This, it’s literally the Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, insert Middle Eastern country policy all over again. Find a human rights issue, claim the targeted country is violating that human right, invade.

Waaaaaaayyyyyy too early for this thread soldier.

No, the point was never about the monthly payment because that changes based on a host of factors. The point stands that 20k is the average used car price not matter how you slice it you still paid close to 20k which is almost half of the average annual income. They terms of the loan are NOT the price of the car which is what we are discussing in terms of cost of living.

Because the focus on ray-tracing hardware is Marketing BS for a stopgap solution. Its a selling point from GPU manufacturers that's not realistically effective for most home GPU solutions. I'm a firm believer in Path-tracing and cloud solutions for ray and path-tracing. Convincing home users they need to invest in "ray-tracing" GPUs even in the interim is a marketing scam in my opinion.

Absolutely, I'm not against ray-tracing per se. It's that its current pure ray-tracing and the focus on "ray-tracing" hardware being pushed to consumers is rather annoying. It's interesting because I stumbled across a blog about ray-tracing vs path-tracing which really makes me look forward to cloud-based solutions which I think is more realistic than getting ray-tracing hardware in every home. Yes, right now path-tracing isn't real-time solution, but in a short while we would be able to use path-tracing to make decent approximations real-time and get even better fidelity via cloud resources.

https://www.dusterwald.com/2016/07/path-tracing-vs-ray-tracing/

Also interesting enough the same guy recently wrote about his thoughts on RTX which I generally agree with. https://www.dusterwald.com/2019/02/a-graphics-programmers-thoughts-on-rtx/

My personal take away is that by the time devs actually start using ray-tracing real-time path-tracing will be gearing up making the hardware currently being marketed both obsolete and pointless.

But you just proved my point. You paid $18,000 for a 3 year old car. The average used car is 20K. Just because you happened to have assets to trade in doesn't mean that you didn't pay 18K for the vehicle.

@Steppy_76:

I only assumed because you said PSNow was a significant hardware investment which didn't make sense as it doesn't require a PS4 to use. As for the xCloud and using basic geometry and collision detection, that's not a small order in the least.

This is what games this generation look like in terms of geometry and hitboxes, this isn't even talking about different physics calculations.

Here's also a really good video on hitboxes, collision and how they work.

Getting more to the point. This is all information that is run as part of the computations which are proposed to happen locally. More importantly, as I pointed out previously, this would require the developers to make the game such that the information which impacts the gameplay, such as physics, collisions, AI, etc. Are all running locally. Basically developing around that concept and splitting their game into parts.

Which according to rumors is exactly what Microsoft is telling developers they have to do... and its rumored that all games must be compatible with both xcloud and their games meaning whatever game they make: https://www.inverse.com/article/51291-spacex-here-s-the-timeline-for-getting-to-mars-and-starting-a-colony

1) must be broken into parts or splices(slices)

2) the basic engine must be use fewer resources to run on the lower model Xbox. Tablets, and phones likely would not be able to use the same method unless they will program to the lowest denominator which would limit the complexity of games.

So again. Creating a low spec xbox and combining it with cloud resources leads to several issues.

1)Game development and design. You either need to drop the complexity of your world for it to run on a lower spec box in order for it to be compatible with all versions of the xbox, thereby affecting gameplay. Especially if phones and tablets were the baseline which realistically we know that wouldn't happen.

2) You create your low-end box close enough spec-wise where it will not affect game design or complexity significantly. This would increase the cost of the machine while also still limiting the upper tier skus however not nearly as much or even noticeably.

The ideal situation would be the lower SKU coming in around $199 with significant CPU resources, smaller amounts of RAM and GPU resources enough for a decent framebuffer. A $399 mainstream tier along with a $599 premium tier to complement that. Again a device at too low specs which has the rumored "parity" requirement would likely limit the complexity of games too much.

Pure cloud has it's own issues around latency which is the case for Gaikai, Onlive, Nvidia Cloud, and PS NOW. However the hybrid approach as described and rumored creates two different issues. The first being different SKUs and all the issues that come with supporting and developing for them. The second being pricing model because if the difference between the streaming and non-streaming model is less than $100 it begins to beg the question of the point of having a streaming only model in the first place as opposed to downloading the game and playing it locally.

I'm not saying MS cannot deliver, but the when you begin to break it down on a technically level its looks like their claims about Cloud computing and Crackdown 3. As we can see in the finished product, yes the physics calculations are being processed in the cloud, you can't jump of off falling parts of building rumble or have physics interact with the player in any meaningful way beyond it existing. There is little tangible effect to gameplay that couldn't also be replicated or approximated locally. The destructive environments by and large are not integral to gameplay once the cloud physics takes over because you cannot base your gameplay around the non-local elements.

