I'm right.

 

[boingball]

Thank you Digital Foundry for pushing back on these absurd claims

.

Yes, thank you Eurogamer and Digital Foundry for calling out MS on their BS Marketing.

 

[artist]

I found this AMD slide interesting;