Slashdot Mirror


Xbox One: Cloud Will Quadruple the Power, Says Microsoft

New submitter geirlk writes "Toms Hardware reports that 'Group program manager of Xbox Incubation & Prototyping Jeff Henshaw recently told OXM that for every console Microsoft builds, it will provision the CPU and storage equivalent of three Xbox One consoles in the cloud. This allows developers to assume that there's roughly three times the resources immediately available to their game. Thus, developers can build bigger, persistent levels that are more inclusive for players.'"

68 of 400 comments (clear)

  1. Does this actually work? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know Nvidia has been experimenting with the idea and it has been mentioned here before many times.

    I would not be surprised if MS teams up with them but from my impression it is not ready for prime time. Latency is bad and home ISPs suck. -eg my fiber FIOS is not capped at 200k a second! Need to pay $155 a month to unlock it back to where it was last year?!

    With ISPs given a free ride to get rid of Net Neutrality they are deprioritize anything unless they double dip the consumers and site owners each way here in the US. Large textures with little latency being pipped back pre-rendered seems out of reach.

    1. Re:Does this actually work? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is MSFT gonna buy out all the ISPs? If not then who cares, the combination of shitty service and bandwidth caps will make this a non starter for a good 70%+ of the population if the states I've been to are any indication.

      As Jim Sterling points out MSFT is pretty much giving the finger to everybody that doesn't have 1.-A ton of money and 2.- Incredible broadband, but the very same people that are left already have better devices to do the same thing such as gaming PCs, smart TVs, its the same stupid as hell strategy they did when pricing the Surface and that worked out real well didn't it?

      Looking at these next gens I can see two positives, 1.- It'll make guys like me that sell and build affordable gaming PCs a LOT of money and 2.- With any luck the crackers will break this thing and then when MSFT can't give the damned things away because nobody wants their DRM-paloza we can pick 'em up and crack them and make halfway decent HTPCs out of the things like we did the original Xbox One.

      But as far as an upside for the consumer? Sorry, not seeing one. Hell anybody with a PC less than 5 years old can pick up an HD4850 for like $40 and be able to play pretty much any game out there, most with medium to high settings thanks to how long the consoles have held back the PC and by Xmas I expect to see the HD7750 if not the HD7770 for less than $65 and those on average are 40% faster than the 4850 while using half the power.

      Lets face it PC gaming has never been cheaper, heck AMD quads have been going for just $50 online, and thanks to there being competition on both the hardware and the software the price is going down all the time. Now you can buy games from Steam,GOG,D2D,Origin,Desura, box games from Amazon, with so much competition you can have more games than you can ever play for practically nothing AND you get online MP for free AND there are literally thousands of FTP games to choose from...lets face it, all MSFT is doing is making going to the PC a better choice. YOU control the hardware, YOU control the software, YOU choose whom to buy what from, its just a better experience now that MSFT has taken all the positives away from the console.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Does this actually work? by LordNimon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As Jim Sterling points out MSFT is pretty much giving the finger to everybody that doesn't have 1.-A ton of money and 2.- Incredible broadband,

      I have a ton of money and incredible broadband, and I still think that Microsoft is giving me the finger with the Xbox One.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    3. Re:Does this actually work? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't necessarily need to be a high bandwidth operation. Look at this quote: "Those things often involve some complicated up-front calculations when you enter that world, but they don’t necessarily have to be updated every frame." I presume that's from the article.

      The question is, if Microsoft is building three times the CPU in their datacenters every time they build a PC, why not just throw that power into the box itself? Then you can have the same processing power always there, and no latency.

      The answeris they aren't building out that much power in their datacenters. Which means when there's a big launch, people are going to have trouble playing it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Does this actually work? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Believe it or not, Microsoft is not full of complete fucktards who need Captain Obvious from the internet to explain how to build & size a data center at an appropriate scale to serve the needs of their customers.

      And what, EA and Blizzard are full of complete fucktards? Because they couldn't handle it.

      Here's the thing you aren't understanding: anyone can build a datacenter with enough power to handle that. If you want to throw money at the problem, there's an easy solution. The hard part is building a datacenter that can handle the load while at the same time being profitable. And if they are going to err, you can bet they will err on the side of being more profitable.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Does this actually work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The PC is a great option, but PC developers want to protect their investments (which can be huge)

      Buyers/players want to protect their investments too. Thats something that is quite often (bluntly) ignored.

      Apart from being robbed of the possibility to re-sell their games (either because they finished it or it turned out to not to match their expectations) they have to put their trust in (sometimes multiple) companies to keep the authentication-servers on-line.

      Now they also have to trust those game-companies to actually put all that computing-power(?) and storage in "the cloud" for extended ammounts of time ?

      Personally I have walked away from quite a few games because I could "buy" the game, only than to have to beg for the keys to get the game to actually run.

