I didnt give any performance boost, it was MS that it would make the Xbox 3x more powerful.

Of course not all calculatiosn need to be done instantly or high amounts of bandwidth, but gaming generally *does* require things to be done in m-seconds and per frame, to say the cloud at this point is going to change gaming (which is what was said), is not going to happen. In gaming this service is not benefitial, certainly at the moment.

I think all we've seen is cloud storage and drivatars, if this was an amazing eureka game changing moment, others would be using it. To see that MS have even been quiet on the cloud would suggest they've had to rein back in their marketing about it. Of course Nvidia and others are going to say positive things about it, they are investing lots of money in research and this stuff is always boasted about way in advance of any end user improvement. I'll use electric cars as an example, the first electric car was made over 100 years ago, look how long that technology has taken to actually be useful (and its still not their yet). I'm not saying cloud computing isnt useful, its just not that useful for gaming and its going to be at least another 10-20 years if not more. This is what technical companies do, they say how wonderful tech they've got and show it off, but actually in the real world... nothing.

Its not going to improve gaming at this stage, its not going to see a big uptake, its not going to change anything. Thats what the general thread in the past has been. You know what would improve gaming, better CPU, faster HD... that would give a much bigger boost to anything.

Thanks for giving me such an easy case.  I thought it was obvious but I still felt my skills were needed..

Yeah the first one wasn't as dark as the second one even though both games basically have the same map and locations.  The first game was better overall the second one probably would have been better if the same developer as the first one made it but they went out of business after APB bombed.

I just wanna play more Crackdown.

I don't think it has the potential to be a big hit either, regardless of marketing.

I have stipulated that any denominator applied to the performance gains of cloud processing is irrellevent as there hasn't been any real precedents set for it yet.
Microsoft deserved the ridicule they got for making such ludicrous claims.

Not everything. Which is what the evidence I provided points at.

They demonstrated the technology, outlined the technology and in some professional scenarios, the technology is actually being used.

Sure, nVidia might have a vested interest, but they have backed up their claims with empirical evidence.

 Electric Cars are not a good example.
The "concept" was possible over 100 years ago, the technology was only recently viable.

And that is completely due to one aspect. Battery's.
Sure, we could have used lead-acid batteries 100 years ago, but they are heavy (Reducing efficiency) and do not have the energy density of more modern Lithium-based chemistries.

It's only really been viable within the last couple of decades when NiMH based battery's reached a good price/performance ratio.

Even then... Hydrocarbons still have higher energy densities than lithium batteries of today, hence why they are still the primary energy source for cars.

It's useful today.
Just not to any great extent. We aren't going to be using the cloud to render entire game worlds, that is so far away into the future it's not funny.

Indeed. A faster CPU would make the entire cloud-concept for Crackdown pointless as all the Physics calculations could have been done on the host CPU.

But the Xbox One, like the Playstation 4, Switch, Xbox One X, Playstation 4 Pro are using low-end, cost effective and slow CPU designs from years ago. The hand we are delt is what we got and the Cloud is there to pick up the slack.

Maybe next-gen Physics might be the focal point.

This generation is all about the finer details and having dynamic effects, not baked static crap with a big uptick in geometry complexity, lighting and material effects and so on.

Anyone else wishing for a Prototype 3?

I simply have not seen MS pushing crackdown 3 as this high fidelity game you say they are. They are giving it the same treatment they give all their first party games. No more no less and I don't see any issues with that at all. I asked you before, where have they made these statements and you didn't give me an answer. 

I'm sure the game is going to be good but PR ain't gonna help the most powerful console launching with the least demanding first party game haha (graphics wise)

I've got both P1 and P2, in fact I've not played either yet and 2 is still sealed.

At some point i'll give them a spin. I never did because it was at the time of infamous and i went straight to playing that instead.

I remember having a massive discussion with someone at the time (dont think they are any longer on the site) who was arguing for prototype (think they just hated sony) and how they thought it would sell better than infamous.

I think its a shame Prototpye isnt any longer supported (bit like Dead Space), I think done right it could do very well and open world super hero/villian type games could be awesome.