Jonathan Blow: Microsoft's Cloud/Server Claims Are Lies

[Gothproxy]

So, essentially we have somebody calling out MS on being rather economical with the truth in a PR reveal, but doesn't have any evidence, or even tech knowledge to back it up.

It's like a dick measuring contest, but then with bullshit.

As a networking student (NCM), I can tell you that 'virtual' servers, no matter how many you "spin up" still run off of a physical machine. In order to have 10,000 virtual servers run at minimum capacity you will need a physical machine the size of the WOPR (from War Games). Even if you use VMWare or vSphere, you will need massive amount of processors, ram modules, etc. in order to run them all. What Microsoft is boasting would require hundreds of mainframes, not servers in order to function.

Now, Microsoft being Microsoft (and I do like their tech), this shouldn't be a problem for them. But to claim that a cloud service (which is really just a bunch of servers) can improve graphics? I'm sorry, but even my fellow students who are finishing up their game program degrees are saying "Wha?" Even if the cloud servers were able to improve the graphics of games, the data that it "enhanced" would still need to travel back to your Xbone over the internet and we all know how crappy that can be at times. If you are an FPS fan....that lag can kill, and not in the good way.

 

[Baldr]

I still have no idea what a Cloud is, although I confess I find it to be a pleasant image, but from reading some of the more knowledgeable posts on this thread, all I can picture now is that gaming on the new consoles is going to be like watching a video on Youtube when the servers are overloaded.

Am I going to end up sitting watching that fucking circle of dots chase itself while the rest of my level buffers?

Cloud is just a term for "computer processing" that would normally be done in your machine, done over the internet on a server somewhere else.

Sometime it is very usefully, when you got a local machine that doesn't have the best cpu, memory, and stuff like that, the server can do it. Like playing AAA games on your iPad. The iPad doesn't have the components to fully render and play, but something like OnLive, the server can take care of everything.

However, the downside, like you know is it has to be done over the internet.

I don't think many people know this: Microsoft is integrating Xbox Live into it's already established business services: Microsoft Azure. So when they say 300,000 servers, I believe it. They need much more servers for the business ends.

 

[The Lugz]

What I want to know is how exactly would cloud computing help? If I'm correct, it would mean that some of the calculations would be done server-side, right? OK, I can see the idea behind this, but doesn't this mean that you would need a constant, stable, high speed connection to play any game that used that feature?

Also, can anyone point me to a successful example of cloud computing? The first two that come to mind are SimCity (lol!) and OnLive (lol?), and that doesn't really instill confidence. But even if this is the best cloud computing incarnation in gaming ever, it would still mean the console would need a constant internet connection to play games.

So, the console doesn't have to be constantly online, only needs to check in once every 24 hours, but fuck you if you want to play something?

for the record, there Is no viable latency tolerant cloud service right now

##EDIT## 'for the uk'

it doesn't exist. it may exist in 2-3 years when iceland is covered from shore to shore in server clusters and more fibre than the rest of civilization put together but until then it's just a series of tubez.

why iceland? just google it for more exact details, but it happens to be an ideal location due to it's VAST geothermal reserves and frigid temperatures, just think about the heat of one pc and multiply it by 10 million and you'll see the logic
these are under construction right now, and will lower cloud service latency to around 17 ms for the uk which is just barely fast enough to be capable of helping your console do anything

the golden number is about 8 ms, because you could render extra frames and plug game data in at that speed, but anywhere upto 25-30 ( 30 fps game requires a 33 ms refresh rate if the resources are ready or not. ) can potentially add to the game, now the thing is you'll be able to stream audio, video and ai resources across the connection which are not particularly latency sensitive you can simplify 'calculate all ai, look up emotion sheets, check reputations, factions ect. whatever variables your bots will be using. send move, send attack, send ability' to simply 'move x use y' and that will likely get to the game in time to be useful offloading of resources especially if there are a Vast number of ai entities in a given game

so, yes there is some truth to the cloud assist processing

which does translate into the console having more free resources, which does mean more pretty pictures.