      If you would tell someone that story (buying something but having to beg for the keys) but would exchange "games" with (the obligatory) "cars" pretty-much everyone would regard you as several kinds of fools. Funny when you think of it ...

      Bottom line: I'm not going to pay big money for games which have an unknown life-time and can suddenly stop to work -- or refuse to re-install in a couple of years (or much less if you got them, even though first hand, from a bargain-bin).

    6. Re:Does this actually work? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even so, they might sometimes have something like 20% of their XBox customers playing at the same time (a guess based on subscriber numbers vs. peak usage of EVE Online).

      Then they would have to put 3x 20% = 60% of the computing power of all XBoxes into their data centers. Now have a look at server prices vs. consumer electronics prices. Still looking like a good idea?

      My guess is that we will see
      -either a a fucking expensive subscription model for this cloud computing service
      -or (more likely) a debacle like the recent Sim City launch

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    7. Re:Does this actually work? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 2

      I'm not going to pay big money for games which have an unknown life-time and can suddenly stop to work -- or refuse to re-install in a couple of years (or much less if you got them, even though first hand, from a bargain-bin).

      Definitely my attitude too. To put it in numbers:
      For a game on Steam (which has been one of the more reliable game providers so far), I'd pay up to 25% of the same game on DVD / without DRM.

      So if game publishers are fine with 1/4 of what they usually ask, we might have a deal. Otherwise, they better bring back DRM-free distribution. Alternatively, I might just have fun with some older games I passed up back in the day. Haven't played Freespace 2 yet ;-)

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    8. Re:Does this actually work? by chromas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't have to upgrade your card every year. You can wait 8 years just like the console. You can do it whenever you want to and still keep compatibility with the entire catalog of every PC game ever made, plus any other system you can find an emulator for.

    9. Re:Does this actually work? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It won't fix his problem ; it's usually an overloaded local router. I got to the point where mine was giving out 150ms pings just for one hop - it didn't have enough CPU and RAM to deal with the all the connections being thrown around by torrent-seeding media sharers.

      Broadband is all set up for consumption - downloading your content like a good little consumer. It's not set up for everyone being a server of dozens of connections.

    10. Re:Does this actually work? by Ritchie70 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference with Microsoft is they already have a bunch of big freaking data centers (Azure) that they're renting out to other people, so on launch dates and other spikes, they can leverage that without it being dedicated to the Xbox.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    11. Re:Does this actually work? by nmb3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First, I prefer PC games and gaming. However, you say:

      Now you can buy games from Steam,GOG,D2D,Origin,Desura

      as if that's a good thing. I started with Steam a long time ago due to the Valve first-party titles and so I've kept active there, but I have intentionally avoided all of the others. The last thing I want is to have half a dozen different "platforms" that I have to use to manage and play my games. This is in fact an argument in favor of consoles -- all your games in one place. Playing hide and seek with your games -- needing to remember that Mass Effect 1 is on a DVD from Amazon, Mass Effect 2 is on Steam, and Mass Effect 3 is in Origin -- is stupid.

      YOU control the software

      That doesn't really fit in with your previous statement. Games on PCs have often been more locked down with draconian DRM than their console counterparts. Console games can be resold or traded. While both of these points are in flux right now, for the time being it still feels like it's the console games that you really have "more control" over.

      play pretty much any game out there, most with medium to high settings thanks to how long the consoles have held back the PC

      Consoles haven't been holding back the PC nor made PC gaming "easier" to do on lesser hardware. What's done that is:

      - Mobile gaming.

      - Hardware outpacing (!) software for once. Intel's Core line of procs starting with Nehalem pretty much blew everything out of the water. Arriving around the same time was the (continuing) GPU revolution.

      - Shitty desktop monitors. Desktop resolutions nor pixel densities haven't improved in the last decade due to the "HD" scam that's been pulled on consumers. It used to be that every couple of years the graphics card would be driving 60-80% more pixels because the resolution was bigger (not to mention the increased color depth). Now for the last 8 years or so everyone has had a 1080 display with no improvement in sight.

      In either case, console and PC gaming aren't mutually exclusive nor dependant. Both will continue as long as they are each successful in their own regards. Which is preferable can sometimes depend on the context (sitting on a couch with friends or playing online with friends, etc). Neither needs to fail for the other to succeed.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    12. Re:Does this actually work? by non0score · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I did some of those optimizations on PS3/X360...and I have to ask, what the hell do console optimizations have to do with the longevity of graphics cards? The two are completely separate topics. You can still easily play today's games with a GeForce 8800 at console graphics settings (sure, that card hasn't been out for a full 8 years, but I think 6.5 years is still pretty good). Now, if you want to play 4K resolution with 8X aniso and 16X AA...well, that's a different story -- but you're never going to get that even on next gen consoles anyway.

