Server based game augmentations. The transition to cloud. Really possible?

@dumbo11

Sorry I should have been more specific.
I don't know why but every time I think of physics I think about real time physics.

Nebulous stuff anyway

 

While that is true, it doesn't really undermine what has been advertised imo. What's been advertised is making games better by moving resources to the cloud as you free up more local resources. Even if we are only talking about pre-computed stuff that could in theory be thrown on the disc that is still room on the disc/hdd/ram being freed up locally. There's no reason to imagine devs will only offload stuff that *has* to be done in the cloud. The end goal seems to be freeing up local resources so even stuff that could easily be done locally can be moved and provide some tangible benefit.

 

Who's going to pay for it and how?

 

In multiplayer games servers need to run the physics to validate client information and resolve the consecuences of interaction between players.

It doesn't replace the client physics except may be for things happening away from the player where it doesn't matter that the player see things with a small delay since there is no direct immediate interaction. The 60 fps are attained though interpolation/prediction + local simulation if needed.

Nothing that hasn't been seen before but probably the scale will make it breathtaking.

 

I'd also add: Why?
This is why I'm still very, Very, skeptical about this whole cloud thing MS is advertising.

 

But we are talking about a shooter of some kind here.
Any kid of "lag/delay" is going to be seen, felt and will impact negatively the experience.

 

It's not going to be any worse than multiplayer and last time I checked most shooters seem to support that.

 

For the cloud? I guess Xbox Live Gold, all games will have dedicated servers for multiplayer.

 

Frankly, the obscene amount of money they get from Xbox live members (total) should be enough to build such a network.

 

Gold memberships generate $1+ billion in revenue for MS every year. That'll pay for the cloud.

 

Next gen will combine the erratic, laggy syncing and high latency lag-hiding of server based games with classic console 30 fps low response single player games - all topped off by HDTV output lag of course. Nirvana.

What would make it better would be if MS relied on a handful of large server clusters, all of which were located minimum hundreds of miles and many hops away from me.

 

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/connected
"For an optimal experience, we recommend a broadband connection of 1.5Mbps."
(I think 1.5Mbps download would normally balance to 256 or 128kbps upload?)

 

No it depends on the technology used and the ISP you're dealing with.

if you're talking about DSL/ADSL, then yes.

 

Interesting. Gives us some numbers to look at it terms of what can be done with the cloud. They've picked a target that is similar to what you'd use watching streaming video, which seems reasonable.

Do they imply phone tethering or models with built in 3G/4G?

 

MS took Akamai estimates, like DF, so cloud could be made to operate withing the 2.9mbs limit/average.
If they want cloud to be for everyone that it makes sense to target the average internet connection rather than demand to have gigabit intent and have the XBO wired.
Also they say "developers can create massive, persistent worlds that evolve even when you’re not playing."

 

Speedtest.net claims to me the world average internet connection is 13+ megabits I believe...when it compares my connection to everybody elses.



It says USA average is 17.59 Mb I think.

MS number sounds more accurate?

 

Yes, the small number is much more accurate.

The average IQ is 100.
But the average result from a perfectly calibrated IQ test is >100. .

You need to consider who is going to sit an IQ test - ditto who's going to run a speedtest...

 

Never going to work where I live. SO, if I am playing with people with good connections while I have a 512kbps connection, will the game disable cloud computing for all? Or will I see the game different than others ? Or will I be not allowed to play the game at all !!

If the game cannot cater to all without the cloud, the game limits its audience, if the game can cater to all without using cloud support for calculations, then that means devs have to make sure those calculations don't affect the gameplay at all !

What are game devs going to do with such a system which either makes their game "unplayable(no-buy)" for half of the world ........... or.............makes sure the extra work they put in for the cloud based effects doesn't really affect gameplay at all?

 

I'm trying to find what the bandwidth cap is for Xbox Live games on 360. Developers are forced to stay under a certain up/down speed. Or at least they were. I can no longer find the numbers. It was very small. Comparing to the 1.5Mbit limit would be interesting. 1.5Mbit is not a lot of data.

I've seen various things saying Xbox Live required a 64kbit connection, and that was bumped up when they improved the voice chat quality a few years ago. I don't know of that was an up or down requirement. I've seen some other posts that say Xbox Live requires 256kbit down or 512kbit down. Not sure what is right. Anyway, somewhere there was a restriction on how much bandwidth games could use.