By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Egann on 18 June 2013
Edit Thread
Darth Tigris said:
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.  

You're assuming Moore's law of integrated circuits applies to Internet Service Providers. Considering my ISP's copper network around here is 30 years old, that's a dubious guess at best. 

The question, though, is where is Microsof going to get the money to upgrade the servers come 2016. Xbox Live subscriptions? That'll barely cover the maintenence. The only thing that makes sense is swallowing a loss, and If Microsoft's really going to do that, why not launch a new console. At least then your user-base will help you float *most* of the loss.

Heck, why launch a new console at all? Sony's been doing Remote Play with the PS3 and the Vita. Some even support using the PSP, and that's practically ancient at this point. In theory, Microsoft could push out a firmware update to the 360, make it next-gen with the cloud, and lock Sony out of all those new sales. You really don't need that much power for a cloud-box to bounce a signal onto a TV, and if that's basically what the One is about, it's massive hardware overkill. Launch a Roku-box at a fifth the price and undercut everybody.

It just sounds like marketing spin to me. It needs to be connected? Say it'll use the cloud.