    13. Re:Does this actually work? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry but you'll get no sympathy from me, as much of it is their own doing. Just look at how you can take an EA game that is not even 3 years old and when you try to play the MP you get "No servers...buy our new game instead!" yet I got Half Life 1 and Team Fortress Classic, both from the late 90s, as part of a bundle and guess what? The MP works fine and doesn't cost valve squat because the gamer can host!

      Nobody is sticking a gun to their head and making them build some generic triple A CoD ripoff, in fact we have ample evidence with games like Dark Souls, Amnesia, XCom, Torchlight series, hell I could go on all day naming games aimed at a niche audience that made 30%,40%, even 50% profit above and beyond what it cost to make but the publishers have become greed on wheels so bad that games like Tomb Raider S (S for Stupid God damned name that makes no sense because there already WAS a Tomb Raider with no number beside it) can sell 4 million copies at $60 a fricking pop and STILL be considered a flop!

      So I'm sorry, not a single fuck to give from me, in fact I agree with Jim Sterling at Escapist that has been saying for a couple of years we are heading for a game crash and it will be the best thing to happen for gamers in years as publishers have been treating them like walking ATMs and forcing everything to be generic grey sludge to try to please every possible demographic and the world would frankly be a better place if they died out.

      At the end of the day its greed, that is ALL that it is, its this endless greed on wheels that has made it so that when you shell out $60 God damned dollars for a game you often get a gimped all to fuck shitty experience because "herpa de derp, you didn't give us $50 for the levels we ripped out and relabeled as DLC herpa de derpa", it is the endless greed that is made anything less than WoW or CoD money an instant failure, its the endless greed that refuses to look at hard evidence like the numbers Valve published showing that by selling L4D at a $20 or less price point they ended up not only making 1700% profit thanks to digital distribution removing copying costs but also made them insane amounts of money by bringing in new fans that bought everything from T-shirts to action figures, and its endless greed that has removed every single positive the console had over the PC thus making them worthless for the average person.

      So you'll excuse me if I don't shed a single tear to see these bloated corporate monsters choke to death on their endless desire for every higher profits and need to bump the stock price, the whole lot of them is worthless as far as I'm concerned.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:Does this actually work? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ya know, while I am happy at paying MUCH less when it comes to steam sales i really don't get the whole "ZOMFG Valve might go away!" doom scenarios, I really don't.

      I mean lets say for the sake of argument that tomorrow an asteroid blew Valve right off the face of the earth...and? It takes less than 15 minutes on gamecopyworld to get a crack for every single game I have in my Steam folder, no different than with any retail game and in fact I'd argue its even easier than a retail game as you don't have to sit there dealing with SecuROM, Starfuck, or screwing with the registry to crack a Steam game.

      So the way that I look at is if they give ME plenty of advantages in return for using the Steam DRM, such as autoupdating for all my games, GPU drivers updates, free MP, chat, and matchmaking services, and oh yeah MUCH cheaper prices? Then I have NO problem with it, I really don't. Hell one year I had to open a support ticket on fricking Xmas eve as a game I had bought was having an issue and I figured with the game not being made by valve and them being ass deep in their biggest sale of the year I'd be lucky if I heard from them in a week...I heard from a support rep not an hour later that not only fixed my problem (by giving me access to an internal Build of Steam that wasn't even available to the beta testers but which had enhancements that fixed the issue) but they even checked back in twice just to make sure i could access everything and it was all running smoothly.

      Give me cheaper prices, all the goodies i listed above AND service that quick and customer friendly? Then I honestly don't care about the trivial to crack Steam DRM, I really don't. But does anybody think you'll get even a tenth as good a service from MSFT, or will you just get higher prices to fund some more of Ballmer's follies? I'm betting its the latter, hell I've had GFWL since Bioshock II came out and that shit STILL sucks major ass, making your console experience depend on MSFT having their shit together and not fucking you over is frankly just asking for it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Sorry kid by skovnymfe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are currently too many people playing your new game, and the servers can't handle it, so... yeah...

    Isn't this just leading up the same chaos that is any Ubisoft game launch?

    1. Re:Sorry kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The EA debacle with Sim City had everything to do with their activation and matchmaking servers being unable to handle the load. It was very poor planning on the part of EA.

      The cloud computing that MS is talking about with the XBox One occurs once you are already in-game and is an offloading of certain resource computations which the local unit *can* do itself. But if there is a good internet connection available then the offload of certain tasks to 'cloud' computing will augment the game by freeing up local resources for other processes. There have been a few decent articles about where and when this cloud computing could be used and be useful, such as moving a player from location to location in a world and calculating dynamic positions for npc's or world economy, etc. Any immediate graphics related computing will still be local and not cause lag from waiting on the cloud.

