However, if we were to connect one personal computer to ten, what would happen to the server that positions in the center of the networking? In a case where the server is also required to function as a switchboard, we must lay out legions of clusters even when we have a centralized networking topology. Merely connecting one personal computer to another directly by fiber optics is easy. The fact that servers and personal computers have the same LSI is the greatest bottleneck that is hobbling the realization of interaction among computers. Kutaragi: … I am not denying the high processing capability of computers that establish our current networks… The reason is neither attributed to fiber optics nor to the "Last One Mile" task of connecting high-speed lines to households. So you are saying that exchanging data among stand-alone computers is not enough? Partial excerpts of the 1st & 2nd Q & As are as follows: People don’t need gigabit internet in their homes, and I suspect SIE is months away from proving it. It’s flexibility and scalability make it an ideal architecture for performing real-time physics and graphics rendering in the cloud at interactive framerates sufficient for VR. Online games just have more longevity.Ģ-bit_hustler 2071d ago (Edited 2071d ago )įor the reason you’ve cited (latency), running physics in the cloud is a challenge and that’s partly why Ken Kutaragi realized the Cell Broadband Engine. My only hope is that it's not used to the point of being annoying for those who don't actually care to connect online, because the truth is, more people play SP games overall than online games. I think CD3 has a lot to prove, and hopefully it can pull it off, because cloud itself is a solid way to move forward for certain gaming applications. That aside, infrastructure is going to be an even bigger hurdle, because utilizing these techniques will limit the worldwide potential market without building in ways to play in a meaningful way for those who don't have access to the good internet.Īnyhow, the only real issue I see with CD3 is that fully destructible environments sounds cool on paper, but can be a nightmare in actual implementation, and even modestly destructible environments don't equal fun. But I still know it's not really there yet in terms of actual implementation. I give credit for MS to be so ambitious in making a case for how it can improve games. Amazon and Google's cloud is more than capable of this same thing. Obviously, those who want to believe won't believe this, just like they didn't believe it several years ago.īy then, MS won't likely be the only one who has the tech at their disposal to use it as a big marketing tool. If CD3 proves itself, then I'd imagine it'll be at least a couple more years before it starts getting implemented sporatically by shoehorning it into games in early development now, and then another 3-5 years before it becomes a common thing. I said before this gen started, it'd be years before we saw any meaningful release for showing off cloud tech, and CD3 is pretty much proving that true. But it's still fairly early for being used for these kinds of almost real time computations. The premise is sound, and there are ways to make up for the lag issues. Rainslacker 2071d ago (Edited 2071d ago ) So it makes Crackdown 3 seem more like a tech demo that won't really use cloud in a really practical game way, but that they'll just use for marketing to say it's technically using the cloud. But now.that's just not something cloud will be good at. In a few years when everyone has Gigabit broadband internet connections at home, maybe. So my opinion back then when XB1 launched and Microsoft started the cloud marketing hasn't changed, and if anything has proved my point, that it's more propaganda than practically useful in the console world currently. Kind of apples and oranges with low-latency gameplay. It's more useful when doing engineering or running large reports. But that's definitely not an immediate thing. And in the workplace it's good for large job processing where you send a large batch of data to the cloud, let it process it over time, and then send the results back. Cloud is good for sending data someplace to store, maybe like save games. Console gameplay isn't an area that would seem to be one, which is probably why we haven't seen a single XB1 game use it yet. For those that aren't up to speed on it, cloud is great but really has specific use cases where it helps. I work in IT in a large datacenter with cloud. It's funny that they would even still try to carry on this marketing. To date not a single game on XB1 has used it. XB1 has been out for 3 1/2 years now, with promises from the beginning of how "cloud" was going to make XB1 40x more powerful than PS4.
0 kommentar(er)
