Power of the Cloud? just look at how GTA Onlines cloud is doing....

#71Erik_PPosted 10/3/2013 11:32:47 AM
Your right. People who worked on the 360 have absolutely no relevant skills to knowledge! Thanks for your insider perspective!


You have poor reading comprehension it seems. Either that or you're trying to twist what I'm saying to mean something it doesn't.
---
Signatures go here
#72Laylow12Posted 10/3/2013 11:39:06 AM
Oh my god! It's the glorious Microsoft Cloud that will change the world and make everything shiny and happy!
---
The Queen of Light took her bow, and then she turned to go.
The Prince of Peace embraced the gloom, and walked the night alone.-Battle of Evermore/Zeppelin
#73BrownGottiPosted 10/3/2013 11:44:52 AM(edited)
NeoMonk posted...
Ch3wy posted...
You're not even making sense anymore.


Awwe it's so cute when a FB is cornered!

This is the downside to revisionists history.
There were endless threads a few months ago how the power of the cloud would boost performance and make graphics better... All based on propaganda from MS.

Now that it's all be debunked you

A- pretend it never happened
B- act as if you didn't partake on it
C- refuse to admit your overlords lied

It's funny to see how FBs react to facts, even more funny to see them team up like the power rangers :D


Where was the Xbox One cloud debunked? Both the PS4 and Xbox One will offer some form of cloud based processing.
#74SoulTrapperPosted 10/4/2013 3:10:46 AM(edited)
DesperateMonkey posted...

I did read the entire article. It says that certain games will WANT dynamic lighting and these are mostly shooters. This does not hold true for all genres at all or how developers want to approach there game. Those are specific examples within a single genre for good reason. There is no reason to have dynamic lighting in the distance. Cloud can offer pre baked dynamic lighting according to the day/night cycle in a game like Skyrim to give accurate lighting in the distance while letting the local system take over anything altered by the character once he arrives their. That article does not say its a useless feature at all.

This is completely different from Battlefield which you might blow open a roof and light comes in all of a sudden.


It says dynamic lighting is completely possible without the cloud as well.
There is no need for the cloud to get this and with the cloud, there would be delays in the lighting and this wouldn't actually work.
I don't think you understood what you read, so try again:


However, improvements in local rendering power and techniques have made real-time global illumination - realistic without the artifacts and limitations of prebaked lighting - a real possibility without needing servers. Crytek's cascaded light propagation volumes were shown running on a GTX 285 in 2009 and was extremely impressive. A future Battlefield game with destructible environments is going to want an immediate lighting solution as opposed to shadows and lighting updating a few seconds after every change.

The article says the cloud is not needed for this feature, which, once again, makes the cloud just a remote data storage device that can be used for dedicated severs.

It doesn't offer any realistic benefits due to limitations in current day technology (mostly due to bandwidth).

Also, if the cloud based anything was this damn good (or even remotely possible) why haven't we seen it being utilized on PCs?
Why is there not a single dev out there that has done anything to improve their games using "the cloud"?

If it really was such a game changer, why has it not been used in the ways MS claims it will be used?

---
PSN: El_Coon
#75DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/5/2013 8:45:13 AM(edited)
1)You ignored everything else I listed
2)The article says nothing in there that people have to choose dynamic lighting. Lots of games still don't and can create lighting on a much bigger scale with prebaked lighting, which is actually dynamic but simply pre-processed by the cloud when you enter an area.

This is so sad... Your argument is that if developers only develop a certain way then Cloud would be useless. In ONE area, no less since the article acknowledges a lot of things that the Cloud CAN do.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#76SoulTrapperPosted 10/5/2013 9:24:52 AM(edited)
DesperateMonkey posted...
1)You ignored everything else I listed
2)The article says nothing in there that people have to choose dynamic lighting. Lots of games still don't and can create lighting on a much bigger scale with prebaked lighting, which is actually dynamic but simply pre-processed by the cloud when you enter an area.

This is so sad... Your argument is that if developers only develop a certain way then Cloud would be useless. In ONE area, no less since the article acknowledges a lot of things that the Cloud CAN do.


1)Who are you replying too? Because the only thing you listed is dynamic lighting.


