From reading some of the interviews it appears Microsoft are looking to use cloud processing power over time to allow the X1 to become more powerful.
My biggest concern with this is that a few years down the line they will eventually turn these servers off. Possibly meaning that you end up with a console that will do nothing.
I have a big problem with The Cloud. Back in the day it used to be called off line storage or distributed processing. It's nothing new and its not a magical thing that can suddenly boost the capabilities of things connected to it.
Don't get me wrong, it does have its uses and the Forsa idea of your own intelligence racing your friends when off line is a neat one. But the idea of pushing calculations over to the cloud in order to boost the performance of the console is pie in the sky IMO.
Just look at how poorly simcity uses the cloud. Arguably this is the perfect game where complex simulation calculations can be off loaded to servers allowing the client to deal with the graphics and interface. But it can take minutes if not hours or days before the severs return those calculations to the client. With performance like that, anyone who thinks the cloud will be able to improve the performance of their FPS that requires millisecond response times is very much mistaken.
As far as I'm concerned, having worked in computing for 30 years, the cloud is just a fad at the moment and looking for an application. Microsoft are gambling on them being able to find and implement that application. I think the jury is out on that at the moment. But if they don't succeed then I would think that the XB1 is going to have a very short life span and those servers will be turned off.
Microsoft also failed to come out and say how great there games on demand platform would be, or how much data you would need to have downloaded before you can start to play, or how quickly you could expect to start playing a typical newly purchased game or free to play game on say a 4mbit download speed connection.
Well If you do the math if you where going 4 Megabits for 1 hour you would have 1.75GB in one hour. So reality if the game is say 6GB your going to have wait about 1-2 hours. If the games 17.5GB your only getting 10% hour and chances of streaming the download is unlikely. So that's why did not give numbers as will differ between sizes of games and It's likely considering most games will be above 9GB next gen most won't be able to take use of the feature and will downloading for hours and hours.
I have a big problem with The Cloud. Back in the day it used to be called off line storage or distributed processing. It's nothing new and its not a magical thing that can suddenly boost the capabilities of things connected to it.
Don't get me wrong, it does have its uses and the Forsa idea of your own intelligence racing your friends when off line is a neat one. But the idea of pushing calculations over to the cloud in order to boost the performance of the console is pie in the sky IMO.
Just look at how poorly simcity uses the cloud. Arguably this is the perfect game where complex simulation calculations can be off loaded to servers allowing the client to deal with the graphics and interface. But it can take minutes if not hours or days before the severs return those calculations to the client. With performance like that, anyone who thinks the cloud will be able to improve the performance of their FPS that requires millisecond response times is very much mistaken.
As far as I'm concerned, having worked in computing for 30 years, the cloud is just a fad at the moment and looking for an application. Microsoft are gambling on them being able to find and implement that application. I think the jury is out on that at the moment. But if they don't succeed then I would think that the XB1 is going to have a very short life span and those servers will be turned off.
I read that they were looking to offload some of the non time critical processing such as weather and background audio leaving more power available on the console for more important tasks.
It's nice to see that there are people on here that can have reasoned debate without talking bulls***, calling people 'fanboys' or accusing them of being employees of Microsoft.
This is what I like about this forum, for the most part there are very few fanboys on the site (There are definitely people who favor one camp over the other though) and most people put forward decent arguments for their point of view which creates a health debate on the topic. As far as I am concerned if you have to start throwing around the term fanboy you have already lost the argument.
Personally I couldn't careless what machine other people like, if people want an Xbox 1 good luck to them, I hope they enjoy it. For me it has a some good points, I actually like the idea of the TV (Although I would rather it was done through a built in tuner rather than the HDMI input), I actually want the full media box. But a few of the restrictions they have imposed make the console unusable to me a couple of times a year which makes it a complete none starter.
I do slightly resent the idea inferred to above though that because I current really enjoy my PS3 I shouldn't be coming into the Xbox forum to discuss features on Xbox 1 that I dislike (Unless I read those comments wrong and took them the wrong way) especially when topics like this began in the main gaming forum before been moved here.
I have a big problem with The Cloud. Back in the day it used to be called off line storage or distributed processing. It's nothing new and its not a magical thing that can suddenly boost the capabilities of things connected to it.