bare in mind, this is just an example as far as i'm aware only microsoft and a few select members of the game dev community know exactly what IS for a fact being sent all i'm saying is it is theoretically possible that they're adding to the processing of the console

to the best of my understanding, the System on chip uber throughput mid-range parts will match a higher spec machine, and that slightly higher spec machine will have some of it's power beamed to it via the cloud

this means that it's using a belt and bracers approach to eek every last scrap of power from it's architecture, which could be a good thing, and lead to unexpected levels of epic, or alternatively lead to ruin if it isn't implemented well, just look at sony's attempt to do something flashy last gen for an example of why this could potentially go wrong

but the bottom line is this, we don't yet know the specifics all we can do is postulate on the scraps of information we have and it isn't much to go on just yet.

i'm still dubious overall

 

[Elate]

I.. Just.. With this, and Windows 8 and the direction they're trying to take with that, it's like Microsoft are purposefully trying to destroy their company.

They won't be the top dog much longer with this train of crap heading right up bullshit creek.

 

[Grabehn]

Don't we hate this guy for some reason? Should we listen to him?

He's calling BS on Microsoft, just go with it... For now...

 

[Vivi22]

OT: Look, if you're gonna make a claim, back it up. Show some evidence that it will fail, don't just assume it will and then say you're right but someone should come and show people why, that just shows you're a lazy ass who like to fire without thinking. Sure, Microsoft's claim is quite bold and does sound a little skewed, but I want hard factual evidence to prove that it is bullshit before I agree with the claim.

It's amazing to me the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works.

Here's the thing, even if it weren't for the fact that there are already more than a few people in this thread alone explaining why Microsoft's claims of quadrupling the Xbone's power using servers is complete and utter bullshit, Microsoft are the one's who would have to prove that it's possible to begin with. Because there is no way that I or anyone else with even a modest amount of computer knowledge knows of that makes their claim at all possible. Hell, even doubling the power of the Xbone is basically a load of crap.

Microsoft's claims are ridiculous at face value. And even if Jonathan Blow doesn't have the technical expertise to explain exactly why, he has enough knowledge to recognize that Microsoft is full of shit and to ask people to call them on it so that THEY can prove their wild claims aren't just that, and that they aren't lying to customers.

Because so far, that's what they're doing. They're saying "we can quadruple the systems power because lulz cl0uds," and expect people to buy it. The sad thing is, there are a large number of people out there who not only don't know enough to have a clue what Microsoft is talking about, but people such as yourself who will ask those who call bullshit to prove that Microsoft is wrong, rather than placing the burden of proof solely on Microsoft's shoulders where it belongs.

 

[Frostbite3789]

So, essentially we have somebody calling out MS on being rather economical with the truth in a PR reveal, but doesn't have any evidence, or even tech knowledge to back it up.

It's like a dick measuring contest, but then with bullshit.

This sounds about right. I'm all for makin fun of Microsoft for their absolutely shit ideas so far for the Xbone, but lets stick with the facts for now. If what they said is false, then someone who actually knows what the fuck they're talkin about can call them out on it. Someone who outright admits that he's just talkin shit and hopes someone who actually is in the know backs him up just makes him look dumb.

Remember when SimCity and the PS3 made similar claims? I do. It's not talking shit, it's someone not being censored by MS PR muzzle.

 

[Colt47]

It hasn't even gotten to E3 yet and Microsoft is already carrying a dead horse on its back. The media might as well just skip the entire showcase for the company: no one is going to even care.

 

[Dr. Cakey]

We're provisioning for developers for every physical Xbox One we build, we're provisioning the CPU and storage equivalent of three Xbox Ones on the cloud. We're doing that flat out so that any game developer can assume that there's roughly three times the resources immediately available to their game, so they can build bigger, persistent levels that are more inclusive for players. They can do that out of the gate.

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

...

what is this i dont even

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Seriously Jonathan? We know you had a rough time with Microsoft, build a bridge and get over it rather than slagging them off at every opportunity you get. Even if he's right he just comes off as a butt-hurt blowhard (pun intended) and judging by the posts I'm not the only one who feels this way. Focus on spruiking your game Jonathon and let Microsoft bury itself.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

It's funny how people seem to hate Jonathan Bow for saying this. He's saying the exact same thing as the rest of the internet. But he's not anonymous. He has a face so he can be hated. Fuck that, I agree with him.