    2. Re:Sorry kid by MellowBob · · Score: 2

      EA lied about the cloud processing. Either hacked to run offline or loosing your connection, Simcity still ran fine.

      The bigger problems with Simcity, even more than the opening day server Charlie Foxtrot, are that they nerfed it compared to #4 to try to get a bigger audience and the half assed pathing agent which screwed everything up and the online saves.

        - Former Simcity fan

    3. Re:Sorry kid by barc0001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It still smells like bullshit. They're going to provision $1000+ worth of hardware for every console? Yeah, yeah, load based demand over a pool, but still... Plus they're somehow going to deliver all of that capability over a DSL or cable connection? When developers and hardware makers are bitching and whining that the local bus inside the PC/console is "only" 2GB/s I find it difficult to believe that a trickle of 5-10Mbps of additional data to the system is going to help do anything very well.

    4. Re:Sorry kid by godrik · · Score: 2

      Actually, I believe offloading the game to the cloud can do much better than increasing the amount of CPU power for the AI. It allows you to create the largest collection of gamelogs ever. Properly analysing the gaming pattern could lead to a self improving AI. Then you could test the qualities of the AI against real player to make sure your predictions are correct. The potential is huge, "will it be realized?" is a different story of course.

    5. Re:Sorry kid by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      It still smells like bullshit. They're going to provision $1000+ worth of hardware for every console?

      Seriously? Since this is slashdot I would have figured more people understood how capacity planning works... this is the 3rd post I have responded to with the same misunderstanding...

      They are going to add capacity so that every *active* Xbox that needs the resources will have it. In the case of Xbox Live, that will likely be somewhere between 1-5% of Xbox Live users at any one time. Is there some infinitesimal chance they could underestimate? Sure. But they have years of data and capacity planning experience on the current network so it's not likely...

      Plus they're somehow going to deliver all of that capability over a DSL or cable connection? When developers and hardware makers are bitching and whining that the local bus inside the PC/console is "only" 2GB/s I find it difficult to believe that a trickle of 5-10Mbps of additional data to the system is going to help do anything very well.

      CPU capacity has almost nothing to do with I/O bandwidth in this case! There are plenty of areas of computing where the data transfer is completely trivial compared to the CPU calculations required. Just to provide the obvious extreme example - look at game AI applications like chess computers, or Watson playing Jeopardy. The input and output is literally on the order of a few bytes to kilobytes, while a massive amount of CPU and storage is used to generate the answer itself. It's not too hard to extrapolate that to "much better AI on Xbox console games".

    6. Re:Sorry kid by X.25 · · Score: 2

      The cloud computing that MS is talking about with the XBox One occurs once you are already in-game and is an offloading of certain resource computations which the local unit *can* do itself.

      If local unit *can* do it already, why would I want to offload it to the 'cloud'?

      I mean, I understand it from Microsoft's point of view, they only want to fuck over customers, but what benefits would I have, when my local unit *can* do this already?

      It'll free some CPU/GPU cycles on my local unit so that I can see more ads or what?

  3. Simcity all over again by Emetophobe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So we can assume that Xbox One games will be always-online and have server side processing ala Simcity 5... because that worked out so well for EA.

  4. Well, at least it's now confirmed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is an always connected device, unless they have come up with a way for the cloud thing to work without an internet connection.

    Of course this also means that if you lose your internet connection, then you have 1/4 the processing power to run your game.

    1. Re:Well, at least it's now confirmed. by WilyCoder · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shut up Ballmer.

    2. Re:Well, at least it's now confirmed. by Tridus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe if MIcrosoft wasn't doing such a shitty job of explaining the positive, the reaction wouldn't be so negative.

      But they're not. They're saying "hey look, it's got cloud magic!" to an audience that has already dealt with the hype and subsequent failure of cloud magic for games.

      It's their job to sell it to us, and they're failing miserably. The response is entirely predictable.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    3. Re:Well, at least it's now confirmed. by prelelat · · Score: 2

      I don't know about that, the PS3 had better hardware than the 360 but it still didn't blow away the 360 in north american sales. I think if they were going to save face on something they would be better off to look at, at least changing the name.

      I think the difference here with the cloud computing is that the developers can rely on Microsoft themselves to provide the cloud computing. This would be good for smaller developers. Where as larger developers are going to have their own solution anyways like you suggested.

    4. Re:Well, at least it's now confirmed. by tgd · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is an always connected device, unless they have come up with a way for the cloud thing to work without an internet connection.

      Of course this also means that if you lose your internet connection, then you have 1/4 the processing power to run your game.