I keep reading this and it's not true. The cloud has been something that's allowed to develop since MS have put in place over 300,000 dedicated servers for the new XBL, (that's a jump from the 15,000 that the 360 has today).
People want to talk about benefits...how about the end of P2P gaming and dedicated servers for every single game on XBL. PS4 will not offer that. It's pretty clear cut that X1 at this point will offer a superior service for online gamers, not only in hardware features but software line-up too. The most exciting games shown at E3 all use online in increasingly powerful ways.
As an online gamer that would be like hearing the perfect news surely? Talk about bringing gaming up to date, it will advance professional gaming as well (also helped through the TwitchTV partnership). Yet it's like people purposely want the worst option, with a back-up plan in case everything fails.
There are a growing amount of gamers that realise this, don't think for one moment that people are not seeing it's benefits. It's jarring to see so many sharing their thoughts as though they are speaking for every gamer out there.
I keep reading this and it's not true. The cloud has been something that's allowed to develop since MS have put in place over 300,000 dedicated servers for the new XBL, (that's a jump from the 15,000 that the 360 has today).
People want to talk about benefits...how about the end of P2P gaming and dedicated servers for every single game on XBL. PS4 will not offer that. It's pretty clear cut that X1 at this point will offer a superior service for online gamers, not only in hardware features but software line-up too. The most exciting games shown at E3 all use online in increasingly powerful ways.
As an online gamer that would be like hearing the perfect news surely? Talk about bringing gaming up to date, it will advance professional gaming as well (also helped through the TwitchTV partnership). Yet it's like people purposely want the worst option, with a back-up plan in case everything fails.
There are a growing amount of gamers that realise this, don't think for one moment that people are not seeing it's benefits. It's jarring to see so many sharing their thoughts as though they are speaking for every gamer out there.
PC offers much superior service for online gamers . Xbox One is like a really poor expensive PC in comparison and has terrible DRM. PC exclusives has richer game experiences for better value such as Minecraft with mods and Dota 2 that's F2P that can provide you well over 1k hours etc.
The Xbox One isn't even cheap. It literally has nothing over a PC. The PS4 still does in some ways. Anyone who wants the best gaming experience would go on PC. Anyone who wants a console experience would go to PS4 or Wii U.
PC offers much superior service for online gamers . Xbox One is like a really poor expensive PC in comparison and has terrible DRM. PC exclusives has richer game experiences for better value such as Minecraft with mods and Dota 2 that's F2P that can provide you well over 1k hours etc.
The Xbox One isn't even cheap. It literally has nothing over a PC. The PS4 still does in some ways. Anyone who wants the best gaming experience would go on PC. Anyone who wants a console experience would go to PS4 or Wii U.
Not true, or at least that won't be until Steam can offer dedicated servers for every game on PC. The X1 contorllter looks near perfect for games too, that's a huge incentive for me. While the PC might be able to use it not many games will make use of it's features such as the impulse triggers.
The promise of the new XBL is a powerful thing now matter how you look at it, no more bad multiplayer matches due to someone else's connection, no more host migration, faster downloads etc..
X1 isn't cheap, I won't pretend it is but for what you get I think it's reasonable in this day and age. You're looking at an investment that will last you up to 10 years? (if 360 is anything to go by). Where will you find that sort of value and longevity from PC gaming? It's good value and why the £70 difference between PS4 makes no odds to me, especially when Kinect will be far superior tech as will the controller, games, service etc. That's literally how I see it.
I keep reading this and it's not true. The cloud has been something that's allowed to develop since MS have put in place over 300,000 dedicated servers for the new XBL, (that's a jump from the 15,000 that the 360 has today).
People want to talk about benefits...how about the end of P2P gaming and dedicated servers for every single game on XBL. PS4 will not offer that. It's pretty clear cut that X1 at this point will offer a superior service for online gamers, not only in hardware features but software line-up too. The most exciting games shown at E3 all use online in increasingly powerful ways.
As an online gamer that would be like hearing the perfect news surely? Talk about bringing gaming up to date, it will advance professional gaming as well (also helped through the TwitchTV partnership). Yet it's like people purposely want the worst option, with a back-up plan in case everything fails.
There are a growing amount of gamers that realise this, don't think for one moment that people are not seeing it's benefits. It's jarring to see so many sharing their thoughts as though they are speaking for every gamer out there.
