You obviously have your opinion even if it isn't shared by the vast majority of people who wouldn't consider D3 as anything but a single player game.
Xbox 1, The Cloud Processing Machine with offline Cloud capabilities.
It's a good idea for MS to leverage their already existing and growing Cloud infrastructure as selling point for the new console. It doesn't matter how the XB1 does MS is going to be doing as much business in the Cloud as they can. I wonder what kind of Cloud Power will be used for a potential Google gaming machine ? There is a company that is filthy with Cloudiness.
So whatever part of the rendering that gets "clouded" by definition is not terribly problematic from a system resources view of things ( stuff that doesn't change much and is normally rendered using some unused processor time ). When the XB1 or PS4 are scrambling to find cycles later on in the lifetime I can see where this will come in handy, but wouldn't the overhead of creating a reasonably attractive fail over system for the game, in case online resources are degraded or overused, add to the cost of development. Adding cost for something that isn't going to be a problem for a few years ? I wonder if developer resources for problematic online connections going to be proportional to the amount of "cloud transistors" used to render the game ?
I think that 'just' is a gross simplification.
You're talking about extra work, to develop two solutions to the same problem. If the cloud means you don't need any light baking, to then also pay artists to create baked assets for when the cloud (that you're paying for to render the lighting) fails is just adding cost for something you hope gamers won't ever even need.
I think that 'just' is a gross simplification.
). Is that level of "fail over" baked into 8.1 ? Again I understand that MS is going to help out here to one extent or another but I "feel" that there is going to be a bit of overhead when it comes to rendering scenes and gracefully dealing with network issues.Pardon me for asking but what kind of services and what kind of response times are we dealing with here. I am not talking about classical server side gaming stuff here ( match making, bots etc. ) but rendering parts of an image that needs to updated 16 1/2 milliseconds at a time ( assuming 60 fps is the NEW 30 fps
) Single player games ... I'd like to see how many CPU cycles are saved on that kind of thing. Like I said years down the road when games on these machines are fighting for every cycle it's probably a no brainer but right now ... Light maps for large destructible gaming areas maybe or so a Respawn guy said. Sounds good but then again how little do we think devs can do with this new hardware ?? I would rather they invest their time making use of HSA in both systems right now and less time on non-interacting physics stuff or lightmaps generated in Der Cloud.
Pardon me for asking but what kind of services and what kind of response times are we dealing with here. I am not talking about classical server side gaming stuff here ( match making, bots etc. ) but rendering parts of an image that needs to updated 16 1/2 milliseconds at a time ( assuming 60 fps is the NEW 30 fps
Take Elder Scrolls for example. When targeting the cloud you move the environment and people simulation there and do fancy stuff, unattainable on local console. That takes your devs xxx time to make, at xxx cost. If you then want the game to run offline, you have to design an offline world simulation system at additional cost and time.
The author is wrong if he thinks bullets will stop warping around corners ... ever since they stopped making games purely server authoritative with a simple single causal timeline bullets have been warping around corners. All the developers want to accommodate the HPBs, through client authoritative hit detection and server side predating, instead of the LPB master race.
