To be honest, I've kind of wondered why you'd want to bar multiplatforms from bringing the same cloud computing to the PS4 using Azure. You basically double the business from the console space. That's getting a little off topic. Hopefully at some points devs will talk about how the arrangement works.
Server based game augmentations. The transition to cloud. Really possible?
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
To be honest, I've kind of wondered why you'd want to bar multiplatforms from bringing the same cloud computing to the PS4 using Azure. You basically double the business from the console space. That's getting a little off topic. Hopefully at some points devs will talk about how the arrangement works.
I reckon people think it's a joke/BS because of how the first few execs communicate. They were using it as a way to counter the visual/FLOP difference in general.
We have already seen MMOs and connected SPs where some stuff are done on the servers. Even Gaikai/OnLive is a kind of cloud service. Some of the MMOs are free to play too. There is little/no reason why MS's cloud can't contribute.
The difference is Microsoft is packing cloud/dedicated server in as a standard feature.
It is a separate bullet point since you can have higher local performance and cloud gaming at the same time.
Let me give an alternative view of xbox one cloud computing.
It's not about single player ... it's all about server based multiplayer and QoS. If Microsoft runs all the servers for all the multiplayer (and MMO) games on their cloud they have a distinct advantage in hardware provisioning compared to developers running servers independently, so they should be able to offer unbeatable deals, since when you're playing one game on your xbox it means you aren't playing all the others.
Question is with MMOs being so insignificant on consoles and the prevalence of P2P (with the server only requiring minimal resources) is there a market?
It's not about single player ... it's all about server based multiplayer and QoS. If Microsoft runs all the servers for all the multiplayer (and MMO) games on their cloud they have a distinct advantage in hardware provisioning compared to developers running servers independently, so they should be able to offer unbeatable deals, since when you're playing one game on your xbox it means you aren't playing all the others.
Question is with MMOs being so insignificant on consoles and the prevalence of P2P (with the server only requiring minimal resources) is there a market?
Those games will be designed differently to suit living room play.
I'm guessing Phil Harrison will want to unify the user base, having all the Xbox One gamers in a distributed Playstation Home like Avatar environment -- similar to what he preached last time. ^_^
Then have specialized engines/services (e.g., dedicated server MP) enhancing phone, tablet and console gaming. It's a pretty powerful concept if they can execute well.
I'm guessing Phil Harrison will want to unify the user base, having all the Xbox One gamers in a distributed Playstation Home like Avatar environment -- similar to what he preached last time. ^_^
Then have specialized engines/services (e.g., dedicated server MP) enhancing phone, tablet and console gaming. It's a pretty powerful concept if they can execute well.
If they do anything like Home, and force me to use it, I'm not being an Xbox. Worst piece of shit ever.
I honestly think this will be fairly straightforward. Probably a special development kit that helps you tie your web services into Xbox Live, but mostly the same as what a standard Azure customer would get.
I honestly think this will be fairly straightforward. Probably a special development kit that helps you tie your web services into Xbox Live, but mostly the same as what a standard Azure customer would get.
Billy Idol
Legend
Building "every" game like a MMO would be intriguing, and pretty much the only way to get this cloud thing in the air (pun intended). Unless they shock and awe us.
And if they do, what others pointed out, it should be fairly easy to copy for others. Microsoft is not the only cloud out there, and unless they have a unique patent or technic others can do the same. What i trying to say is, Microsoft is fairly unique now, in that they have software,servers and a console and can combine them. But others would be able to do the same since the XBOX 1 simply doesn't have anything special hardware that makes Clouds possible.. at least not as far as we know.
A PS4 with cloud backing would still be stronger than a XBOX1 with cloud backing, unless they start a pissing match about cloud sizes
that is not entirely accurate. there were people talking about the Yukon and other leaks that showed the roadmap being online and bkilian hinted about the cloud resources in several pre-reveal posts
come on now... this is not a mature system yet. Be reasonable... all the servers are not even built yet... they are probably still working on the API's and yes they said First party will lead the way and they will give devs the tools and hope they use their imaginations to grow it
this is a system that will grow and mature over time... it is new in its infancy... Al of the people that are pointing this out now are misunderstanding that this is a 2-5 year cycle of exploration and MS is taking the leap for us to see where it goes.
It's called progress and pushing the envelope of technology. It might fail but hell I have rarely seen so many technically minded people be so resistant to an idea of pushing boundaries, exploring what was previously thought to be impossible
Azure is a huge platform. They will provide standardized tools - the ones they already provide, which is a plugin for Visual Studio. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel. Everything is one the Windows Azure site. If you want you can get a free trial for 3 months and play with it yourself.
http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/m...ces/how-to-create-and-deploy-a-cloud-service/
As they say, don't be too open minded ... your brain might fall out.
