Discussion about xbox1 cloud and ps4 cloud (no idiotism allowed)

So let me begin with this, I love both the consoles this gen. With the next gen, it's pretty clear that ps4 is good. We all know that.

Lets talk about xbox 1 and its mysterious cloud benefits. I seriously dont wanna go with the public and say their policies suck. The reasons for these policies, the universal opinion, is that they got greedy with xbox360 being a huge success and wanted to implement DRM and desparately wanted to gain profits from second hand market. 

Now that much is pretty clear. But thats not the point. My concern is that they defended their actions by saying "we are doing this for a greater cause like implementing cloud" now that's whats need to be clarified. There's so many rumors regarding the "cloud" Here are some

1. To keep the console up-to-date

2. Game developers can now create persistent worlds that encompass tens or hundreds of thousands of players without taxing any individual console, and those worlds that they built can be lusher and more vibrant than ever before because the cloud persists and is always there, always computing.

3. Cloud processing can triple it's power even if they lack behind in memory available. (now that's something worth discussing)

4.Xbox One essentially forces its users to have broadband and a near constant internet connection meaning that developers know they can use cloud computing without segmenting the audience.

5. Better matchmaking.

So, on the ps4 side

1.GAIKAI

2. Just Like Xbox One, PlayStation 4 Can Use Cloud Computing to be More Powerful, Says Sony Here's the link

So that's that. Now, I dont see why ps4 cannot do the same things xbox one does with cloud and how 24 hr checkin will enhance cloud in a way that sony's doesn't. I'd like to hear your opinions on this particular subject. And please dont be an idiot.

Here, let me use someone else's words from another part of the internet to explain what people seem to be not understanding:

"/u/Kalahan7 has pointed out that Microsoft has noticed the growing publicity being given to the inferior processing power of their hardware, and have responded by trying to promote Cloud Computing as a viable substitute. They even seem to be marketing it as a superior alternative to powerful local hardware.
This is simply not true. Long story short: Due to the inherent physical limitations of bandwidth and latency (which is a basic physical constraint that can't be solved without a scientific breakthrough), Cloud Computing is simply not a viable alternative:

Can't improve general graphics quality or resolution.
Can't improve frame-rate
Can't improve realtime AI.

Current consoles (and soon the PS4) already employ Cloud Computing where appropriate (matchmaking and offloading player servers).
Even if Cloud Computing really becomes a thing of the next gen consoles in ways we haven't yet imagined, the PS4 developers can rent the exact same scalable Azure servers for all their cloud computing needs just as Xbox One developers can.

Cloud Computing can be used to enhance AI computation in turn-based games like Civilization, though the graphical utility of Cloud Computing is limited to large-scale sets of calculations that don't require instant results, such as the background lighting in a forest scene, or fog swirling around a big battlefield (as demonstrated by Microsoft). And yet, despite all this, many gamers are using the argument that the Xbox One is faster due to a freaking marketing buzzword." '

Please understand this, everyone. Cloud computing cannot keep a console "current." Even if Sony did the same thing. It's compete BS and Microsoft is just trying to pull yet another veil over the eyes of uninformed consumers. 

Also, let me put it this way. If cloud computing for games apparently keeps them current forever, then why haven't PC's implemented this miraculous technology? It's because it doesn't exist, not to that extent, and won't for a very long time.

Here, let me use someone else's words from another part of the internet to explain what people seem to be not understanding:

"/u/Kalahan7 has pointed out that Microsoft has noticed the growing publicity being given to the inferior processing power of their hardware, and have responded by trying to promote Cloud Computing as a viable substitute. They even seem to be marketing it as a superior alternative to powerful local hardware.
This is simply not true. Long story short: Due to the inherent physical limitations of bandwidth and latency (which is a basic physical constraint that can't be solved without a scientific breakthrough), Cloud Computing is simply not a viable alternative:

Can't improve general graphics quality or resolution.
Can't improve frame-rate
Can't improve realtime AI.

Current consoles (and soon the PS4) already employ Cloud Computing where appropriate (matchmaking and offloading player servers).
Even if Cloud Computing really becomes a thing of the next gen consoles in ways we haven't yet imagined, the PS4 developers can rent the exact same scalable Azure servers for all their cloud computing needs just as Xbox One developers can.

Cloud Computing can be used to enhance AI computation in turn-based games like Civilization, though the graphical utility of Cloud Computing is limited to large-scale sets of calculations that don't require instant results, such as the background lighting in a forest scene, or fog swirling around a big battlefield (as demonstrated by Microsoft). And yet, despite all this, many gamers are using the argument that the Xbox One is faster due to a freaking marketing buzzword." '

 

Please understand this, everyone. Cloud computing cannot keep a console "current." Even if Sony did the same thing. It's compete BS and Microsoft is just trying to pull yet another veil over the eyes of uninformed consumers. 