2)The article says nothing in there that people have to choose dynamic lighting.
That's not even English. Although that would explain why you fail at reading that article.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gaming


Okay, so let me try and get what you're saying here:

The devs can decide whether they go for dynamic lighting done by the console itself with no delay and no online and high bandwidth requirement
or
They can choose to go for dynamic lighting done by the cloud requiring a constant online connection and that even with a high bandwidth will have delays.

Gee, I wonder which one is the most convenient option here?

Also, don't forget that all of these things are theoretical, because Microsoft has yet to show any of thm being done with the cloud.

My argument is that developers will choose the easiest method that will work for both systems and not some theoretical option that would require separate development for multiplats.
And that Microsoft has yet to prove that the cloud can actually do any of these things, since NO GAME SO FAR WILL BE USING IT FOR ANYTHING BUT DATA STORAGE.

And you completely ignored everything else I listed:

It doesn't offer any realistic benefits due to limitations in current day technology (mostly due to bandwidth).

Also, if the cloud based anything was this damn good (or even remotely possible) why haven't we seen it being utilized on PCs?
Why is there not a single dev out there that has done anything to improve their games using "the cloud"?

If it really was such a game changer, why has it not been used in the ways MS claims it will be used?

And as the article concludes:

What's obvious at this point is that the concept of cloud computing looks uncertain and unlikely, and Microsoft needs to prove its claims with actual software Yet based on what we've been told, the firm itself isn't sure of what uses to put it to, while the limitations of latency and bandwidth severely impede the benefits of all that computing power. Frequent references to Live and multiplayer gaming suggest a less exciting, though certainly valuable, use for Microsoft's new servers in providing better, conventional, multiplayer experiences. More players, adaptive achievements and intelligent worlds all sound great in theory, but we're certainly not seeing the notional results of a four-fold increase in Xbox One's processing power.

Microsoft needs to prove its position with strong ideas and practical demonstrations. Until then, it's perhaps best not to get too carried away with the idea of a super-powered console, and there's very little evidence that Sony needs to be worried about its PS4 specs advantage being comprehensively wiped out by "the power of the cloud".

---
PSN: El_Coon
#77DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/5/2013 4:26:33 PM
SoulTrapper posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...
1)You ignored everything else I listed
2)The article says nothing in there that people have to choose dynamic lighting. Lots of games still don't and can create lighting on a much bigger scale with prebaked lighting, which is actually dynamic but simply pre-processed by the cloud when you enter an area.

This is so sad... Your argument is that if developers only develop a certain way then Cloud would be useless. In ONE area, no less since the article acknowledges a lot of things that the Cloud CAN do.


1)Who are you replying too? Because the only thing you listed is dynamic lighting.


2)The article says nothing in there that people have to choose dynamic lighting.
That's not even English. Although that would explain why you fail at reading that article.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gaming


Okay, so let me try and get what you're saying here:

The devs can decide whether they go for dynamic lighting done by the console itself with no delay and no online and high bandwidth requirement
or
They can choose to go for dynamic lighting done by the cloud requiring a constant online connection and that even with a high bandwidth will have delays.

Gee, I wonder which one is the most convenient option here?


Whichever one serves their engine and resources better. You are pretty ignorant in believing that Dynamic lighting is just the superior choice for all developers. Not to mention the fact that the delay doesn't really matter at all, especially if you do local dynamic lighting and have Cloud draw up the lighting, ambience and effects in the far off distance in which the delay matters not.

And I listed a bunch of stuff. Learn to read. You are really using selective reading to prove an argument.

Fact is, you listed the DF article to prove that Cloud doesn't do anything for graphics. Then we have digital foundry saying it can be used for lighting, ambient effects, physics, AI and whatever else is not latency dependent.

GG.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#78SoulTrapperPosted 10/6/2013 12:50:49 AM
DesperateMonkey posted...

Whichever one serves their engine and resources better. You are pretty ignorant in believing that Dynamic lighting is just the superior choice for all developers. Not to mention the fact that the delay doesn't really matter at all, especially if you do local dynamic lighting and have Cloud draw up the lighting, ambience and effects in the far off distance in which the delay matters not.


Again you make stuff up: where did I claim it would be the superior choice?

Yeah, great idea! Let's implement an even more difficult system to program instead of doing straight forward local calculations without the need to set up another system to determine what is and what is not far enough away to switch to cloud computing.

