By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Will the Xbox One Cloud Underdeliver like The Cell Processor?

 

Will the Xbox One Cloud Underdeliver like The Cell Processor?

Definitely. MS is full of crap! 407 77.67%
 
No way. The Cloud will kick ass! 117 22.33%
 
Total:524
PlayStationLegend on 21 January 2014
bugrimmar said:
PlayStationLegend said:

Killzone 2 says hi! Best looking FPS at the time of release.

"Killzone 2 is perhaps the best looking FPS ever made" - Kevin Van Ord (GameSpot review).

Uncharted 2, War 3, MGS 4, Killzone 3, The Last Of Us etc. All graphically best looking games of their respective period of release.

NO Xbox 360 or Wii game comes close.

lol. have you seen the 'original' killzone 2 trailer, the one that Sony claimed to be running in 'real time'?

well if you haven't seen it, i suggest you go take a look at it. the difference between that and the final game itself is baffling.

it's not about how the graphics look right now. it's about what was originally promised. the cell was 'supposed' to created photo realism in every game. it did not deliver on that promise, not by a long shot. again, read what you just quoted from my post. kojima himself found the ps3's actual power to be very low compared to what was promised.

Let's not "unclassy" now. Game developers regularly show footage of a game running on different hardware or whatever. THAT Killzone 2 trailer is "still" debated as to whether the engine used for it was actually used for the game itself.

Shall I go along the lines of what Microsoft did last year? You know using PCS INSTEAD of Xbox One to showcase their games? No. I thought not.

Kojima says a lot of things. Most of which are worthless. Like how he said MGS was finished after IV. I wouldn't take his word seriously. Oh, wait. You did.

 

Moving on.....



Around the Network
bonzobanana on 21 January 2014

Any console with a fast broadband connection can be powered by the cloud. The ouya could play amazing top pc spec games by simply sending its controller signals to a remote pc and receiving back the graphics and sound processed by the remote computer. Such power costs money though and the more processing is done remotely the more you will have to pay to play the game.

At £425!!!! I would expect the xbox one to deliver a pretty amazing game experience without having to rely on remote processing.

The whole Xbox one approach is highly irritating. They compromise the design by using cheap components and yet charge a huge price for it and the shortfall in processing again will have to be paid for by end consumers with remote processing being important to games. As a game enthusiast what happens when the xbox one is no longer supported and there is no remote processing does that mean all those games are now unavailable.

The cloud has serious implications with how end users have access to the content they have paid for.

I don't want game experiences ruined by my broadband connection being too slow.

Personally I doubt I would ever buy a game that was cloud powered. I have never subscribed to Xbox live for my 360 or original xbox and I won't be for xbox one so to be honest if games become available that rely on xbox live I won't be able to buy the console anyway. With most multiformat games being better on ps4 and the xbox one like the wii u only really worth buying for exclusives I can't justify a xbox one purchase at anywhere near the current price.



bugrimmar on 21 January 2014
PlayStationLegend said:
bugrimmar said:
PlayStationLegend said:

Killzone 2 says hi! Best looking FPS at the time of release.

"Killzone 2 is perhaps the best looking FPS ever made" - Kevin Van Ord (GameSpot review).

Uncharted 2, War 3, MGS 4, Killzone 3, The Last Of Us etc. All graphically best looking games of their respective period of release.

NO Xbox 360 or Wii game comes close.

lol. have you seen the 'original' killzone 2 trailer, the one that Sony claimed to be running in 'real time'?

well if you haven't seen it, i suggest you go take a look at it. the difference between that and the final game itself is baffling.

it's not about how the graphics look right now. it's about what was originally promised. the cell was 'supposed' to created photo realism in every game. it did not deliver on that promise, not by a long shot. again, read what you just quoted from my post. kojima himself found the ps3's actual power to be very low compared to what was promised.

Let's not "unclassy" now. Game developers regularly show footage of a game running on different hardware or whatever. THAT Killzone 2 trailer is "still" debated as to whether the engine used for it was actually used for the game itself.

Shall I go along the lines of what Microsoft did last year? You know using PCS INSTEAD of Xbox One to showcase their games? No. I thought not.

Kojima says a lot of things. Most of which are worthless. Like how he said MGS was finished after IV. I wouldn't take his word seriously. Oh, wait. You did.

 

Moving on.....