You are aware it was later revealed they are virtual servers not dedicated.
Can expand on this ? As many third party games will surely continue to be P2P.
You will need to provide a little more information than that if you want to prove to us that Microsoft are lying. A little hypocritical given your outburst towards me earlier in this thread. I read that that server number was verified, would be a bit of a tremendous lie if that wasn't the case and they have to know it wouldn't be hard to find the truth surely? Microsoft said every game on XBL will feature dedicated servers, that includes 3rd party companies too.
Dedicated servers in every game and cloud rendering LINK
Xbox was 5000 physical servers, Xbox 360 15,000, Xbox One 300,000. - A 6 fold increase 8 years ago vs. a 20 fold increase now - and why not, would would people be surprised by this?? Just look how Live is going from 6GB games to 25GB games and 720p video to 1080p video and mandated online connections, where are we going to be in 5 years time?
I keep reading this and it's not true. The cloud has been something that's allowed to develop since MS have put in place over 300,000 dedicated servers for the new XBL, (that's a jump from the 15,000 that the 360 has today).
People want to talk about benefits...how about the end of P2P gaming and dedicated servers for every single game on XBL. PS4 will not offer that. It's pretty clear cut that X1 at this point will offer a superior service for online gamers, not only in hardware features but software line-up too. The most exciting games shown at E3 all use online in increasingly powerful ways.
As an online gamer that would be like hearing the perfect news surely? Talk about bringing gaming up to date, it will advance professional gaming as well (also helped through the TwitchTV partnership). Yet it's like people purposely want the worst option, with a back-up plan in case everything fails.
There are a growing amount of gamers that realise this, don't think for one moment that people are not seeing it's benefits. It's jarring to see so many sharing their thoughts as though they are speaking for every gamer out there.
I'm sorry but with 30 years experience in the computing industry I can tell you ths the cloud is nothing new. Back in the day you had a dumb terminal which communicated with a server. It's basic client server stuff. The reason why we have PCs rather than dumb terminals is that servers were never responsive enough for anything other than data storage and very specific processing tasks.
Perhaps if you took your head out of the clouds (pun intended) you would realise that the recent move towards 'the cloud' has more to do with monetarising services rather than adding value to consumers.
I'm sorry but with 30 years experience in the computing industry I can tell you ths the cloud is nothing new. Back in the day you had a dumb terminal which communicated with a server. It's basic client server stuff. The reason why we have PCs rather than dumb terminals is that servers were never responsive enough for anything other than data storage and very specific processing tasks.
Perhaps if you took your head out of the clouds (pun intended) you would realise that the recent move towards 'the cloud' has more to do with monetarising services rather than adding value to consumers.
No I agree, I've already had this discussion on here. I know it's not NEW technology but the drive to use it in these ways will be a first for gaming, that has been made possible by the infrastructure that's now been put into place via a digitally native connected device. Games like Defiance will be a reality instead of a pipe-dream that are restricted by the technology. Persistent, online worlds with the merging of single/multiplayer is where we are heading.
The power of the cloud is a marketing term. It doesn't do anything that other platforms couldn't do. At the moment the Xbox is using "the power of the cloud" as something to justify always online. But it's something that actuall has no justification, the power of the cloud is a gimmick and somewhat nonsense due to the lack of network speeds (latency and bandwith). Want to know something, the PS2, PS3, PS4, Xbox, Xbox 360 can also utilise the power of the cloud (and they don't require you to go online all the time).
A lot of people don't understand what "power of the cloud" even means. And that's exactly what Microsoft want. They want people to think of this as some new revolutionary technology but it's basically another word for internet access or multiplayer.
The power of the cloud can not improve graphics, it can not make a game run smoother, it cannot render anything in real time (e.g a battlefield), it can't do anything. The only way the cloud could do the above is if it streamed the WHOLE game. Similar to how OnLive works or how Sony's Gaikai streaming service will work.
The fact is that the cloud can be used on any device, any, ranging from the PS2 era to PS4 era. (and PC ofc). The cloud is only good for offloading non latency related assets, so for example in fifa 14 it could use the cloud to update your roster in real time whenever someone gets an injury in real life it'd affect your player in game or something, it could also be used in games like Chess where the AI is processed in the cloud and makes it more adaptive to your play style, it could also be used in something like Sim City where it generates the AI and changes it in real time as you play.