Same here. He might be "allied" with Sony, but that doesn't make him any less wrong. It doesn't take a technical genius to see that Microsoft is spouting bullshit and that someone (who is a tech genius) should call them out on it.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I have to agree with Blow. I was reading an gushing article on the New Yorker earlier which ultimately just showed how little evidence there is for cloud processing being of any use: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-future-of-video-games-a-box-and-a-cloud.html Here's some of the key quotes:

Spoiler: Pseduo-intellectual wank

Whitten offered an even more profound example of what the cloud can offer gaming. Today, he explained, ?most games work on artificial intelligence ? There?s this bounding box that?s close to where you, as a player, are that?s running full A.I. In the rest of it, it is running a very simplified model.? Whitten then let his hand fall to the table with a thump. ?And you wait for someone to come there. Suddenly, a world can be experiencing a shared simulation for long periods of time, in a persistent manner, regardless of where you are.? To explain this another way: imagine that you are the center of the universe, and everything exists solely for your benefit. People only interact when they?re in your presence; the sun shines only when you?re looking outside; dogs only bark and wag their tails when they see you; and so on. This is how most A.I.-governed worlds in games work now. Now imagine ?The Matrix,? in which billions of people participated in an ongoing virtual world that, like real life, was shaped by infinitely complex dynamics, all powered by countless machines. Whitten was quick to offer a caveat for his scenario: ?This is a hypothetical; I?m not talking about a specific game or anything like that.? Regardless, artificial intelligence powered by thousands of machines can be a lot smarter than A.I. powered by a single console, particularly four years into the future.

So... it allows you to render parts of the game the player is not likely to see for a fair while? That's not overcoming a limitation of in-console processing: that's wasting resources.

Spoiler: Marketing drivel

It used to be that games shipped only once they were finalized and done, their code set forever in silicon or plastic. Now, developers have the ability to send users game updates with new features or bug fixes. The next generation promises something even more dynamic: a game that constantly changes. Eric Hirshberg, the president and C.E.O. of Activision, publisher of the juggernaut Call of Duty series of first-person shooters (which holds the record for ?the biggest entertainment launch of all time in any medium?) told me, for instance, that ?learning the maps? through rote memorization of the best hiding places and assault points will be a thing of the past, since the new architecture allows maps to vary every time they are played: an earthquake may knock out a favorite hiding place, while inclement weather ruins a sniper perch. Learning a map won?t mean learning locations, it will mean learning the processes that can shape and re-shape it over time.

Aside from the fact that this concept isn't really that new (see Gears of War), you already need to be connected to servers to play CoD online. How is this really showing off what 'cloud' gaming can do, where cloud gaming is defined as letting the server handle the bulk of the processing?

Spoiler: More waffle

Given the One?s dependence on the cloud, it?s odd that the console comes with a Blu-Ray optical drive. This is a result of timing. In 2013, it?s not feasible for everyone around the world to download a fifty-gigabyte game over an Internet connection. But the system was designed to move, eventually, to an entirely cloud-based ecosystem. ?We actually play the game off the hard drive,? Multerer explained. ?So it kind of doesn?t matter if the bits are streamed down off the net or if they are streamed off the disc.?

So... you still have to install the game on your HD one way or another, and all you're offering is basically what Steam already does. Congratulations on the amazing technical breakthrough there.

Spoiler: Speaking from arse

The ability to evolve continuously allows for a certain kind of future-proofing in the design of games themselves. Multerer offered another example, made possible by the Xbox One?s Kinect camera, which can recognize individual players and even detect when the controller is handed off to a different person. ?Someone?s playing a game and they hand [the controller] to you for help. You get them over that hump. Do they get that achievement for getting over that hard thing? Do you get an achievement for helping someone get over a hard thing? Or do both people get achievements? That?s determined in the cloud ? We don?t know at game design, because we don?t know what?s going to be fun; let?s push that off to the cloud.? Game designers can build gaps into their games knowing that they can come up with better ideas later.

