The recent reports regarding Microsoft are getting more and more interesting by the minute. If murmurs in the industry are to be trusted, the company is currently engaged in designing not one, but two next gen conoles - a stand-alone box as well as a dedicated cloud-based console codenamed "Scarlett". Certain aspects of gameplay such as the controls, collision detection and simple game logic could be processed locally while the bulk of the processing would be offloaded to Microsoft's servers, enabling end-users to purchase a significantly cheaper system at the cost of being always online. Rumour has it that Microsoft has been working hard to diminish the obvious problems springing from lag and managed to provide an acceptable player experience on their new low-power hardware, similarly to how Sony delivers PS3 games over their PS Now streaming service. While not necessarily appealing to hardcore gamers, such a low-cost alternative would provide an entry level gaming device for those who only play a handful of games.

What are your thoughts? Would you trade your stand-alone box for an online only console provided it gave you the same experience at a fraction of the price? Have you ever used any game streaming services? Discuss!

Source

 

[FAST6191]

Such a waste..there are stll huge percent of people sll around the world with bad internet connection

But are they in the US, rich parts of Europe, the English commonwealth (save perhaps the Caribbean parts) or Japan? If so they probably don't care.

I'm interested in the technological aspect of this implementation of cloud gaming. It's nothing like Onlive or PS Now, the games are supposed to run on the system besides the heavy tasks, like rendering. I can see how that would be a good idea that basically eliminates input lag - the local hardware would run game logic, AI, hitboxes and so on using basic low-poly models, and at the end of each frame it would ask for the rendered visuals, a little bit like Resident Evil used to use pre-rendered graphics in the past, except in real time. It's a novel idea, and to be fair, they wanted to introduce this technology back when the Xbox One originally launched.

I have never experienced texture lag or texture flicker and I am not sure I want to.

 

[Foxi4]

But are they in the US, rich parts of Europe, the English commonwealth (save perhaps the Caribbean parts) or Japan? If so they probably don't care.

I have never experienced texture lag or texture flicker and I am not sure I want to.

Enter FreeSync, goodbye tearing. Adjusting the refresh rate to the frame rate is far easier than dealing with input lag and it would make the problem imperceptible, much like it does with FPS fluctuations, within reason. If your YT stream doesn't chug, neither would this.

 

[Captain_N]

We all new this shit was coming. Online only is always a bad idea. You will not be able to play any game when the service is gone. I for sure aint spending my money on games that they tell me i have to stop playing. It would be the same thing as saying after 4 years your 4k tv no longer plays movies because the company says so. We already know whats its like to invest time and money in a MMO and they never be able to play it again after it closes.

Good luck hacking the stream box to play free games. No installing game dumps. hacks would have to have hardware to render the game and send it to the console. Some people like the idea of online game streaming. I believe they have no concept of gaming longevity or gaming freedom. They only care for the now and not for the past or the future. I dont take to kindly to a company saying in 5 years i cant even use their console. If i cant use it in 5 years then why even bother playing it.

The future is gonna be where everything is through the internet. When your connection goes down nothing will function. no music, no tv, no games, no movies no communication, no anything. I will always have my physical media like cd-r and dvd-r. They cant stop me from using it and it works 100% with out internet. And i can also just record media like songs with my cassette tape recorder. I even have Reel to reel tape recorders. and i have extra of these devices to use in the future. I will keep my media freedom instead of letting the providers control my ability to view it.
Remember this: how many times have you had to stop playing a great game because the service is gone. Now imagine that for every game.

 

[stanleyopar2000]

Frog in the pot.

 

[KingVamp]

I'm interested in the technological aspect of this implementation of cloud gaming. It's nothing like Onlive or PS Now, the games are supposed to run on the system besides the heavy tasks, like rendering. I can see how that would be a good idea that basically eliminates input lag - the local hardware would run game logic, AI, hitboxes and so on using basic low-poly models, and at the end of each frame it would ask for the rendered visuals, a little bit like Resident Evil used to use pre-rendered graphics in the past, except in real time. It's a novel idea, and to be fair, they wanted to introduce this technology back when the Xbox One originally launched.