The best theoretical use of it was in forza to update AI, but that was also quickly debunked as adding simple AI would be faster and more reliably implemented internally.
In the example with forza it watches how you drive, uploads that file to the cloud, and then allows friends, family and others to download that profile to their Xbox and race against a virtual profile of you. Oh and this is something that Quake 2 did back in 1997. So like i said, no improvement with graphics or anything, it's purely a way to say "ONLINE INTERNET THING". It doesn't free up space or much processing power on the Xbox. And it's something that the PS2 could do today if a game wanted to.
Sony have already said the PS4 will use cloud technology as well, but the thing is, that is no reason to require an always online connection. The reason Microsoft are shouting about it is because they want you to believe it's justification for always online when it's not. Graphically speaking, it won't make the slightest difference. Rendering is local (via the console) so the "infinite capabilities of the cloud" is bullcrap.
Every console is connected but they cannot guarantee the connection speed, the bandwidth limits and ping time, so only basic calculations that can have a fall over to local or dropped can be used. Tech like this will be more useful for massive persistent online worlds which deal with lag above 50ms all the time, but then we don't call that “the cloud”. We call them MMOs, and they have been doing this for literally over a decade.
They want to try and turn all games into MMO's where there is a multiplayer aspect to justify it. And that's fine. But the thing is there are still single player games, there are still games which have optional multiplayer aspects, and there are still games which use cloud processing as an optional (in the example of Fifa 14 say) so there is no reason why an internet connection is required. Don't get me wrong, forza looks great and so do the driveatar things. But it's not a justification for always online. nor is it anything groundbreaking. Dedicated servers are a plus as well but nothing to do with the cloud.
Sorry for the rant but the cloud isn't something that can be used today to do anything revolutionary, There are too many restrictions.
And you know where you were talking about persistent online worlds (MMO's), that leads to more problems, these online games will have to share their connection not only to
i) play the game; but
ii) perform cloud computing operations
This inevitably leads to the assumption that cloud gaming will strangle the network connection and decrease the available bandwidth for gaming.
I'm sorry but with 30 years experience in the computing industry I can tell you ths the cloud is nothing new. Back in the day you had a dumb terminal which communicated with a server. It's basic client server stuff. The reason why we have PCs rather than dumb terminals is that servers were never responsive enough for anything other than data storage and very specific processing tasks.
Perhaps if you took your head out of the clouds (pun intended) you would realise that the recent move towards 'the cloud' has more to do with monetarising services rather than adding value to consumers.
Except processing capability and bandwidth has increased over the years and latency has decreased.
Rather than relying on someone's Xbox to host a game (i.e. relying on that "thin" residential broadband connection) each player can rely on the connection to the datacentre, a "fatter pipe" and more reliable.
Xbox was 5000 physical servers, Xbox 360 15,000, Xbox One 300,000. - A 6 fold increase 8 years ago vs. a 20 fold increase now - and why not, would would people be surprised by this?? Just look how Live is going from 6GB games to 25GB games and 720p video to 1080p video and mandated online connections, where are we going to be in 5 years time?
I'm no expert but I was always of the belief that online gaming doesn't really require huge amounts of bandwidth, I'd be more inclined to think that those extra servers won't make a blind bit of difference with your gaming experience but they will improve the 'interactive entertainment features' MS are promoting and as you say the game downloads will be 2/3x as big as they are at the moment and it already takes me over an hour to download a 6/7gb game with download speeds of over 1.5mbs. That's going to take a lot bandwidth if MS expect most XBone users to get their games this way!
The power of the cloud is a marketing term. It doesn't do anything that other platforms couldn't do.
Agreed. What Microsoft is doing that is (relatively) new is provisioning the hardware at scale.
Sony have already said the PS4 will use cloud technology as well, but the thing is, that is no reason to require an always online connection.
Microsoft's position is that the benefits of the cloud will make cloud-based games ubiquitous, and then being online will be all but unavoidable, and so little is lost by making it compulsory. (I think they are wrong to force the issue, and agree with you they are being optimistic about the cloudy benefits, but I understand their reasoning.)