Your responses show a clear lack of knowledge about the subject matter. Whether or not the original KZ2 was running on different hardware, it doesn't matter. The fact is, the actual game and the original trailer are miles apart. I'm talking about 1080p vs. standard definition different. This has nothing to do with 'different hardware'. The whole point of my post is that Sony promised sooooo much with its original trailer, and the final game was nowhere near. That shows that the developer couldn't reproduce the original in their final version.

Moreover, how do you say that Kojima's words are worthless, and then state how good the graphics are of MGS4? That's complete nonsense. Er, don't you realize that he makes almost all aspects of MGS? He simply stated that he wanted a lot more, based on the promises of Sony for PS3, and PS3 couldn't deliver on what he wanted, so he had to make MGS4 much lower than he intended it to be. How is that not serious? So what if he said MGS is finished after the 4th? That has nothing to do with this argument.

Again, my point is, SONY PROMISED SO MUCH, BUT FAILED TO DELIVER ON ITS PROMISE. I'm not saying that PS3 games look bad or anything like that. I'm merely stating that they didn't deliver on the promise, which was impossible to do anyway.

Since you obviously lack any knowledge on the subject, I will abandon this argument now. Seeing as you're new to the site, I hope you enjoy what Vgchartz has to offer.



PlayStationLegend on 21 January 2014
bugrimmar said:
PlayStationLegend said:
bugrimmar said:
PlayStationLegend said:

Killzone 2 says hi! Best looking FPS at the time of release.

"Killzone 2 is perhaps the best looking FPS ever made" - Kevin Van Ord (GameSpot review).

Uncharted 2, War 3, MGS 4, Killzone 3, The Last Of Us etc. All graphically best looking games of their respective period of release.

NO Xbox 360 or Wii game comes close.

lol. have you seen the 'original' killzone 2 trailer, the one that Sony claimed to be running in 'real time'?

well if you haven't seen it, i suggest you go take a look at it. the difference between that and the final game itself is baffling.

it's not about how the graphics look right now. it's about what was originally promised. the cell was 'supposed' to created photo realism in every game. it did not deliver on that promise, not by a long shot. again, read what you just quoted from my post. kojima himself found the ps3's actual power to be very low compared to what was promised.

Let's not "unclassy" now. Game developers regularly show footage of a game running on different hardware or whatever. THAT Killzone 2 trailer is "still" debated as to whether the engine used for it was actually used for the game itself.

Shall I go along the lines of what Microsoft did last year? You know using PCS INSTEAD of Xbox One to showcase their games? No. I thought not.

Kojima says a lot of things. Most of which are worthless. Like how he said MGS was finished after IV. I wouldn't take his word seriously. Oh, wait. You did.

 

Moving on.....


Your responses show a clear lack of knowledge about the subject matter. Whether or not the original KZ2 was running on different hardware, it doesn't matter. The fact is, the actual game and the original trailer are miles apart. I'm talking about 1080p vs. standard definition different. This has nothing to do with 'different hardware'. The whole point of my post is that Sony promised sooooo much with its original trailer, and the final game was nowhere near. That shows that the developer couldn't reproduce the original in their final version.

Moreover, how do you say that Kojima's words are worthless, and then state how good the graphics are of MGS4? That's complete nonsense. Er, don't you realize that he makes almost all aspects of MGS? He simply stated that he wanted a lot more, based on the promises of Sony for PS3, and PS3 couldn't deliver on what he wanted, so he had to make MGS4 much lower than he intended it to be. How is that not serious? So what if he said MGS is finished after the 4th? That has nothing to do with this argument.

Again, my point is, SONY PROMISED SO MUCH, BUT FAILED TO DELIVER ON ITS PROMISE. I'm not saying that PS3 games look bad or anything like that. I'm merely stating that they didn't deliver on the promise, which was impossible to do anyway.

Since you obviously lack any knowledge on the subject, I will abandon this argument now. Seeing as you're new to the site, I hope you enjoy what Vgchartz has to offer.

I agree that Sony didn't deliver on the "1080p" promise. No doubt about that. They still delivered on the "best looking games" of the generation. Unique, immersive GOTY winners.  

Is there a game last gen that had the "scale" of War 3? The incredible set piece shoot outs of Uncharted 2 (the train level is astonishing from a design and structure perspective)? The attention to "detail" of Killzone 2? The epicness of the Mawlr boss fight in Killzone 3?