Cloud computing for single player games will always be a win/lose situation at best ... it's very hard to make big wins, in the end 3x the CPU isn't that big a deal. Maybe if we were talking more than an order of magnitude more processing it might start to get interesting, but as it stands it's just not worth the hassle of being at the mercy of network conditions.
Also I'm going to be paying for that power one way or the other ... I'd rather just have an expansion port I can plug the extra processing power into locally for my money.
Cloud computing for single player games will always be a win/lose situation at best ... it's very hard to make big wins, in the end 3x the CPU isn't that big a deal. Maybe if we were talking more than an order of magnitude more processing it might start to get interesting, but as it stands it's just not worth the hassle of being at the mercy of network conditions.
Also I'm going to be paying for that power one way or the other ... I'd rather just have an expansion port I can plug the extra processing power into locally for my money.
Actually, I'd argue that this is a mature platform with mature tools. It just hasn't been offered in the same way to game developers. I imagine the only difference between now and before is they have more virtual machines on Azure running Xbox Live, that it is being marketed directly to publishers/devs, and the price being offered to developers and publishers has probably changed.
My guess is they've set aside X amount of virtual cores and X amount of memory per subscriber. Publishers/devs will be able to pay for additional cores and memory and other services, but if they write apps they will be able to load balance across the VMs the LIVE subscribers have paid for.
Obsidian and now Avalanche are allegedly planning to use the cloud in some way for their games. But I think it is likely we are going to see the cloud used in 1st party games, mostly.
Btw, Nintendo is going to use NERD, a French company they purchased time ago, to explore cloud computing and GPU processing.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nint...ing-on-Cloud-Computing-for-Wii-U-356081.shtml
Huh ?http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1740431#post1740431
yep and it appears they have been doing that for a while now to have ready by launch
judging by that video they have more than a million already deployed perhaps many more
If they are at this early stage, it would be no different from DUST514 using their own servers *yesterday*
The cloud services are "embedded" into the game.
They will need to avoid this type of mixed/conflicting messages.
Did they confirm dedicated server gaming for XBL subscribers ?
Launch is only 6 months away you know ? And if they haven't worked out the business case, and the servers are not built yet, then it doesn't look good. It sounds more like the first parties' private effort.
Not sure. I've seen it mentioned several times, but I don't know if I've ever seen a direct quote from a person at MS.
I imagine capacity planning is done, or close to done. They aren't going to sell 70 million units in the first week, so they're probably planning based on their forecasts which can always be scaled up or down very easily when you're talking about virtual servers. As for the physical servers themselves, I imagine they can, within reason, escalate their plans because of the modularity of their data centers. If demand is under their projections, then that's easy. You just don't buy more servers.
The more I think about it, the more I think the cloud computing could possibly be covered by Live subscriber fees. I'm sure they have a very good idea of how many hours are put into gaming in a given month vs video streaming or other media consumption. The cloud computing cost offered to non-partner's for 6 to 12 months, depending on the size of the processing load, is about $0.02 to $0.45 per hour. If they can make good money on those rates, and give away tons of free hours to different partners (MSDN, MPN), then their internal rates must be pretty low. It would be a case of the majority of the users subsidizing the heavy users.
http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1740431#post1740431
If they are at this early stage, it would be no different from DUST514 using their own servers *yesterday*
The cloud services are "embedded" into the game.
They will need to avoid this type of mixed/conflicting messages.
Did they confirm dedicated server gaming for XBL subscribers ?
Launch is only 6 months away you know ? And if they haven't worked out the business case, and the servers are not built yet, then it doesn't look good. It sounds more like the first parties' private effort.
they have lots of servers deployed in general, 300k assigned for LIVE they said will be by launch
as suggested by a couple of the articles yesterday the move engines are possibly there to help allocate cloud/local data.
not sure where you are getting that they are not ready from what I'm saying? its just premature for you to judge that its not going to work yet. All I'm saying is it's 6 mos away til launch and then I'd guess another 2 years til you would expect to see it developed to the point you (and Ms actually) are projecting
Originally Posted by patsu
...
Did they confirm dedicated server gaming for XBL subscribers ?
they said that each game would get it's own server(s) yes
I've asked before and still haven't seen where this actually happened. Do you know of a specific quote where a MS exec compared the Xbox One's and PS4's specs directly? This seems like a really odd thing for them to do.
Only thing I've found is a mention in the Wired article on launch day. They say dedicated servers for all games that can support 128 players, if they dev wanted. Doesn't say where they got that info.
Similar threads