They already had Azure, so this is them hoping to get a little more use out of it. Which is a good thing. One of the most exciting things about Microsoft at the moment is their vision of a unified and synergistic cross-platform software architecture, that spans PC, laptops, tablets, phones, consoles and the cloud, with a unified experience for developers and users alike. It's a hugely strategic thing for them, with the XBox One being only a part.
That's something that could easily change over the lifetime of the console. Sony could subcontract servers from Amazon or Google or whom-ever if they didn't want to do it themselves. It's an approach that Sony can revise without needing to change the PS4 box itself. Their acquisition of Gaikai shows they are certainly thinking about the cloud and its potential for games.
Actually my impression is that while Microsoft are ahead in the hardware side of actually provisioning servers, Sony are ahead in the software side of with Gaikai. They talk of running PS3 games in the cloud and streaming the result to a PS4 screen. I have no idea how well that will work, especially in the short to medium term. If it does work well, then in the long run the PS4/XBox One could end up being treated as a dumb terminal.
Thus the PS4 has 3 stages:
In the short term, games use a similar approach to PC games, with the CPU doing the logic and GPU doing graphics.
In the medium term, more and more of the work will shift to the GPU. This is why it's crucial to have so much high-speed RAM in a unified memory model - to ease communication between GPU and CPU.
I'm no expert but I was always of the belief that online gaming doesn't really require huge amounts of bandwidth, I'd be more inclined to think that those extra servers won't make a blind bit of difference with your gaming experience but they will improve the 'interactive entertainment features' MS are promoting and as you say the game downloads will be 2/3x as big as they are at the moment and it already takes me over an hour to download a 6/7gb game with download speeds of over 1.5mbs. That's going to take a lot bandwidth if MS expect most XBone users to get their games this way!
As far as I'm aware online gaming is all about upload, for obvious reasons. Many of us don't have great upload speeds but that didn't stop even the Dreamcast performing well online with little to no latency via 33k dial up. It's not about bandwidth it's all down to the network, if you have one in place that is stable (dedicated servers) and removes unreliable p2p then we can only expect improvements.
I agree that download speeds could always be better and ISP throttling is an issue for many people even today, so I hope the extra servers and increased bandwidth is significantly faster than what we have today.
Comments
Don't get me wrong, it does have its uses and the Forsa idea of your own intelligence racing your friends when off line is a neat one. But the idea of pushing calculations over to the cloud in order to boost the performance of the console is pie in the sky IMO.
Just look at how poorly simcity uses the cloud. Arguably this is the perfect game where complex simulation calculations can be off loaded to servers allowing the client to deal with the graphics and interface. But it can take minutes if not hours or days before the severs return those calculations to the client. With performance like that, anyone who thinks the cloud will be able to improve the performance of their FPS that requires millisecond response times is very much mistaken.
As far as I'm concerned, having worked in computing for 30 years, the cloud is just a fad at the moment and looking for an application. Microsoft are gambling on them being able to find and implement that application. I think the jury is out on that at the moment. But if they don't succeed then I would think that the XB1 is going to have a very short life span and those servers will be turned off.
Well If you do the math if you where going 4 Megabits for 1 hour you would have 1.75GB in one hour. So reality if the game is say 6GB your going to have wait about 1-2 hours. If the games 17.5GB your only getting 10% hour and chances of streaming the download is unlikely. So that's why did not give numbers as will differ between sizes of games and It's likely considering most games will be above 9GB next gen most won't be able to take use of the feature and will downloading for hours and hours.
I read that they were looking to offload some of the non time critical processing such as weather and background audio leaving more power available on the console for more important tasks.
This is what I like about this forum, for the most part there are very few fanboys on the site (There are definitely people who favor one camp over the other though) and most people put forward decent arguments for their point of view which creates a health debate on the topic. As far as I am concerned if you have to start throwing around the term fanboy you have already lost the argument.
Personally I couldn't careless what machine other people like, if people want an Xbox 1 good luck to them, I hope they enjoy it. For me it has a some good points, I actually like the idea of the TV (Although I would rather it was done through a built in tuner rather than the HDMI input), I actually want the full media box. But a few of the restrictions they have imposed make the console unusable to me a couple of times a year which makes it a complete none starter.