You fail to understand that, besides none of this being possible due to latency and delay, it would require a ton of extra coding.

So, again, why would any dev choose to implement a more complicated and time consuming system when there is a much simpler option available?

And I listed a bunch of stuff. Learn to read. You are really using selective reading to prove an argument.


No you didn't, that entire post was about dynamic lighting.


Fact is, you listed the DF article to prove that Cloud doesn't do anything for graphics. Then we have digital foundry saying it can be used for lighting, ambient effects, physics, AI and whatever else is not latency dependent.

GG.


Except you're wrong.

The entire article lists what is theoretically possible, as claimed by Microsoft and goes on to prove each of those points as impossible at this point in time.

Try and read the conclusion:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gaming

What's obvious at this point is that the concept of cloud computing looks uncertain and unlikely, and Microsoft needs to prove its claims with actual software.
Microsoft needs to prove its position with strong ideas and practical demonstrations. Until then, it's perhaps best not to get too carried away with the idea of a super-powered console, and there's very little evidence that Sony needs to be worried about its PS4 specs advantage being comprehensively wiped out by "the power of the cloud".
.

So I'm sure you understand what "the concept of cloud computing looks uncertain and unlikely" means, right?
---
PSN: El_Coon
#79SirLemontPosted 10/6/2013 5:09:14 AM
So to make a long story short, until the entire network infrastructure is overhauled (and made affordable to users) the "Power of the Cloud" is this generation's "blast processing". A bunch of technical-sounding marketing BS.
#80DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/6/2013 10:10:27 AM(edited)
SoulTrapper posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...

Whichever one serves their engine and resources better. You are pretty ignorant in believing that Dynamic lighting is just the superior choice for all developers. Not to mention the fact that the delay doesn't really matter at all, especially if you do local dynamic lighting and have Cloud draw up the lighting, ambience and effects in the far off distance in which the delay matters not.


Again you make stuff up: where did I claim it would be the superior choice?

Yeah, great idea! Let's implement an even more difficult system to program instead of doing straight forward local calculations without the need to set up another system to determine what is and what is not far enough away to switch to cloud computing.

You fail to understand that, besides none of this being possible due to latency and delay, it would require a ton of extra coding.

So, again, why would any dev choose to implement a more complicated and time consuming system when there is a much simpler option available?

And I listed a bunch of stuff. Learn to read. You are really using selective reading to prove an argument.


No you didn't, that entire post was about dynamic lighting.


Fact is, you listed the DF article to prove that Cloud doesn't do anything for graphics. Then we have digital foundry saying it can be used for lighting, ambient effects, physics, AI and whatever else is not latency dependent.

GG.


Except you're wrong.

The entire article lists what is theoretically possible, as claimed by Microsoft and goes on to prove each of those points as impossible at this point in time.

Try and read the conclusion:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gaming

What's obvious at this point is that the concept of cloud computing looks uncertain and unlikely, and Microsoft needs to prove its claims with actual software.
Microsoft needs to prove its position with strong ideas and practical demonstrations. Until then, it's perhaps best not to get too carried away with the idea of a super-powered console, and there's very little evidence that Sony needs to be worried about its PS4 specs advantage being comprehensively wiped out by "the power of the cloud".
.

So I'm sure you understand what "the concept of cloud computing looks uncertain and unlikely" means, right?



Wait, we went from DF to Eurogamer? Lol...

First of all, they aren't pro's at all. Second of all, DF listed a bunch of things that could be done and that was not ALL that could be done, simply what they know of. This was also back in may. I also had a second post which listed a bunch of things which I relisted and you want to ignore.

Basically, you take MS's word as lies and Eurogamer as absolutely true. Selective Pony logic. Also this is in respect to the PS4 spec advantage, meaning Eurogamer is still talking about the idiotic idea that it will improve graphics in all areas whereas Cloud is clearly going to benefit hugely in select areas (that may not even be graphics) while do nothing for others.

Your logic is so full of holes and you just want to plug your ears and take speculation as fact. Not all speculation mind you. You only take HALF the speculation from the DF article and ignore the half that hurts you. Now that you realize it was a dumb idea to half read the article and post it as your source, you want to move this to something about Eurogamer instead. GG! Lets forget what DF said now! Worst part is you pretending to know anything about lighting.