Pretty much how I envisioned it working. I feel like most cloud gaming will work this way. If it ever becomes cloud gaming only, dumping some of the work on your hardware would not only make it easier to stream, but still gives you a reason to upgrade. I also wonder how strong this box will be. Sure, it is meant for streaming, but surely it will be strong enough to download and run some indie games, right?

I mean, they still could have without trying to force everyone online.

 

[Bladexdsl]

microSHIT gowna end up like onlive

 

[Obveron]

My biggest issue with this is it might water down the games even for the strong (non streaming) console. If devs have to code for both, optimizing a game for low latency streaming AI and server side processes, that could take a lot of their coding resources. Could be time better spent focusing on the game on a powerful next gen console.

 

[Foxi4]

My biggest issue with this is it might water down the games even for the strong (non streaming) console. If devs have to code for both, optimizing a game for low latency streaming AI and server side processes, that could take a lot of their coding resources. Could be time better spent focusing on the game on a powerful next gen console.

It could also be the reverse - programming games in this way could allow for an unparalleled level of detail as there's really no limit to what kind of rendering could be done by the server farm with no increase of file sizes - a pre-rendered 4K image is going to have the same (or at least similar when accounting for compression) size regardless of how many polygons are rendered, what's the texture resolution, the draw distance and so on. You could end up with a scenario where graphics reach a level of sophistication that would simply be impractical to render with a local machine, but entirely achievable through the cloud. At that point it would be the local Scarlett that would hold this console back, not the cloud-based Scarlett.

 

[Xzi]

It's a novel idea, and to be fair, they wanted to introduce this technology back when the Xbox One originally launched.

They wanted to, but IIRC there was massive backlash at the time to the idea of this alone, and Microsoft knew they'd lose a lot of sales if they actually went through with it. Obviously they did learn some lesson from that, which is why they're rumored to be making it an optional buy and not force it on people through the main hardware line.

 

[Foxi4]

They wanted to, but IIRC there was massive backlash at the time to the idea of this alone, and Microsoft knew they'd lose a lot of sales if they actually went through with it. Obviously they did learn some lesson from that, which is why they're rumored to be making it an optional buy and not force it on people through the main hardware line.

Microsoft faced backlash because of their always online policy of game activation and DRM, not really due to cloud computing. As an optional path it seems to be inoffensive to me, and could actually end up creating some interesting results.

 

[Alex4nder001]

Gaming has officially gone down the toilet

 

[Deleted User]

Frog in the pot.

far too deep for gbatemp

 

[Pandaxclone2]

I can hardly see this device becoming a threat to consoles. It'll probably be successful enough to get on by with a casual market, but it's no true replacement for a proper console. Eventually they'll see the error they've made and go back to the formula.

 

[FAST6191]

I can hardly see this device becoming a threat to consoles. It'll probably be successful enough to get on by with a casual market, but it's no true replacement for a proper console. Eventually they'll see the error they've made and go back to the formula.

Did they not say the same about phones and tablets? Was the 3ds and what we have seen of the Switch as healthy and robust as GBA and DS?

 

[tiamat999]

Did they not say the same about phones and tablets? Was the 3ds and what we have seen of the Switch as healthy and robust as GBA and DS?

Yes but those devices can still work and be fully functional with no internet this thing cant

 

[FAST6191]

Yes but those devices can still work and be fully functional with no internet this thing cant

So it seems. Where I was heading though was a device need not be obviated, just enough of its core base be trashed to make it not worth the time for some to play.

Or if you prefer seen much in the way of point and shoot compact cameras, MP3 players or palmtop computers of late?

 

[air2004]

And this is how you move people away from ownership to simply renting

 

[Thulinma]

You're limiting your range of what constitutes a PC (personal computer) to IBM-Compatible x86 computers when, throughout history, people have used a variety of architectures. Even the IBM-Compatible standard, what we consider a "PC", isn't that restrictive.

