By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Darth Tigris on 18 June 2013
Edit Thread
Egann said:
Darth Tigris said:
This was a very interesting read. Thank you for it.

Though things have changed slightly here and there, MS is a software company and Sony a hardware company. Going digital makes sense for MS while for Sony there are conflicts with that model. Sony wants to sell more hardware in future generations. It's in their DNA. MS? I'd imagine that they would love the One to possibly be their final console. So the move to digital would allow them to move the strategy they implemented to a limited extent on the 360 (that of incremental enhancements through system updates) and take it to a level previously deemed impossible.

Yes, the Xbox One could potentially be the most future proof console ever made.

It's in Sony's best interest to maintain the status quo. Some think it's in gamer's best interest too. Is it worth giving up a perceived loss of ownership for the exciting possibilities of the future?

This begs the question of whether or not cloud computing will be worth it, because just about all of the One's future-proofing comes from that. I honestly don't think cloud computing is that great.

Let's admit it: servers are expensive. They need to be powered and air conditioned, and when the time comes the components need to be upgraded. And you expect me to believe Microsoft can do that indefinitely for $50 a year? That might cover server expenses for one generation, but it definitely won't be enough for upgrade costs, particularly if Sony's making a generation-leap.

And then there's the issue of if the difference is even worth it. Comparing gameplay trailers from E3, X on the Wii U and Ryse for the One? Yeah, sure I can tell the Wii U isn't as powerful, but saying the difference is worth $150 more plus a $50 per year subscription is ludicrous. And Nintendo's CPU, GPU, and memory are all less than one third of either other console. The GPU at the server farm would need to be absolutely colossal to make the slightest bit of difference, and you'd practically need a fiber ISP to deliver all those graphics.

It's time to admit it: our money can't buy prettier graphics anymore. It buys a different ecosystem and title library.

Truthfully, though, we don't know.  We nothing to definitively judge it's worth right now, but MS and the devs working on the X1 seem to think it's going to be a difference maker.  Using it the way they are hinting at is an emerging technology, like multicore processing once was.  We keep judging everything about the cloud on how things are now, ignoring how fast technology progresses.  By fall 2014, where will internet connections, prices, availability and speed be?  How better will developers grasp how they can use the cloud to enhance games?  How about by fall 2015?  2016?  

You see this is what I don't understand about the backlash to what they are saying about the X1 and the cloud.  This has the potential to shake things up but so many seem to fighting even the very notion.  I see more excitement about 4k than this, and that will require a RIDICULOUS personal investment for us as consumers whenever they become available in the future.  The burgeoning integration of 'the cloud' into mainstream gaming should be championed by us gamers instead of letting petty company loyalties and destructive negativity drive our dialogue.