Do you REALLY think there will be a performance boost in your living room when you play a single player campaign due to physics and AI tasks being offloaded to one of those servers?

What type of boost? Graphical? Frame rate? Is it mandatory?

But sure, point taken. I was just throwing that at you cause I'm skeptical as a mother*&ker about this being ANYTHING other than PR that will convince the user that it's worth keeping his console online all the time.

Its more a problem, then a plus. The Cloud logic its nice, but Its not like the kinect whos mandatori connected to use the xbox.

The there are not obligation for the Cloud.

They could have forced it if it was 24h/24h connected. But seeing what was the shit storm ahead of them. it will be mostly push next gen.

"You could have tried it before Sony bought them, you know. I did, and it was instantaneous. Could only play demos I think but they worked really well, and I live in a place far away from America and the mainland.

Now you will just have to wait for Sony to show you the way"

I said *I* want to try it out. You seem to be a not technical person as I don't see you in technical discussion. As I work at an isp, I think I can judge better about performance. but yes, I will wait. But I expect the same behaviour by Sony-fans with anything MS wants to show at E3 but it doesn't happen currently.

"Why don't you comment on kowenicki's posts once in a while, where he talks like he knows what he's talking about, despite not knowing anything about either Gaikai or what MS are doing."

I think I already replied to him but either way. The situation is currently totally unknown but one can make educated guesses based on technique which I know of quite good.

I can't believe we argue about the knowhow and seize of the cloud business between Sony and Microsoft.
Microsoft is currently No. 2 worldwide when it comes to cloud computing, just behind Amazon.

Amazon is leading, but MS made HUGE steps in 2013.
Google and IBM are miles away. Sony is not even in this business.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57581994-75/microsofts-azure-gets-competitive-with-$1b-in-revenue/

good read.

I was talking about MS - It was free for them. They already have the knowhow and the patents. Sony paid for this.
When onlive was on the verge of bankruptcy, do you really think Gaikai was a healthy business? Hell no.

When onlive was "selling cheap", it still means that Sony paid too much for Gaikai.

This is like buying a Volvo for 80k USD, just to see that BMWs are on a sale for 5k 3 months later.

Gaikai was as healthy as ever with support from samsung tv, nvidia grid, and had a larger number of partners vs onlive. Without factsheets how can you even claim such bogus statements. Gaikai had an infastructure set up that was actually more efficient than onlive too. Gaikai was valued at $380 million for Sony for a reason. 

Good they are making money. BUT it says NOTHING about their infastructure vs. MS's. MS outages were way more widespread than google's last year and google is projected to triple this year for $1billion as well. 

Here is a comparison of the 2's infrastucture. Google wins no doubt. 

http://blog.cloudsherpas.com/hot-topics/google-apps-vs-office-365-a-comparison-of-gmail-and-exchange-system-availability/

3 questions:

Did you just come up with a blog post?
And why are you switching from cheering for Sony vs MS to cheering for Google vs MS?
And since when does making money not matter anymore?

Anyway MS signed some really big deals in past months for Office 365 and it is leading against Google. And this is for a reason.
The Server and Tools division of MS is doing a FANTASTIC job for the past years.

Exactly. If you're going to off-load as much data processing as to actually make an impact on what the machine can do locally, you're probably sending more data back and forth then a much easier constant data rate image stream. Plus the headache of getting it to work together dealing with variable latencies is not worth it.

Imagine something cloud computing would be good for. A Skyrim game with from dust engine. Fully dynamic, constantly changing persistant world. It would have to update your console with the local geometry, weather conditions, basically all the data that normally comes off hdd. Then the game still needs to render it locally. You might as well let the server render it and send the image over.

That also means it's only really economically viable for MMO type games, lots of people sharing the same world. Cloud streamed games run at very modest graphic settings. It's not cost beneficial to have a 4x more powerful machines sitting in the cloud for every single user that wants to run the game at peak hours. The server could host a very detailed persistant dynamic world, and render lots of cheaper views for the users.

For now I expect the cloud to be used for more static traditional type MMO worlds. Limit the data that needs to be send over. It's not going to give Forza or Halo better physics or graphics.

It could stream picture in picture of what your friends see. Maybe for a battlefield commander mode. All your squad mates upload a compressed image of their view point, the server puts it all together around a strategic map for your squad commander to direct all of you. Plenty of possibilities. Minecraft cloud version with worlds the size of countries everyone can share. Just forget about off loading time critical stuff to enchance single player games.

I'm not cheering for anything this is in reply to koweniki who claimed MS is BIGGEST in the cloud which is false in both terms of revenue and infastructure. And when does making money dictate who offers the better service/products?