I rest my case.

Sony delivered on their promise. They didn't deliver "entirely" on it though.

P.S. Thanks. I'm enjoying vgchartz. : )



Turkish on 21 January 2014
bugrimmar said:
Turkish said:
bugrimmar said:

Obviously, the Xbox One Cloud is still in progress so we don't really know yet whether it will deliver on all of Microsoft's promises. What do you guys think? Will this live up to the hype or will it be this generation's "Power of teh CELL"?


Wait, are you saying that Cell underdelivered? You truly don't know what you're talking about. Cell was ahead of it's time and PS3 exclusives still look like the best console games because of it. It is the RSX gpu that underdelivered and why Cell had to make up for the weak gpu.

 

The cloud is bullshit, graphics are the last thing I want to be dependent on my internet connection.

Yes, the cell underdelivered. Take a look at the initial advertising and promises that Sony made before the PS3 launch.

Heck, even Hideo Kojima lamented about the PS3's lack of performance. In a conference, he made a presentation about how the PS3's promises were so high that he began dreaming so big.. only to have to downgrade MGS4 because of the limitations of the actual console. I forgot what the conference was but it was presented with a funny graphic of Snake hanging on to a really high ramp that represented the PS3's promised power, but the ramp suddenly fell when the actual console was given to him.

Sure, there are PS3 games that look good now. But nowhere near as good as what Sony originally promised.

I dont care about Kojima, he is 3rd party, MGS4 is from 2008. We have games like Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, The Last of Us, God of War 3, Beyond, Heavy Rain etc and you bring up an old game to prove your point? Those exclusives I summed up destroy everything else on consoles. All thanks to the Cell. The Cell more than overdelivered, it made up for the weak gpu.



Around the Network
bugrimmar on 21 January 2014
Turkish said:
bugrimmar said:
Turkish said:
bugrimmar said:

Obviously, the Xbox One Cloud is still in progress so we don't really know yet whether it will deliver on all of Microsoft's promises. What do you guys think? Will this live up to the hype or will it be this generation's "Power of teh CELL"?


Wait, are you saying that Cell underdelivered? You truly don't know what you're talking about. Cell was ahead of it's time and PS3 exclusives still look like the best console games because of it. It is the RSX gpu that underdelivered and why Cell had to make up for the weak gpu.

 

The cloud is bullshit, graphics are the last thing I want to be dependent on my internet connection.

Yes, the cell underdelivered. Take a look at the initial advertising and promises that Sony made before the PS3 launch.

Heck, even Hideo Kojima lamented about the PS3's lack of performance. In a conference, he made a presentation about how the PS3's promises were so high that he began dreaming so big.. only to have to downgrade MGS4 because of the limitations of the actual console. I forgot what the conference was but it was presented with a funny graphic of Snake hanging on to a really high ramp that represented the PS3's promised power, but the ramp suddenly fell when the actual console was given to him.

Sure, there are PS3 games that look good now. But nowhere near as good as what Sony originally promised.

I dont care about Kojima, he is 3rd party, MGS4 is from 2008. We have games like Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, The Last of Us, God of War 3, Beyond, Heavy Rain etc and you bring up an old game to prove your point? Those exclusives I summed up destroy everything else on consoles. All thanks to the Cell. The Cell more than overdelivered, it made up for the weak gpu.

lol, and where is the promised 1080p, 60fps? Nowhere. Sure, the games look good. But they're nowhere near what was promised.

Again, my point is not that the games on PS3 look bad. They just didn't deliver on Sony's massive promises before the gen began. Please take that into context before you type anything.



Machiavellian on 21 January 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:
Machiavellian said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

the cell was responsible for the games that brought PS3 back into the race.
Its power was proven over and over again. The cloud is yet to be proven once, and its a technology that Sony or nintendo could replicate for their systems even if it does deliver as MS claim.


You probably use the cloud every day and do not know it.  The cloud and cloud processing is already proven.  Cloud processing within a game is not.  People need to understand that there are many different cloud services and cloud processing is just one of them.  MS is bringing all of their cloud services to the X1 including their other existing platforms.

People keep saying Sony and Nintendo can just replicate MS cloud servicess, but its not that simple. There is a huge cost associated with bringing such services to a platform. It's like people saying MS can just replicate Playstation Now because they already have a cloud based solution in Azure.  Building the infrastructure for any of those services cost millions and doing it right takes experience.