Aside from suggesting that Kinect could be used as always-on achievement police, this quote really says nothing about the potential of the 'cloud'. Plenty of developers have already switched over to the 'we'll fix it later' mentality of design. What does cloud add to that? Absolutely nothing.

All this aside, relying on the cloud as a method of future-proofing strikes me as incredibly daft. You're basically betting that server technology and data transfer rates will evolve exponentially faster than the processing capability of personal devices, and that the cost to the user in terms of subscription fees and internet usage won't go beyond the cost of upgrading hardware.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Plenty of developers have already switched over to the 'we'll fix it later' mentality of design.

LOL! Sounds like our developers.

QA: We've found a bug with X.

Devs: O.K, is it going to impact many customers?

QA: It's in one of the primary instructions so yeah.

Devs: Umm, we'll release it anyway and let them know a patch will soon be on the way to fix the problem.

 

[bug_of_war]

It's amazing to me the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works.

Here's the thing, even if it weren't for the fact that there are already more than a few people in this thread alone explaining why Microsoft's claims of quadrupling the Xbone's power using servers is complete and utter bullshit, Microsoft are the one's who would have to prove that it's possible to begin with. Because there is no way that I or anyone else with even a modest amount of computer knowledge knows of that makes their claim at all possible. Hell, even doubling the power of the Xbone is basically a load of crap.

Microsoft's claims are ridiculous at face value. And even if Jonathan Blow doesn't have the technical expertise to explain exactly why, he has enough knowledge to recognize that Microsoft is full of shit and to ask people to call them on it so that THEY can prove their wild claims aren't just that, and that they aren't lying to customers.

Because so far, that's what they're doing. They're saying "we can quadruple the systems power because lulz cl0uds," and expect people to buy it. The sad thing is, there are a large number of people out there who not only don't know enough to have a clue what Microsoft is talking about, but people such as yourself who will ask those who call bullshit to prove that Microsoft is wrong, rather than placing the burden of proof solely on Microsoft's shoulders where it belongs.

Yeah, lots of people on this forum have pointed that out, but Blow did not, THAT's the issue here. Yes, their claim is very flimsy at face value, but if you are going to call bullshit, show some evidence. It's sad that a dude who is in the games industry isn't able to come up with reasons, yet people on this website are. And while the burden of proof is on Microsoft's shoulders, their claim is a future prediction that we'll have to wait for, whilst Blow's claim is saying right now it's bullshit, but has yet to back up his reason.

I don't like the Xbox One, and I'm sure as hell not buying it, but when it comes down to issues like this, if someone's gonna call bullshit they better have facts to back it up.

 

[Strazdas]

Well, noone claimed Cloud gaming will improve graphics to begin with.
Physics, AI, Offsite calculation - sure. Graphics - not possible. You can imrpove graphics offsite if tyou stream them, but thats not clouding.

Microsoft already claimed they'd be able to quadruple the power of the Xbone using cloud computing. This is patently bullshit on any level though. You're not going to be able to offload any meaningful calculations from the game install on someone's console to servers since the bandwidth provided by even the fastest internet connections doesn't compare to what you get in the machine being used for the CPU, RAM, GPU, and other components to talk to each other. Only way it might work at all is if you're running some major calculations only on the server side and sending the results to the players machine, but you're still looking at latency becoming an issue for most people, as well as it being a fucking technical nightmare to code a game that runs most of it's code on separate machines.

I don't see most developers using this at all, even if it is possible. At best, you might get some online only games doing it, but even then, take a look at what happened to Diablo 3 or Sim City at launch. And they weren't even running that much on the actual servers. Most developers don't even have the resources to attempt what they did (and failed at), let alone to try and scale it up to even more insane levels.

quadriple power is technically possible with clouding. whether they will actually use that is questionable. you can offload meaningful calcuations as you dont need to send all calcualtion steps to other amchine. you senc the begining, and the calcualtion command (it already knows how to execute this command being a identical product), it executes it and send info back. the info itself is in fact very small and its caoculation process that creates a lot of information that last for nanosenconds. you dont need space level bandwitch for clouding. altrough dialup wont work for obviuos reasons. you dont need your itnernet to match speeds of CPU, RAM or GPU.
Now this being a technical nightmare, well, MMOs do it. so its possible.

