Due to the GTA Online fiasco I'm a bit skeptical of the Xboner's cloud power.

#71SoulTrapperPosted 10/7/2013 12:52:52 AM
DesperateMonkey posted...

The semantics was saying it doesn't "improve lighting", it does it FOR the system. Either way, it improves the system.


Prove it, how does it improve the system? Because as the article mentions, it's entirely possible to do the exact same thing on the console without any latency.


The rest of your post is garbage along the lines of this last quote. You've moved away from "facts" into fanboy speculation territory.


That's the entire point: Microsoft hasn't shown the cloud doing anything yet.
Saying that it can improve anything is the fanboy speculation.

There is no proof the cloud can do anything outside of data storage and dedicated servers.


1)You are completely making up BS about how much resources things like lighting or physics will take up
2)You keep making idiot guesses about how this company or that company hasn;t done it YET when the console hasn't even released
3)You like to believe every rumor that hints at something negative about cloud and will blatantly ignore anything positive even if its in the SAME article...


1) Than prove me wrong, show me how much resources it will take up, show me how the cloud can do these things.
Post some evidence.

2) It's not just that Microsoft or any other company hasn't done it yet, it's that this has never been actually shown to be possible, despite cloud technology being around for years.

It's up to Microsoft (or you) to prove this is possible. Until they do, "the power of the cloud" is marketing BS.

3) I'm not ignoring anything, it's just that anything positive in that article is immediately shown to be improbable at best due to technological limitations.
You can just read the last paragraph and know this.


I may as well be talking to a brick wall because you are clearly a fanboy who can't accept anything except your made up reality.

Instead of being like any reasonable person and saying "Cloud can't make Xbox as strong as the PS4 but will have potential for many select areas that does not require a huge active bandwidth or reliance on latency", you have to make yourself as extreme as possible and make sure nothing takes any thunder away from your precious Sony.


That's true: unless you bring some actual evidence for Microsofts and your claims, this discussion is pointless.

You're trying to argue that something that has never been done before and that is theoretically possible is somehow a fact.
Which is, of course completely ridiculous.

All I'm asking you to do is post something that backs up your claims.

This here backs up mine:

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

http://n4g.com/user/blogpost/nicaragua/523195

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.408989-Jonathan-Blow-Microsofts-Cloud-Server-Claims-Are-Lies
---
PSN: El_Coon
#72DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/7/2013 7:06:57 AM
SoulTrapper posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...

The semantics was saying it doesn't "improve lighting", it does it FOR the system. Either way, it improves the system.


Prove it, how does it improve the system? Because as the article mentions, it's entirely possible to do the exact same thing on the console without any latency.


Not even going to bother arguing with you as you are in complete denial.

1) DIGITAL FOUNDRY said it so ask THEM to prove it.
2) You said its entirely possible to do what is equal to Cloud pre-baked lighting without Cloud. YOU need to prove this. Digital foundry does not say this at all. Digital Foundry says that Dynamic Lighting is now becoming more popular and is a good option not that consoles who use pre-baked lighting won't benefit. For example, jRPGs with static backgrounds and borders or games like the Witcher where you are stuck to a main road can easily use pre-baked lighting for all those areas behind the invisible wall.

You not only try lie about what DF says, you make up your own BS and call it facts.
---
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
#73bob15xPosted 10/7/2013 7:26:44 AM
FriedLemon posted...
People do realize that whatever the "power of the cloud" can do for the X1 is also possible on the PS4 right? The "power of the cloud" won't serve to close any power differences between the 2 consoles.


actually it is not. Because sony does not have the $$$ to put that type of infrastructure in place, or at least would not be willing to just for games.
#74SoulTrapperPosted 10/7/2013 1:36:56 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...

Not even going to bother arguing with you as you are in complete denial.

1) DIGITAL FOUNDRY said it so ask THEM to prove it.
2) You said its entirely possible to do what is equal to Cloud pre-baked lighting without Cloud. YOU need to prove this. Digital foundry does not say this at all. Digital Foundry says that Dynamic Lighting is now becoming more popular and is a good option not that consoles who use pre-baked lighting won't benefit. For example, jRPGs with static backgrounds and borders or games like the Witcher where you are stuck to a main road can easily use pre-baked lighting for all those areas behind the invisible wall.

You not only try lie about what DF says, you make up your own BS and call it facts.


1) No, digital foundry said in that article that none of those things were practically possible. You claimed they were, because the article said so.

What actually happened is that you failed to read the article and assumed everything they listed as theoretically possible was also practically possible.

2) Again, the article says it's possible and has already been done back in 2009 by Crytek.