I do slightly resent the idea inferred to above though that because I current really enjoy my PS3 I shouldn't be coming into the Xbox forum to discuss features on Xbox 1 that I dislike (Unless I read those comments wrong and took them the wrong way) especially when topics like this began in the main gaming forum before been moved here.
I keep reading this and it's not true. The cloud has been something that's allowed to develop since MS have put in place over 300,000 dedicated servers for the new XBL, (that's a jump from the 15,000 that the 360 has today).
People want to talk about benefits...how about the end of P2P gaming and dedicated servers for every single game on XBL. PS4 will not offer that. It's pretty clear cut that X1 at this point will offer a superior service for online gamers, not only in hardware features but software line-up too. The most exciting games shown at E3 all use online in increasingly powerful ways.
As an online gamer that would be like hearing the perfect news surely? Talk about bringing gaming up to date, it will advance professional gaming as well (also helped through the TwitchTV partnership). Yet it's like people purposely want the worst option, with a back-up plan in case everything fails.
There are a growing amount of gamers that realise this, don't think for one moment that people are not seeing it's benefits. It's jarring to see so many sharing their thoughts as though they are speaking for every gamer out there.
PC offers much superior service for online gamers . Xbox One is like a really poor expensive PC in comparison and has terrible DRM. PC exclusives has richer game experiences for better value such as Minecraft with mods and Dota 2 that's F2P that can provide you well over 1k hours etc.
The Xbox One isn't even cheap. It literally has nothing over a PC. The PS4 still does in some ways. Anyone who wants the best gaming experience would go on PC. Anyone who wants a console experience would go to PS4 or Wii U.
Not true, or at least that won't be until Steam can offer dedicated servers for every game on PC. The X1 contorllter looks near perfect for games too, that's a huge incentive for me. While the PC might be able to use it not many games will make use of it's features such as the impulse triggers.
The promise of the new XBL is a powerful thing now matter how you look at it, no more bad multiplayer matches due to someone else's connection, no more host migration, faster downloads etc..
X1 isn't cheap, I won't pretend it is but for what you get I think it's reasonable in this day and age. You're looking at an investment that will last you up to 10 years? (if 360 is anything to go by). Where will you find that sort of value and longevity from PC gaming? It's good value and why the £70 difference between PS4 makes no odds to me, especially when Kinect will be far superior tech as will the controller, games, service etc. That's literally how I see it.
You are aware it was later revealed they are virtual servers not dedicated.
Dedicated servers in every game and cloud rendering LINK
Perhaps if you took your head out of the clouds (pun intended) you would realise that the recent move towards 'the cloud' has more to do with monetarising services rather than adding value to consumers.
No I agree, I've already had this discussion on here. I know it's not NEW technology but the drive to use it in these ways will be a first for gaming, that has been made possible by the infrastructure that's now been put into place via a digitally native connected device. Games like Defiance will be a reality instead of a pipe-dream that are restricted by the technology. Persistent, online worlds with the merging of single/multiplayer is where we are heading.
A lot of people don't understand what "power of the cloud" even means. And that's exactly what Microsoft want. They want people to think of this as some new revolutionary technology but it's basically another word for internet access or multiplayer.
The power of the cloud can not improve graphics, it can not make a game run smoother, it cannot render anything in real time (e.g a battlefield), it can't do anything. The only way the cloud could do the above is if it streamed the WHOLE game. Similar to how OnLive works or how Sony's Gaikai streaming service will work.
The fact is that the cloud can be used on any device, any, ranging from the PS2 era to PS4 era. (and PC ofc). The cloud is only good for offloading non latency related assets, so for example in fifa 14 it could use the cloud to update your roster in real time whenever someone gets an injury in real life it'd affect your player in game or something, it could also be used in games like Chess where the AI is processed in the cloud and makes it more adaptive to your play style, it could also be used in something like Sim City where it generates the AI and changes it in real time as you play.
The best theoretical use of it was in forza to update AI, but that was also quickly debunked as adding simple AI would be faster and more reliably implemented internally.
In the example with forza it watches how you drive, uploads that file to the cloud, and then allows friends, family and others to download that profile to their Xbox and race against a virtual profile of you. Oh and this is something that Quake 2 did back in 1997. So like i said, no improvement with graphics or anything, it's purely a way to say "ONLINE INTERNET THING". It doesn't free up space or much processing power on the Xbox. And it's something that the PS2 could do today if a game wanted to.