You cant really assume its hard to replicate or that it costs millions if we havent seen how it performs.

For all we know, MS could have hooked up 10 PC's to process tiny AI files that hardly make a difference just to be legally allowed to market it like this.

Titanfall will be a make or break moment for all this hype.

I bet when it comes out and people ask about the AI then the responses will be using the 'oh its fun, thats all that matters' argument.

I am not assuming anything.  This is what I do.  I write software that interact with cloud based services.  The company I work for created a cloud based infrastucture to run our software for businesses so I know how much it cost to support such a platform.  

If people had even a little understand of the Azure cloud based platform and the money that MS has spent to make that a competitor in that space, you would not be using your analogy of MS hooking up 10 pcs to do anything.

Titanfall does not really use the cloud above dedicated servers so its not a true test of what MS is promissing. Its just one component of a much larger service.



larrysdirtydrawss on 21 January 2014

cell made up bigtime for that sack of chit gpu sony stuck in the ps3,without it to help out,you were gonna get some eye-sores for games



Turkish on 21 January 2014
bugrimmar said:
Turkish said:
bugrimmar said:
Turkish said:
bugrimmar said:

Obviously, the Xbox One Cloud is still in progress so we don't really know yet whether it will deliver on all of Microsoft's promises. What do you guys think? Will this live up to the hype or will it be this generation's "Power of teh CELL"?


Wait, are you saying that Cell underdelivered? You truly don't know what you're talking about. Cell was ahead of it's time and PS3 exclusives still look like the best console games because of it. It is the RSX gpu that underdelivered and why Cell had to make up for the weak gpu.

 

The cloud is bullshit, graphics are the last thing I want to be dependent on my internet connection.

Yes, the cell underdelivered. Take a look at the initial advertising and promises that Sony made before the PS3 launch.

Heck, even Hideo Kojima lamented about the PS3's lack of performance. In a conference, he made a presentation about how the PS3's promises were so high that he began dreaming so big.. only to have to downgrade MGS4 because of the limitations of the actual console. I forgot what the conference was but it was presented with a funny graphic of Snake hanging on to a really high ramp that represented the PS3's promised power, but the ramp suddenly fell when the actual console was given to him.

Sure, there are PS3 games that look good now. But nowhere near as good as what Sony originally promised.

I dont care about Kojima, he is 3rd party, MGS4 is from 2008. We have games like Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, The Last of Us, God of War 3, Beyond, Heavy Rain etc and you bring up an old game to prove your point? Those exclusives I summed up destroy everything else on consoles. All thanks to the Cell. The Cell more than overdelivered, it made up for the weak gpu.

lol, and where is the promised 1080p, 60fps? Nowhere. Sure, the games look good. But they're nowhere near what was promised.

Again, my point is not that the games on PS3 look bad. They just didn't deliver on Sony's massive promises before the gen began. Please take that into context before you type anything.

There is a clear difference of what was said at E3 2005 and E3 2006, why are you still talking about what they promised at E3 2005? They showed CGI trailers of games, they promised 4D and many more ridicilous stuff. Why don't you complain about not getting the boomerang controller? Why does it matter? No one believed those promises as soon as it was clear they used CGI and everyone moved on. You are the first I've heard of who is still salty because he didn't get the CGI graphics of E3 2005, knowing full well you won't even see them on the strongest pc hardware in gameplay.



bugrimmar on 21 January 2014
Turkish said:

There is a clear difference of what was said at E3 2005 and E3 2006, why are you still talking about what they promised at E3 2005? They showed CGI trailers of games, they promised 4D and many more ridicilous stuff. Why don't you complain about not getting the boomerang controller? Why does it matter? No one believed those promises as soon as it was clear they used CGI and everyone moved on. You are the first I've heard of who is still salty because he didn't get the CGI graphics of E3 2005, knowing full well you won't even see them on the strongest pc hardware in gameplay.


That's why I'm comparing the Xbox One cloud to the cell. Both made extreme promises before they even released. Cell has proven that it couldn't even get near the promises they made. The point of this poll is to ask people what they think, if the xbox cloud would follow the same path.

Try to remove your sony defense force glasses for a while. We all know that cell did not what it promised. The games still look great, but not what they promised. That's all I'm saying.