@Steppy_76:

I think you may be misunderstanding they concept. PSNow allows either downloads or direct streams. A user can choose based on their use which experience to have. For instance if I’m on my computer at work I could stream a game right now. Versus I come home and play it directly on my TV, versus letting the wife and kids use the downstairs tv and I start to play that game on my PSTV upstairs or remote play.

If I wanted to only use streaming I could. If I wanted to use remote play instead for a better quality and more consistent experience I could. XCloud is streaming period. So if I’m at my house and want to play on my phone it’s still limited by my internet connection despite my Xbox sitting downstairs unused. Remember Sony originally started with the streaming only model just like MS is doing now. If you just want to play on your phone for games you already own but play them anywhere then using remote play makes sense because it works with or without a subscription. If you want the choice you would use PSNow. It’s no different than the rumored Scarlett box except it’s using a PS4 which most people already own to accomplish the same tasks.

Ok I’ll put it like this:

Game pass: Download only local play - paywall

XCloud: steaming only remote play - paywall

PSnow: download or steam. - paywall

Remote play: any game on your PS4 remotely. - no paywall

In Sony’s case they use a combination of two services. The first service is behind a paywall but allows either streaming or download based on your use case and preference. The remote play part effectively puts free “cloud” gaming in the hands of everyone with a PS4 for games they already have.

It’s a different approach to how the ecosystem works. In MSs approach cloud gaming is only available directly from their servers and behind a paywall. In Sony’s approach cloud gaming is behind a paywall but games you already own can effectively be streamed from your own device and played on your phone or tablet for free. No paywall for access.

@Steppy_76: but that’s why this is a better scenario because data centers aren’t inherently stocked with servers capable of running gaming hardware. There’s no scale necessary, it’s not running through Sony’s or anyone else’s servers it’s establishing a direct connection and so there’s no cost for it. The software solutions being proposed in the article either aren’t workable because of the restrictions they would place on games and development or aren’t cost effective because VMs are cost less and running two concurrent instances for a single client isn’t cost effective either. It makes even less sense to do that temporarily in the interim because of the length and cost of game development, by the time they got it working it would be a moot point in internet infrastructure as latency for most US broadband providers is expected to hit sub 100ms in the next 5 years.

Realistically, because of the way games are built it doesn’t make sense to attempt to play them on tiny screens for large amounts of time unless we are playing a specific type of game and have a specific reason for not having access. For the next 5-10 years 90% of a users use case is going to be better served having a gaming “hub” in their home and playing games from that on a variety of devices.

Oh absolutely, I think the coming generation of consoles will be part of the transition phase when the idea of gaming via the internet becomes ubiquitous. I pointed out that Sony has allowed users to remotely play on their PSPs back on the PS3 so they've been giving the option for gamers to do this for a very very long time. I feel like phase 1 was PS3-PSP remote access. Phase 2 is Vita to PS4, and Stage 5 will be All devices to PS5, and finally All Devices, directly to cloud. In every scenario Sony has these as options while it quietly improves the experience before it pushes it as a major feature. Like I said, most gamers didn't know they could use a PSP to play some PS3 games over the internet over 10 years ago. The transition will likely be very quiet and not nearly as abrupt as people believe.

I actually also agree with this, but I prefer the Sony method of handling this. I have a PS4, a PSTV, a Vita, an iPhone and an iPad. I am also a PS Now subscriber.

Right now I can download a PS4 game to main console via PSNow, the PSN store, or play a game on disc all via Remote Play. To explain what this means I use my PS4 as my central "hub" in my living room hooked up to my 4K TV. Upstairs I have the PSTV which remote plays into my main PS4 when the living room TV is in use. If both are in use I can hop on my Vita and play those games. If I am out at work and on my break I can hop on my iPad and play via an app and if I am on the road in the passengers seat I generally play JRPGs back to my PS4.

If the PS5 is what patents are claiming.... fully backwards compatible with all generations... then in theory Sony could leverage their established PSNow and PS Plus downloads to your PS5 and users can remote into their own game systems completely free like they have been doing since the PS3. This is why I also see the actual network being irrelevant. If you can download you games to you own console and then play them from any device for free, why would you want to pay more money for the same exact experience and possibly get a worse experience? The majority of people will be closer to their own machines rather than a data center so it would make more sense to remote back to their own consoles and play it in full resolution than Sony spinning up a virtual server in a data farm 100s of miles away.