So they're be obsolete intwoyears instead of one.EA knows the score;
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Xbo...eja,22756.html
Whoa.
So they're be obsolete intwoyears instead of one.EA knows the score;
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Xbo...eja,22756.html
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.....
"Let's say you're looking at a forest scene and you need to calculate the light coming through the trees, or you're going through a battlefield and have very dense volumetric fog that's hugging the terrain," he said. "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. Those are perfect candidates for the console to offload that to the cloud-the cloud can do the heavy lifting, because you've got the ability to throw multiple devices at the problem in the cloud."
He also said that cloud computation could even handle physics modeling, fluid dynamics, and cloth motion which require a lot of up-front computation, without adding lag to the actual gameplay. Thus the server resources Microsoft is dedicating to these calculations will be much greater than what a single, local Xbox One console can do on its own.That's where the 3:1 cloud-console description comes into play.
Wouldn't all of that be massively limited by your internet connection bandwidth? I can't see your average person possibly having enough download bandwidth to stream a high-end graphical game without noticeable lag. Not until we are all on Google Fiber or something similar. Shit, I have a 50mbps internet connection and can still barely stream 480p Youtube videos during peak hours without buffering, and those aren't dynamic situations that have to be processed differently for every user like a game would be.
Considering the consoles that might need the server farm's power at any one time are only the ones currently in use, which represents a fraction of the total of consoles built, it seems to me the devs can assume they have access to a lot more than 3Xbones of power.[...]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.
well... the high end gaming pc is nearly a dead market.Technically he could be right! The architecture could be a generation ahead even if it gets left in the dust in terms of performance by a current gen high end gaming PC. Obviously, if that is the case the wording is intentionally deceptive.
I have kids. My kids have friends. My kids and their friends share/temp trade games ALL THE TIME. Fuck Xbox1.God this thread is so long. So pretty much with the Xbox1 I can no longer rent games from Redbox, use one of my friend's games or play my 360 games?
Basically yes - if you are going to pre-calculate you may as well bake it into the map. It has some potential advantages though, in that it doesn't require the box you are playing on - you could, for example, start to pre-calculate stuff for the next level while they play the current one. Whether that would do anything useful kind of depends on if there is any way for a player to alter the map and assets while they aren't on that level. Seems a bit like a solution looking for a problem at this stage.Do we have some coders here btw that could explain what kind of heavy lifting need to be done with lightning and fog before rendering a scene and that is no longer needed for subsequent frames? Also, couldn't these calculations take place at the devs office in order for the results to be on the disk? It's not like they'll randomize the position of trees each time they need to render the map...
Seriously, that's an impressively bad ratio.The thumbs down says it all.
I can't program my way out of a paper bag, but wouldn't you also have to account for internet connection going down, packet loss and how big amount of data to transfer are we looking at here ? Yeah, seems like a solution looking for a problem, that didn't stop EA from claiming Simcity could do it thoughBasically yes - if you are going to pre-calculate you may as well bake it into the map. It has some potential advantages though, in that it doesn't require the box you are playing on - you could, for example, start to pre-calculate stuff for the next level while they play the current one. Whether that would do anything useful kind of depends on if there is any way for a player to alter the map and assets while they aren't on that level. Seems a bit like a solution looking for a problem at this stage.
As for the actual backend - MS putting up 3 xbox's worth of server hardware for each xbox sold is asinine bullshit. Servers are *more* expensive than individual units due to scalability issues, plus they are paying for the electricity and cooling and internet bandwidth for them. From a business model that makes as much sense as Sony sending out a hooker to deliver your PS4 and give you a blowjob as you plug it in.