Sony have already said the PS4 will use cloud technology as well, but the thing is, that is no reason to require an always online connection. The reason Microsoft are shouting about it is because they want you to believe it's justification for always online when it's not. Graphically speaking, it won't make the slightest difference. Rendering is local (via the console) so the "infinite capabilities of the cloud" is bullcrap.
Every console is connected but they cannot guarantee the connection speed, the bandwidth limits and ping time, so only basic calculations that can have a fall over to local or dropped can be used. Tech like this will be more useful for massive persistent online worlds which deal with lag above 50ms all the time, but then we don't call that “the cloud”. We call them MMOs, and they have been doing this for literally over a decade.
They want to try and turn all games into MMO's where there is a multiplayer aspect to justify it. And that's fine. But the thing is there are still single player games, there are still games which have optional multiplayer aspects, and there are still games which use cloud processing as an optional (in the example of Fifa 14 say) so there is no reason why an internet connection is required. Don't get me wrong, forza looks great and so do the driveatar things. But it's not a justification for always online. nor is it anything groundbreaking. Dedicated servers are a plus as well but nothing to do with the cloud.
Sorry for the rant but the cloud isn't something that can be used today to do anything revolutionary, There are too many restrictions.
And you know where you were talking about persistent online worlds (MMO's), that leads to more problems, these online games will have to share their connection not only to
i) play the game; but
ii) perform cloud computing operations
This inevitably leads to the assumption that cloud gaming will strangle the network connection and decrease the available bandwidth for gaming.
Except processing capability and bandwidth has increased over the years and latency has decreased.
Rather than relying on someone's Xbox to host a game (i.e. relying on that "thin" residential broadband connection) each player can rely on the connection to the datacentre, a "fatter pipe" and more reliable.
I'm no expert but I was always of the belief that online gaming doesn't really require huge amounts of bandwidth, I'd be more inclined to think that those extra servers won't make a blind bit of difference with your gaming experience but they will improve the 'interactive entertainment features' MS are promoting and as you say the game downloads will be 2/3x as big as they are at the moment and it already takes me over an hour to download a 6/7gb game with download speeds of over 1.5mbs. That's going to take a lot bandwidth if MS expect most XBone users to get their games this way!
Make the spotty teenagers actually buy their own stuff instead of leeching off their parents all the time.
Microsoft's position is that the benefits of the cloud will make cloud-based games ubiquitous, and then being online will be all but unavoidable, and so little is lost by making it compulsory. (I think they are wrong to force the issue, and agree with you they are being optimistic about the cloudy benefits, but I understand their reasoning.)
They already had Azure, so this is them hoping to get a little more use out of it. Which is a good thing. One of the most exciting things about Microsoft at the moment is their vision of a unified and synergistic cross-platform software architecture, that spans PC, laptops, tablets, phones, consoles and the cloud, with a unified experience for developers and users alike. It's a hugely strategic thing for them, with the XBox One being only a part.
That's something that could easily change over the lifetime of the console. Sony could subcontract servers from Amazon or Google or whom-ever if they didn't want to do it themselves. It's an approach that Sony can revise without needing to change the PS4 box itself. Their acquisition of Gaikai shows they are certainly thinking about the cloud and its potential for games.
Actually my impression is that while Microsoft are ahead in the hardware side of actually provisioning servers, Sony are ahead in the software side of with Gaikai. They talk of running PS3 games in the cloud and streaming the result to a PS4 screen. I have no idea how well that will work, especially in the short to medium term. If it does work well, then in the long run the PS4/XBox One could end up being treated as a dumb terminal.
Thus the PS4 has 3 stages:
As far as I'm aware online gaming is all about upload, for obvious reasons. Many of us don't have great upload speeds but that didn't stop even the Dreamcast performing well online with little to no latency via 33k dial up. It's not about bandwidth it's all down to the network, if you have one in place that is stable (dedicated servers) and removes unreliable p2p then we can only expect improvements.
I agree that download speeds could always be better and ISP throttling is an issue for many people even today, so I hope the extra servers and increased bandwidth is significantly faster than what we have today.