      Not sure if your goal was trolling, or if you legitimately hadn't read up on it, but Microsoft stated clearly that, while games *could* require full-time Internet, the intent is for the cloud resources to be used for latency-insensitive augmentation of the game, so they'll work fine offline. But that's true of games already. Some require being online while playing, some work better while online (like Borderlands 2), and some don't care.

      All this is saying is they're going to scale their regional Azure datacenters at 3x the rate of Xboxes being sold.

      Facts aren't really the goal of Microsoft-related discussions on Slashdot, though.

  5. I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They might have 3 times the expected peak usage but NOT 3 times the power of every XboxS sold.

    1. Re:I call bullshit by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      Indeed. If it were 4 times the power of every Xbox sold, why not just pack all those extra processing units into each Xbox and skip the obvious latency problems?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    2. Re:I call bullshit by Jamu · · Score: 2

      Because not everyone will be on their Xbox all the time, and Microsoft might also have spare server time available for peak Xbox hours.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    3. Re:I call bullshit by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Alternately, Microsoft may be intending to do something along the lines of OnLive; that is, render the game on the server (with it's "4-times-the-power-of-a-single-XBoxOne" servers) and then stream the output to the player.

      Of course, you still have tremendous latency issues, unless you stick those servers in every ISP across the country (something Microsoft could afford far better than OnLive). With the increased CPU power of the new console, the stream could better compressed, resulting in better picture quality as well.

      There are a number of advantages to this for both Microsoft and the developers. Games would no longer be limited by the hardware of the console, for instance, which would not only mean better graphics and larger worlds, but longer life expectancies for the consoles since its hardware doesn't need to be replaced as often (who needs faster GPUs and bigger HDDs when everything is "in the Cloud"?)\. Microsoft can keep selling the same basic model for years, with only minor tweaks and chrome, negating the need for expensive R&D. Publishers get better control of their products; it kills used game sales, they can obsolete older games to create a market for the newer versions, and they can data-mine the players. Plus, Microsoft gets paid for running the servers!

      For the customer, there are fewer advantages, of course. But what corporation really cares about what the customers want these days?

    4. Re:I call bullshit by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Then why ask it?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  6. Server downtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds amazing! I can't wait for all the articles about hammered servers on release and server maintenance.

  7. Sounds great by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't wait until MS decides that the servers running my favorite game aren't profitable anymore, so I am incapable of playing it anymore.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Sounds great by fcrick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ironically, this approach will likely produce the opposite effect. For example, you can't really play Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 at all anymore, multiplayer. Why? Because the only way to play is to run a peer-to-peer game with whoever else happens to be playing. Chances are, they are all far away, and their internet connection sucks, so the game just sucks as a result, and you have to buy the newest version to actually get good connectivity.

      If you're building your game to leverage server resources, players just connect to a datacenter, and get matchmade with other players there, likely pairing players with similar latency. Even if there are relatively few people playing, you'll probably get a pretty good experience, as at least one end of the connection for all players is pretty solid.

      It seems like the whole point of the system is to actually address this very problem. Game publishers don't need to invest so much in hardware, and server resources are made available to games on a need basis. If you're game has 50 players, it'll probably do just fine with a server running on a virtual machine somewhere along with 20 other games on the same hardware. Microsoft could still screw up on the total capacity side when they're hit with a big release, but smaller games will likely benefit.

      --
      Your signatures belong to me.
    2. Re:Sounds great by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2
      I'm not saying there isn't an advantage to servers, just that they don't really have much of a need other than good latency, decent bandwith, and not dropping packets. The processing power of a smartphone is likely more than enough for a single match.

      SNES is not a good comparison, but it's possible your point about 10 years is valid - we'll just have to wait and see. In 10 years, you can likely buy the PC port of any 10-year old game for a few bucks.

      It is a good comparison. SNES never had to be online, and it will probably be easier to play my SNES games 10 years from now than it will an XB1 game. Maybe if you're lucky, you will get a PC port of the game, but this notion isn't exclusive to XB1 either, not all games will be that fortunate, and you would have to buy the game again.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  8. Invasive by ischorr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read that as "more invasive for players". Which is probably true.

    Cool, it'd be extremely difficult to use computing power offsite to do real-time calculations in parallel with local calculations. But it sure would be handy for crushing the used game market if we could lie say that we needed handle things server-side so you have to be online to play the game.

    Also it would be cool to mine everything you do since it'd be easy to market. People will agree to all sorts of seemingly minor invasions of privacy for trivial gains, like free stuff, or especially if it was required to play the game. ...What am I saying. That would never happen.

  9. In other words... by saleenS281 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Always on. And what happens when you have a shit internet connection?

    1. Re:In other words... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or if you are in a commonwealth country like New Zealand, Canada, or Australia and have ISPs with 2 gig limits each month?

      I image lots of hi res images being downloaded over and over again can fill that cap fairly quickly

    2. Re:In other words... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure if you're kidding with the 2GB monthly cap, we're talking about cable and DSL connections here, not phones.