Crytek's cascaded light propagation volumes were shown running on a GTX 285 in 2009 and was extremely impressive


So we can finally agree that the only thing the cloud will be able to do in practice is provide dedicated servers and data storage, right?
---
PSN: El_Coon
#75DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/8/2013 6:31:11 AM
Nope. DF said many things were POSSIBLE. You just completely ignored them. I also provided quotes already. You just never addressed them.

Just because local lighting looked good for crysis, does not mean in anyway that all developers will use the same techniques for their games at all. Your argument that no games will use pre-baked lighting is pretty hilarious.
---
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 10/8/2013 6:37:17 AM
DesperateMonkey posted...
Nope. DF said many things were POSSIBLE. You just completely ignored them. I also provided quotes already. You just never addressed them.

Just because local lighting looked good for crysis, does not mean in anyway that all developers will use the same techniques for their games at all. Your argument that no games will use pre-baked lighting is pretty hilarious.


THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE=/=PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE.

I never said all developers will use it, stop making stuff up.

My argument is that it's a lot easier for developers to use lighting generated on the console itself than lighting generated by the cloud and than send over to the console.

Cloud computing is not a practically viable option at this point in time.

Unless you've got some actual evidence showing otherwise, of course.
---
PSN: El_Coon
#77DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/8/2013 6:42:22 AM
SoulTrapper posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...
Nope. DF said many things were POSSIBLE. You just completely ignored them. I also provided quotes already. You just never addressed them.

Just because local lighting looked good for crysis, does not mean in anyway that all developers will use the same techniques for their games at all. Your argument that no games will use pre-baked lighting is pretty hilarious.


THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE=/=PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE.

I never said all developers will use it, stop making stuff up.


Please find me the quote where they declare those features practically IMPOSSIBLE in regards to lighting, AI, physics and ambient effects. Thanks!

My argument is that it's a lot easier for developers to use lighting generated on the console itself than lighting generated by the cloud and than send over to the console.


No, you said because Crytek used dynamic lighting that pre-baked lighting from the cloud would be useless. I guess you were so confused by yourself that you don't really know WHAT you are saying. Its not a lot easier at all, especially when you use CRYTEK as an example...

Cloud computing is not a practically viable option at this point in time.

Unless you've got some actual evidence showing otherwise, of course.


You are the one who needs evidence since you are saying it IMPOSSIBLE, which is an absolute. There is actually no evidence that those things are impossible at all.
---
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 10/8/2013 6:52:25 AM
DesperateMonkey posted...

Please find me the quote where they declare those features practically IMPOSSIBLE in regards to lighting, AI, physics and ambient effects. Thanks!


I've posted it a dozen times already, it's their conclusion:

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.


No, you said because Crytek used dynamic lighting that pre-baked lighting from the cloud would be useless. I guess you were so confused by yourself that you don't really know WHAT you are saying. Its not a lot easier at all, especially when you use CRYTEK as an example...


No I didn't, I said you don't need the cloud to have dynamic lighting in your game and that would be a lot easier for a dev to make that dynamic lighting done by the console itself.

Which in turn, would make it useless to let this be done by the cloud.


You are the one who needs evidence since you are saying it IMPOSSIBLE, which is an absolute. There is actually no evidence that those things are impossible at all.


You can't prove a negative, first grade science would have taught you this.

There is plenty of evidence: it's never been done at all.
Until it's proven to be practically possible, it's not practically possible.
It's really not that hard.
---
PSN: El_Coon
#79DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/8/2013 7:38:51 AM(edited)
SoulTrapper posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...

Please find me the quote where they declare those features practically IMPOSSIBLE in regards to lighting, AI, physics and ambient effects. Thanks!


I've posted it a dozen times already, it's their conclusion:

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.


Wow, this statement fails on two levels.

1)It is referring to MS's previous claims which were the ones we aren't discussing in the firist place.
2)Nowhere in there does it even say impossible...
3)No where does it address the issues that DF says is possible.
4)It doesn't even talk about ANY improvement being unlikely, let alone impossible.

Basically, you have no proof for your statement.
---
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
#80SoulTrapperPosted 10/8/2013 8:09:56 AM
DesperateMonkey posted...

Wow, this statement fails on two levels.

1)It is referring to MS's previous claims which were the ones we aren't discussing in the firist place.
2)Nowhere in there does it even say impossible...
3)No where does it address the issues that DF says is possible.
4)It doesn't even talk about ANY improvement being unlikely, let alone impossible.

Basically, you have no proof for your statement.


1) it's referring to cloud computing in general
2) it says it's unlikely and uncertain
3) What are you even talking about? It's the exact same article by DF:

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

There is no other article.

4) it talks about everything MS claimed and goes to prove that those things are either unlikely, uncertain or unneeded.

Basically, that is all the proof I need for my statement that cloud computing isn't going to happen unless people all over the world suddenly get massively better internet speeds and stability.
---
PSN: El_Coon