D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Second time you've corrected this. I need to stop posting about the MacMini while thinking about the octocore nextgen consoles.
Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation
- Thread starter Love_In_Rio
- Start date
- Status
COPS N RAPPERS
Regular
Even with Microsoft's strong investment into new servers for cloud, with the new rules for engaging in offline independence, it's going to place cloud usage into a secondary position towards optional. Cloud gaming could end up being part of a package for Gold subscribers.
COPS N RAPPERS
Regular
If a Game ends of being popular because of the entirety of Cloud then maybe a few more projects may follow, but I do know that a majority of developers will make their games reach as many customers as possible. So from a business proposition it does place the idea for "Cloud Only" gaming into a separate venture.
MMORPGs could benefit from Cloud gaming in it's entirety more i might say. with worlds and Stories needing a lot of updates.
MMORPGs could benefit from Cloud gaming in it's entirety more i might say. with worlds and Stories needing a lot of updates.
The cloud infrastructure requirement is not all that disparate from online requirement. I wouldn't be surprised if 2/3rd or more games this generation have some online required. 95+% of the people that can meet the online requirement can meet the 1.5Mb/s requirement and probably quite a bit more.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Persistent worlds are coming to both consoles. I don't know if you caught The Division at E3, with a talk through with the game's creative director, around the 4.40 mark they touch on the persistence of the world, depending on what you and/or others had done - he explains the world is meta persistent.
I wonder if on slower connections, heavy online traffic and cloud compute will clash. I think I read of a required/recommended 1.5Mbps for One. Would this cover average traffic for both?
Last edited by a moderator:
COPS N RAPPERS
Regular
Not right now it isn't but it will grow In order to see the payoff; otherwise it's just regular online gaming. You can't really make a claim like "Powered By Cloud" if it amounts to the same online gaming experience.
The idea of Cloud usage is limitless, so you can't put a uniform requirement amongst developers. Forza 5 uses Driveatars And Titanfall has updated worlds.
Last edited by a moderator:
COPS N RAPPERS
Regular
Cloud might be used on XB1's version, but i'm guessing that only if it's supported. Cloud computing hasn't even entered into the discussion for that title yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloud Computational power has quite a bit of ways to go before it can truly stack up as a technical achievement. It would have been better if Microsoft would have supported the idea of external upgrading. support for just a single HD7970 would have done better for them. with the way Cloud aims to be, it's going to eventually need an expensive internet service plan to benefit; which will only add more costs to an existing service.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
My misunderstanding, I thought 'cloud' was a reference to cloud compute rather than server-hosted worlds.
Server-hosted worlds is cloud compute too, it just wasn't called that before.
COPS N RAPPERS
Regular
Cloud compute is supposed to be left up to the developers and how they want their data to be offloaded to the servers.
The up side to Cloud compute is the access to freeing up system resources, and even graphics boosts once cloud tech improves. developers can leave uncompressed data or extra features on disc so that fidelity can inflate once connected to the service.....or developers could supply more content if necessary digitally to the game vice versa.
now the drawback to cloud compute is that it will eventually lead to the increasing of system requirements; because developers will have the freedom to chose what's offloaded. which is why i say if it comes down to that, they should have just stuck with a fixed external upgrade plan, because at least you get to keep your upgrades....unlike like an expensive online service that you'll have to maintain for the next 7 years, or whenever.
The up side to Cloud compute is the access to freeing up system resources, and even graphics boosts once cloud tech improves. developers can leave uncompressed data or extra features on disc so that fidelity can inflate once connected to the service.....or developers could supply more content if necessary digitally to the game vice versa.
now the drawback to cloud compute is that it will eventually lead to the increasing of system requirements; because developers will have the freedom to chose what's offloaded. which is why i say if it comes down to that, they should have just stuck with a fixed external upgrade plan, because at least you get to keep your upgrades....unlike like an expensive online service that you'll have to maintain for the next 7 years, or whenever.
A cloud is servers in a virtual datacenter. The fact that you can quickly expand capacity and quickly scale it back down means you can scale your costs to match activity (which hopefully is proportional to your revenue). That is new.
Cheers
As well as shifting compute from the node end to server dynamically. Usually that is a fairly static split. Now it seems to be dynamic with recognition of loads on both ends of the pipe and scaling as appropriate.
I have yet to see that implemented in the real world so it fascinates me.
Many online service companies have done that precisely because it helps the bottomline. e.g., http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/01/auto-scaling-in-amazon-cloud.html
itsmydamnation
Veteran
No it isn't. If the video game industry hasn't been using a scaling model for the last decade that's no ones fault but themselves. This isn't new......
They are using cloud one way or another.
Not everyone needs to start from a clean slate. There are existing machines/contracts/services to use, and existing operation to run.
I'd say it's harder to do an online service without using cloud tech or platform these days. Everyone is doing it.
Not everyone needs to start from a clean slate. There are existing machines/contracts/services to use, and existing operation to run.
I'd say it's harder to do an online service without using cloud tech or platform these days. Everyone is doing it.
You used to lease entire machines or virtuals from a data-/ hosting center and you paid a fixed price for each per month.
What is new in Amazon's elastic cloud and MS' Azure, is that you can set umpteen servers up to be on standby to serve when capacity is needed, and you only pay for the time used.
Cheers
itsmydamnation
Veteran
I work (in a technical roll) for a company thats it the top right corner of
for cloud services. I know what there was what there is and what there will be. Your stipulation about what you could and couldn't buy is wrong, yes there have been improvements but most of those are purely orchestration and if you knew what you wanted you could get what you wanted. What has largely changed is the way it is productised and sold.
Fair enough.
What was there before Amazon's EC2/S3 servers-on-demand product ? None of the hosting provideres I've been involved with has offered anything like it prior to EC2's launch (2006)
Cheers
Depends on your needs. Mostly roll our own with or without virtualization (e.g., Xen, VMware, Citrix) running on rented space. In the early days, some of us run our operation with EC2 in parallel. You can export your EC2 VM to run on your own hardware (e.g., If you're running an operation in a country with bad international link. ^_^)
- Status
Similar threads
