Cloud Processing won't mean a thing for the Xbone

[SvennoJ]

HoloDust said:

Yeah, if I understand correctly, those 100ms for game pipeline are really the upper limit - it seems they are not alone in that approach that requires servers to render at several times the required framerate to make up for network latency (bold claims from these folks too):

http://www.ciinow.com/2013/01/the-truth-about-latency-in-cloud-gaming/

 

As for MS, I know what they proposed is not this, their model is co-processing to assist local proccessing, but I was just wondering if this is viable alternative in the future - pretty much cloud streaming as we know it today, but with local (uglier) backup in case the network is unstable/slow.

Interesting article, too bad they fail to mention what the display lag was in their test.
I remember this excellent Eurogamer article on lag http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article
They removed the display lag in their tests by using a CRT monitor. The lowest lag they could get was 50ms in the xmb, 67ms for 60fps games, and 133ms for 30fps games. However they could only measure in frames, no 240fps camera to get exact latency. Still CiiNow's 133ms for SF IV is double that what Eurogamer measured for SF IV.

But they are right that cloud gaming (streaming version) can rival consoles that struggle to maintain 30fps. A powerful server that can render a frame in 5ms (200fps) has upto 60ms extra compared to a double buffered 30fps game. Great for most of this gen's games, but consoles are (hopefully) moving the goal post to 60fps. Those 67ms 60fps games will be a lot harder to match.