As you yourself state, Macs have only recently switched to x86 - they formerly used PowerPC, the same architecture that powers the Gamecube, Wii, Wii U, the Xbox 360 and, to a certain extent, the PS3, and it was not a "different type" at all, the console versions were simply customised. The PowerPC CPU's in Nintendo's consoles are in the exact same PPC7xx family as the PowerPC in the Apple iMac G3. In fact, initial Xbox 360 demos were actually ran on two Macs connected into one unit since it was easier to demo the software this way. I already mentioned the NES which uses the same family of CPU's as the Apple II, and while we're at it, the Ricoh 5A22 that powers the SNES is also derrived from the same family. The Z80 is another processor popular in both consoles and personal computers, and then there's ARM CPU's which not only power your portable consoles, they also power your smartphone, which is effectively a portable personal computer. "PC" in the sense of an x86 IBM Compatible personal computer didn't even exist until the mid 1980's and wasn't proliferated until the 1990's, before that the PC space was the wild west, so it's your post that's misinformed.

All console hardware is customised, but it stems from the same roots. Console manufacturers order customised parts for a specific purpose, but those parts are using the exact same technology as personal computers, servers and workstations do, they're just designed with a specified purpose in mind. There's no difference between a custom CPU from 20 years back and a custom CPU today, the principle is the same.

I feel that you're misunderstanding my position - I'm not saying that you can build all of those consoles with off-the-shelf components - you rarely can. That being said, they do use the same technology, they simply have a custom internal structure and use different elements on-die. You can't build an Xbox One or a PS4 with off-the-shelf components either, so I don't see the difference - both contain customised hardware that's unavailable to the public. With that said, they both use microarchitectures that are. Naturally the manufacturers themselves will sometimes design special sauce that they want baked into the die, but that was as true in the past as it is right now.

Well, if we're going to that degree of calling them "the same", then every CPU ever produced is effectively the same tech. And sure, it sorta is. But what I was going for was really the sentiment in the summary of my post: "Generally, in the past, equivalent/identical PC parts and console parts weren't available at the same time for consumers". Yes, hardware used in consoles is often similar or identical to those used in general purpose computers at some point, but rarely are they parts that are available at the same time. Sometimes console variants of hardware are slightly more ahead than the average consumer computer, other (most) times they are significantly behind. The two types of computers using parts so similar to each other at the same point in time really is a more recent development.

Either way, assuming my definition of PC is limited to what you think I meant as opposed to what I actually wrote, as well as calling my post misinformed based on your own interpretation is quite hurtful. Hell, I agreed with your post and was just pointing out a flaw in the reasoning behind it.
This is pretty much the exact reason I have only 100-some posts here despite my account being 13 years old. It's generally not worth the backlash to post anything resembling an actual discussion on these boards...

 

[Foxi4]

Well, if we're going to that degree of calling them "the same", then every CPU ever produced is effectively the same tech. And sure, it sorta is. But what I was going for was really the sentiment in the summary of my post: "Generally, in the past, equivalent/identical PC parts and console parts weren't available at the same time for consumers". Yes, hardware used in consoles is often similar or identical to those used in general purpose computers at some point, but rarely are they parts that are available at the same time. Sometimes console variants of hardware are slightly more ahead than the average consumer computer, other (most) times they are significantly behind. The two types of computers using parts so similar to each other at the same point in time really is a more recent development.

Either way, assuming my definition of PC is limited to what you think I meant as opposed to what I actually wrote, as well as calling my post misinformed based on your own interpretation is quite hurtful. Hell, I agreed with your post and was just pointing out a flaw in the reasoning behind it.
This is pretty much the exact reason I have only 100-some posts here despite my account being 13 years old. It's generally not worth the backlash to post anything resembling an actual discussion on these boards...

It's not backslash so much as a firm disagreement. There are no off-the-shelf AMD Jaguar-based APU's with 8 cores and an integrated 1.8 TFLOP Radeon, neither are there any PC's that use GDDR5 as shared system memory. Things are even more interesting with the XBONE, that APU has even more custom ALU's, including built-in memory that just isn't present on PC's. The customisation of old systems is equivalent to modern ones, it's simply miniaturised to the die level and simplifying the matter to the architecture doesn't tell the whole story. Neither the PS4 nor the XBONE are anything like a modern PC, both actually feature some functionality that was intended for VEGA chips that weren't released at the time. Simultaneously, all that technology does belong to the same pool of technology as a whole, it's always been like this.