      I do know that my monthly cap is around 30GB though, so Xbox one is not a valid option when they announce bullshit like this. My quota is already allocated to Netflix in low-quality mode. That tells you a lot about ISPs in Canada when Netflix has to add a third, lower-quality setting just for us.

    3. Re:In other words... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Nope they have 2 gig caps. I used to play with them in WOW and they would have to stop raiding for a few weeks until the cap reset on their cable.

    4. Re:In other words... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      I know I'm probably going to get burned hard for this, but I had a good laugh and thought I would share.

      When you write " XO" as short hand for Xbox One, my first thought was it looks like the emoticon "XD" for Rolling on the Floor Laughing. Then I thought "that's what MS must be doing thinking of how dumb the people that are going to buy into this are and how much money their going to take home because of it."

      After that bit of a laugh I though actually it looks more like a emoticon for someone with their eyes closed tight and their mouth open in a lot of pain, like someone getting screwed in the fudge factory with a very large stick.

      I guess we really underestimated the amount of thought MS must have put the name Xbox One. The short hand for it works on so many levels. XO

    5. Re:In other words... by H0p313ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Always on. And what happens when you have a shit internet connection?

      Exactly this. This whole approach is aimed at the elite (like me) who have an excellent connection and little concern about bandwidth usage. What the gaming industry is failing to take into account is that a large part of their target market is the working poor.

      Someone else in this item brought up World of Warcraft and SimCity as examples of client-server games (Diablo III is another example of a single user game that should never have had a server). We all know how well the Diablo launch and SimCity launches went. Even WoW fails in certain circumstances. (I can't tell you how many times I've had WoW raids fail because the redneck tanking in Texas drops carrier. I don't know who the ISPs are in San Antonio, but it seems that even the mildest thunderstorm takes them out.)

      Leaving games unplayable because of poor infrastructure or outages is not going to make people happy, we have tons of examples in the past. Why Microsoft thinks they're going to have a different experience with this is beyond me.

      I think that eventually this kind of architecture will have enormous potential, but I don't see that we have the market penetration of sufficient high-quality, high-bandwidth networking.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    6. Re:In other words... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Always on. And what happens when you have a shit internet connection?

      Exactly this. This whole approach is aimed at the elite (like me) who have an excellent connection and little concern about bandwidth usage.

      Take a step back and remember that "this whole approach" is simply bullshit PR - there's 0% chance that any meaningful processing will be done in the cloud. MS has confirmed that the console only needs to check into the internet on the order of once a day, so they can't count on a constant connection. They therefore can't offload anything meaningful.

      Furthermore, the implication that they'll offload something that requires a lot of processing that can't be done better on one of the 8 local cores or the local GPU necessarily means they're talking about graphics. Only graphics will stress this sort of system in a meaningful way. However, offloading any significant part of graphics processing isn't at all technically feasible.

      Far too many of the comments on this story are taking MS at face value when it's obvious to anyone with any knowledge of games that the claim made by MS is simple obfuscation. As a few others have pointed out, this is the same thing as EA's vice president insisting that Sim City is highly dependent on vast server side resources even after it's been publicly demonstrated that the only thing servers do is enforce DRM.

      The "cloud" will not and cannot have any meaningful affect on real time gaming beyond multiplayer or artificially imposed restrictions on single player.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  10. Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They promise the cloud
    But their promises are vapour

  11. Terminals: Wave of the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So by "Power" they mean "Dependence on Mother Microsoft"

    NOPE

  12. they don’t necessarily have to be updated ev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the part i found interesting was:

    "Those things often involve some complicated up-front calculations when you enter that world, but they don’t necessarily have to be updated every frame."

    so i suppose technically, instead of your xbox pre-calculating a lot of this stuff, its offloaded. it could be done intelligently too - so increase the quality and if your offline and your xbox needs to do the calculations - then they're done at a lower priority with less precision?

    the fact that its calculations which dont need updated each frame means latency shouldnt be as much of an issue. we aint streaming live game feeds here...

  13. Quadruple the pictures of people jerking off by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cloud: Buzzword, meh.
    +
    Phone-home requirement: Disturbing.
    +
    Camera and mic that can't be disabled at all: Frightening.
    =
    I can't tell if this is 1984's telescreen or Max Headroom's rebus tape feed.

    Either way I'm not letting one in my house.

    1. Re:Quadruple the pictures of people jerking off by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 2

      where did you hear that the camera and mic can't be disabled at all? MS hasn't said, yet. all i've seen is people misreading what is stated

      Camera, no. I haven't heard specifically. However, as to the mic: "The new Kinect is listening for a specific cue, like 'Xbox on.'". When it's "off", it's still listening. Combined with their camera-counting-people DRM patent and the fact that - as far as I know - you can't run the XBox One without the Kinect, I'm not eager to take the gamble.