 

[Dogstile]

Don't we hate this guy for some reason? Should we listen to him?

Actually no, people don't have a reason to hate him. I haven't seen any reason that is more valid than my subjective 'dislike' of game development houses that don't cater to my platform of choise or people that I don't understand.

There, I said it. People hate him because they don't understand him. Not that I try to defend his words, in many cases he has a vastly different view on the whole gaming genre than most people do but fuck, more often than not people clearly don't get what he is saying.

I thought people hated him because he was an asshole and was far to up himself to listen to anyone else's point of view. Although I think most gamers just don't like looking in the mirror, myself.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

Of course MS's claim is nonsense. The mere suggestion that any frame-crucial physics or rendering is done anywhere other than on the Xbox is ludicrous. Even with a really good internet connection that is very close to the server farm, the round trip of the data would have a latency of a minimum of 100ms. If you're lucky!

Call of Duty runs at 60fps, which means it has exactly 16.66666ms to do its processing and display the frame. Most games nowadays run at 30fps, which still only gives you 33.33333ms to play with per frame. Shove in a 100 or 150ms of pause into that, and you'll be running at seconds per frame, instead of the other way round!

Utter bullcrap.

However... it is theoretically possible for the more open-world games (such as a Saints Row, or GTA) to have some sort of 'world simulation' constantly running in the background that your local game can pick and choose what data it takes from it, but whatever the simulation was doing in the cloud, it would have to be completely non-game critical, which kind of makes it more of a gimmick than anything of use.

So: will games be able to possibly use MS server farms? Yes. Will it improve physics and graphics in the game? NO. Will it make the games better? Highly doubtful.

(Unless, by 'improving graphics', MS mean the game can fetch lots of advertizement textures to shove down your throat on in-game billboards...)

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

I thought people hated him because he was an asshole and was far to up himself to listen to anyone else's point of view. Although I think most gamers just don't like looking in the mirror, myself.

I would really love to see proof for such accusations. Because all I see is him representing his opinions and I have yet to see any discussion with him that is based around different points of view (more than just interviews in that way).

I agree on the second point though.

Even though he seems to think he doesn't know why, he's absolutely correct. See my post above this one for an explanation.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

Well, noone claimed Cloud gaming will improve graphics to begin with.
Physics, AI, Offsite calculation - sure. Graphics - not possible. You can imrpove graphics offsite if tyou stream them, but thats not clouding.

Microsoft already claimed they'd be able to quadruple the power of the Xbone using cloud computing. This is patently bullshit on any level though. You're not going to be able to offload any meaningful calculations from the game install on someone's console to servers since the bandwidth provided by even the fastest internet connections doesn't compare to what you get in the machine being used for the CPU, RAM, GPU, and other components to talk to each other. Only way it might work at all is if you're running some major calculations only on the server side and sending the results to the players machine, but you're still looking at latency becoming an issue for most people, as well as it being a fucking technical nightmare to code a game that runs most of it's code on separate machines.

I don't see most developers using this at all, even if it is possible. At best, you might get some online only games doing it, but even then, take a look at what happened to Diablo 3 or Sim City at launch. And they weren't even running that much on the actual servers. Most developers don't even have the resources to attempt what they did (and failed at), let alone to try and scale it up to even more insane levels.

quadriple power is technically possible with clouding. whether they will actually use that is questionable. you can offload meaningful calcuations as you dont need to send all calcualtion steps to other amchine. you senc the begining, and the calcualtion command (it already knows how to execute this command being a identical product), it executes it and send info back. the info itself is in fact very small and its caoculation process that creates a lot of information that last for nanosenconds. you dont need space level bandwitch for clouding. altrough dialup wont work for obviuos reasons. you dont need your itnernet to match speeds of CPU, RAM or GPU.
Now this being a technical nightmare, well, MMOs do it. so its possible.

You can't offload any work that is frame critical, such as physics or rendering. The round trip latency for the data is just too great, even with a very good internet speed, and a close proximity to the server farm. You're looking at a minimum of 100ms round trip, which would destroy your frame rate.

Any processing done in the cloud cannot be game or frame critical. Simple as that.