Sony admits Cloud Gaming a Threat to Consoles...

@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.

@michaelmikado: that still requires a substantial hardware investment for the individual. If somebody else can offer a similar experience without having to outlay anywhere near the cost that can sway buyers. I just feel that ms solution could offer far more flexability to a greater variety of situations. Sony seems to me they either better predict perfectly or they could lose out completely.

@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.

It's astounding how far corporate slaves go to DC their corporate overlords by writing essays of full of sh*t. Loving now trying to DC scalability with outages and trying to drag the conversation to irrelevant container orchestration/load balancing. The problem is not of load balancing but of unavailability of resources and inability to serve users. You can't spun up a new instance when you you're already utilizing all your instances, hence the queue.

From the horse's mouth:

To ensure the best possible experience for all users the number of players allowed to use PlayStation Now at any one time is capped to reduce lag and maintain high picture quality.

Each user is assigned a slot in the data centre server, so you may need to wait in a queue for a user to give up their slot before you can play. Lots of users can play at any one time, so you should find that you won’t be queuing for very long.

Source

You're not in the queue because they are spurning a new container, the queue exists because they have reached the maximum no. of instances that can be raised. And LMAO, at the very notion of spinning up new instances when you reach 100% utilization of a current instance, that's not how any load-balancer works.

@michaelmikado: you do know that just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand. Xcloud and Ms system could be setup just like sonys or somewhere in between with the possibility of streamed games being more responsive as you could have the game running a basic version of the game geometry and the control input running locally to eliminate/ reduce input lag. XCloud seems to offer more flexibility as they can shift processing around.

Could I be wrong? Sure. Could you be wrong? Sure, and I think you may need to open yourself up to the possibilitythat you could be.

@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.

No