      Yes, "Here's a gaming console with a camera and mic you can't unplug that's listening when it's off." is not the same statement as "Here's a gaming console with a camera that's always on." But it's not any better.

  14. World of Warcraft by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it depends on the company doing it. World of Warcraft likely does server side processing. Simcity was just a botched attempt to do what mmo do.

    1. Re:World of Warcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simcity is not an MMO. They tried to say it was, but it isn't.

    2. Re:World of Warcraft by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      MMOs do it that way because they have to. Otherwise they'd be hacked to hell and gone--Diablo I all over again. And even then they have to be careful. A large part of the old Final Fantasy XIV's performance problems can be chalked up to trying to do too much on the server side. That's the main reason they had to do a relaunch; the problems required a complete redesign to solve.

    3. Re:World of Warcraft by nick_davison · · Score: 2

      Simcity was just a botched attempt to do what mmo do.

      No. SimCity was a blatant attempt to impose DRM through the absolute lie that powerful calculations were carried out on the server.

      Simple logic would tell you that it was a lie: To claim the servers offered more power than the desktop machines is to imply EA/Maxis stood up a server farm that was "more powerful" than gamers' home rigs. Even without the GPU, you've got to figure that'd be a couple of hundred dollars (let's say $200). Figure on gamers using the game at least 20% of the time during the launch month. That's $40 in server costs... For a $60 game. Yeah, sure they did that.

      Same goes for Microsoft's current claim. The XboxOne comes with an 8 core processor and 500gb HDD. Three times the power of each, huh? Even cheap, non backed up storage alone, that's $60-80 in disk space. Which is illogical as 1.5TB would take forever at most people's net connection speeds. Add in another couple of hundred for the processors? For a console that'll launch at, what, $500? Consoles that are famous for running at a loss at launch and slim margins thereafter. And half the retail price goes to server AWESOMEZ?

      In both cases, claims of amazing server power is an absolute lie to justify the real goal: Force users to connect to the server, attached to a single key you can track, piracy ceases to be such an issue.

      And if there was any doubt about just how little processing power SimCity's servers provided, despite claims that hugely complex tasks could be offloaded, making a game like SC5 impossible without the cloud? The game keeps running, just fine, for a good twenty minutes after it loses its net connection. Cloud saves and a microscopic amount of processing to say, "this is the state of other cities in the region," is about it.

      MMOs handle a huge amount of game state on the servers that has to be synchronized in real time. The difficulty of piracy is a nice side effect but a side effect nonetheless. SimCity 5 and the XBoxOne are both blatant attempts to make piracy as difficult as possible while waving the false flag of awesome server side processing.

  15. It makes no sense to me. by goruka · · Score: 2

    The most CPU intensive tasks in videogames are usually Rendering, Physics and AI. They work either in realtime or precomputed to some degree.
    There is rarely a situation where you want to offload computation to something that takes a while (network latency), save for maybe pathfinding or geometry regeneration but is this more like a special case and has limited uses.
    Can anyone really think of a general case optimization where this can be useful for most games?

    1. Re:It makes no sense to me. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Theoretically, there might be some usage of AI operating on an enormous map, and those outside of a certain radius could be computed with latency not being a major concern. Take Skyrim, for example. If you are in Solitude, and guards are taking down a thief in Riften or a dragon is attacking near Windhelm, then that can be handled offline fine, although I doubt anybody would care and it would likely cause a ton of glitches.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  16. Cloud Really? by MellowBob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    EA claimed that Simcity needed extra processing power to run. A guy hacked his game and it worked fine offline.

    WTF would a company use a expensive server for 3x the processing power of a middle level PC just for a $60-80 game?

    - Former Simcity fan and soon to be former Halo fanboy.

  17. Bullshit by Tridus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This won't work for any calculations in game that are latency sensitive. Someone push a button and the game needs to react? Cloud magic won't help, you need to deal with it locally.

    It won't work for anything that's data-intensive, because they can't expect to send significant data back and forth reliably while people are already trying to play multiplayer on a lousy connection.

    Since those are the two main things where a console with this level of local power might need help... what the hell are they supposed to be using all these servers for? Sounds like another Simcity debacle in the making.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  18. Re:they don’t necessarily have to be updated by Tridus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why wouldn't they do that locally on one of the many CPUs that aren't required to show the game? Just what calculations are going to be so crazy intensive and yet have a dataset small enough where it's going to be faster to transmit it, calculate it there, send the results back, and load them?

    There's almost no games that actually use four cores in a current PC, so what are they planning on doing that's going to require the equivalent of triple that while not generating (or requiring as input) a gigantic data set?