 

Also, let me put it this way. If cloud computing for games apparently keeps them current forever, then why haven't PC's implemented this miraculous technology? It's because it doesn't exist, not to that extent, and won't for a very long time.

MC-Reap

first this ^

then the whole internet infrastructure and great variation of quality of wires and the distance of the box from the servers, how many people are on the same server ... Add to that that the information flow you send and receive if far from constant (I have a 1Mb connexion but mostly I'm at 300ko at best with downs at 50ko and ups at 700ko). So all this makes the "cloud" very hypothetic (for PS4 or X1).

Oh man. Lots of facts, but still with some erroneous statements mixed in.

MS (or anyone who knows what they are talking about) never said that cloud computing could make the console go on forever, it's just something that can help offload the non-critical and slower processes like rendering environement. Hence, why such large worlds can be developed.

Regardless of what you think of the Xbox One's policies, this is MS we're talking about.Their software and tech tools are top notch and they are way ahead of Sony in the cloud computing department. I mean 300,000 dedicated servers, I can't imagine Sony will have something close to that. From what I heard, Sony's cloud will initially ony do game saves and PS3 games like what the Xbox 360 is doing right now. Sony is probably 2 years behind what MS is doing right now.

One last thing, the 1.5 MB/s connection is only needed for the streaming cloud and online features. The 24 check-in can be done via dial-up if need be, it's just a verification process. It can be done via your mobile phone if you're in a cabin in the mountains. Just FYI.

When I hear "cloud computing" I immediately think back to Sony's Folding@Home project they had for several years. Basically my (ignorant) "understanding" of cloud computing is basically number crunching large sums of data between lots of different machines. I wasn't aware that it could be used in a gaming application sort of way (can it?). As well as storing data on a remote server that can be accessed at any time by the user who doesn't have to dedicate space on their personal HDD. Am I wrong?Kravyn81

Your basic understanding is correct. What MS is saying is they can take processes being performed by the console hardware and off-shore them to the cloud and transmit them back to the system, thus freeing up resources for the local hardware allowing for increased performance perpetually.

The issue is doing such isn't practical. All that data still has to be transmitted over your internet connection, synchronized, and simulated. It makes all games dependent on your internet connection if developers plan to utilize the cloud (because processes have to be performed in the cloud for the game to run). If you have a poor internet connection or if it ever experiences issues, a game will stagger and become unusable. Even try disconnecting from the internet for one second and your local hardware resources can't handle the computations the code is asking for and the system crashes (or it pauses, waits for the cloud to finish transmitting the information, then resumes simulating).

Worse yet, how is a developer to know what kind of resources will be allocated to its game AT ALL TIMES from the cloud? And how is MS going to anticipate the demand & active users of any one title throughout its entire lifespan?

The theory of it just doesn't hold up, not until you can overcome bandwidth and latency issues to compensate for the delay caused by transmitting processes from separate computing sources.  Only if you want to perform "non-essential" tasks could it be immediately implemented, but I can't imagine it having more than a very slight, marginal effect overall.

[QUOTE="Kravyn81"]When I hear "cloud computing" I immediately think back to Sony's Folding@Home project they had for several years. Basically my (ignorant) "understanding" of cloud computing is basically number crunching large sums of data between lots of different machines. I wasn't aware that it could be used in a gaming application sort of way (can it?). As well as storing data on a remote server that can be accessed at any time by the user who doesn't have to dedicate space on their personal HDD. Am I wrong?Basinboy

Your basic understanding is correct. What MS is saying is they can take processes being performed by the console hardware and off-shore them to the cloud and transmit them back to the system, thus freeing up resources for the local hardware allowing for increased performance perpetually.

The issue is doing such isn't practical. All that data still has to be transmitted over your internet connection, synchronized, and simulated. It makes all games dependent on your internet connection if developers plan to utilize the cloud (because processes have to be performed in the cloud for the game to run). If you have a poor internet connection or if it ever experiences issues, a game will stagger and become unusable. Even try disconnecting from the internet for one second and your local hardware resources can't handle the computations the code is asking for and the system crashes (or it pauses, waits for the cloud to finish transmitting the information, then resumes simulating).

Worse yet, how is a developer to know what kind of resources will be allocated to its game AT ALL TIMES from the cloud? And how is MS going to anticipate the demand & active users of any one title throughout its entire lifespan?

The theory of it just doesn't hold up, not until you can overcome bandwidth and latency issues to compensate for the delay caused by transmitting processes from separate computing sources.  Only if you want to perform "non-essential" tasks could it be immediately implemented, but I can't imagine it having more than a very slight, marginal effect overall.