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  19. They think it's 2030 already. by shigutso · · Score: 2

    Sony and MS thinks everybody lives in a world where the connection is great, never drops and has awesome upload speeds. I live in Brazil and have fiber with 15mbps of Download and 1mbps of Upload. And I'm one of the few that have access to fiber. Most are still using ADSL, ISDN or Cable. Well, let's see what happens when two consoles with the same hardware launches in the same period.

    1. Re:They think it's 2030 already. by AdamHaun · · Score: 2

      Sony and MS thinks everybody lives in a world where the connection is great, never drops and has awesome upload speeds.

      To be fair, Sony does live in that world. It's called "Japan". Not sure what Microsoft's excuse is.

      --
      Visit the
  20. Whats the point of getting a console anyways by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

    Whats the point of getting a console anyways?? They are saying the consoles are so underpowered they need a boost from a network of servers?? I call Bullshit, What game is so power hungry it needs extra servers to run? None. This is a major waste of resources everything it takes to make electricity thats not necessary.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  21. They will NEED all that power, by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To maintain your household under constant marketing surveillance. I'm waiting for Bruce Schneier to weigh in on this one, specifically. He does an excellent examination of the general case in his recent "Surveillance and the Internet of Things"

    Microsoft is taking Xbox further down the road of current trends in targeting and profiling "users". The model for most web applications and nearly all mobile apps has been that of of the Trojan Horse. An apparently benign, amusing or useful set of functions is presented the user, often below the cost of producing the technology. It does no good to labour the point with tedious argument: the applications are invasive and - depending on your perspective - abusive of privacy.

    XBox One is the adaptation of these trends, delivered into the home as a 7/24 data collection head, with a colour camera and a microphone that can't be turned off.

    "German federal commissioner for privacy protection: "Xbox One is a surveillance device"

    Civil Liberties Australia says Xbox One 'meets definition of surveillance device'

    Privacy breach: Xbox One a 'twisted nightmare'

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  22. Jim Sterling is still going to buy One. by earls · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because he has a ton of money and incredible broadband and loves to give middle fingers too!

  23. Re:In Fairness by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    While I can't possibly see it as being legitimately profitable to Microsoft to provide 3x processing power in Azure for every X1 sold, I will at least say that Microsoft at least owns the datacenters and the software stacks for Azure as opposed to EA or Ubisoft. It's possible that MS will be better able to handle the processing and bandwidth for this reason.

    To be fair, Microsoft didn't says how long they'd provide 3x processing in the cloud for each console... For example, didn't Apple's Siri get dumb or dumber sometime after launch? Not trolling, just asking - siriously :-)

    In other words: Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  24. Re:What do they mean with it? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2

    Can anybody explain to me what do they mean with "pre-compute" or not updating every frame? And how they would achieve that? Or rather, a case where they could use it?

    The fog example is kind of okay, because you *don't* need to update the fog every frame (frame of what? Logic Frame? Render Frame? Network Frame?). But the pre-computing a scene makes no sense at all because by then you might aswell just pre-compute once and slap it on every media. Unless I'm missing something and that's not what they meant at all for pre-compute?

    TL;DR: can anybody explain it to me as if I was 5 years old?

    Sure. The bad man at Microsoft is lying to us. He wants to convince you that something magical will happen in a special "cloud" that will make your game better. Sadly, there is no such magic. Instead, the cloud is going to make it so that sometimes at random you won't be able to play your games. He doesn't want you to know this, which is why he's lying.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  25. smokescreen for DRM by asmkm22 · · Score: 2

    This is why Microsoft has been so vague about saying anything involving the used game market, or console-level DRM. What they are basically doing is setting up a system where publishers can build DRM right into the game under the guise of "extra processing power" so that when the backlash starts, Microsoft can sit back and tell everyone to take it up with the publishers.

    Further taking away from the idea that games will be able to use extra processing power for actual gameplay and stuff, is that game developers always aim for the lowest common denominator when setting performance benchmarks. They aren't going to design a game that can take much advantage of cloud computing because they know full not everyone has high quality broadband with no bandwidth cap. Sure, you might see the occasional turn based strategy games or flight sims using it for real-world data or weather or something, but by and large it will be ignored for any significant features.

    Microsoft knows it's about DRM, but doesn't want to take the bad press for saying so. Publishers know it's about DRM, and are willing to take the bad press for utilizing it as such.

  26. Re:Subsidized Hardware Turns into This by X.25 · · Score: 2

    When every console you sell costs you money, this seems like an extremely natural evolution. This is an excellent way for Microsoft to hemorage less money on consoles while having extra horse power than can be used for actual money-making purposes. This reduces risk.

    Selling hardward below cost is becoming unsustainable. It has led to diversity in the game market dropping off. This writing has been on the wall for a while.

    Yeah, those 300,000 servers in data center are free.