I agree with Aegro, the way it's being presented by MS and it's partners is not going to be the future. It's a half measure at best really.

The way we'll see cloud computing really have an effect on gaming will be through services like PSNow. If you're going to be using offsite servers for the computing, why have the expensive hardware at all?

You don't need CloudEngine for that
http://www.strangeloopgames.com/eco/
It doesn't get a lot of attention or support though, just over 4,000 backers.

It doesn't add a lot to a story driven rpg though. A lot of effort for minimal returns. Maybe a huge from dust style world could make a fun rts, yet I doubt publishers will find it very attractive for single player games. Allocating server time for every individual user costs a lot more than hosting worlds shared by a lot of users. Besides consoles already have plenty of storage to simulate dynamic worlds, all you need is hdd space for that.

The problem isn't storage or computing power, the real problem is the extra complexity. Writing a game with story driven quests becomes a lot more difficult when the world and environment can change a any time. That npc you need, well his village got wiped out last week and that cave you need to visit became inaccessible due to chopped down trees. Plus it's a lot harder to profile render performance in dynamically changing worlds. That's why that eco game looks pretty basic, Crackdown 3 uses cell shading and Minecraft already struggles on consoles with its simple looks. Cloud isn't going to help with rendering.

Having the game world on the server is going to hamper performance as well. Think you have popup now, try getting all that data from a server.

I don't see how cloud pushes the industry forward. I just see it as a smaller step than completely streaming games through the internet. If we're going to accept that the internet is needed in order to use this tech and so add features not available directly from the consoles, then we also have to accept a better tech would be accessing ALL the data through the network. Cloud is just a stop gap for what Sony are going to achieve with Gaikai eventually. Cloud is one step back for the future, not one step forward.

I've waited patiently to make this point because I knew that those who are backing cloud would find ways of justifying always online. Why enhance something you bought with better AI and physics when you can run a system capable of running everything and stream it to an app on EVERY device capable of displaying a game?

I'm not quite sure what your point is with a few of your sentences so I apologise in advance if I miss what you are trying to say

(1) The games will not improve much graphically from what I can tell but it will do wonders for other aspects. Did you see the Crackdown demo? The destruction on that is insane.

(2) If your game can run both with or without cloud computing, then you still have access to the game without cloud computing. Nothing is being taken away from you. If they keep the cloud computing to online multiplayer mode only (like Crackdown) then you have to have internet anyway to play online. If the castrate the game on purpose to push cloud computing (not sure why, the publishers do no gain anything from internet fees) then there would be more of a backlash than anything they could hope to gain. Underlined parts contradict each other.

(3) Simply not true. Cloud was never meant for launch but rather a showcase of what they want to achieve. It was never given a time frame. And no, everyone didn't react bad to it. If you are referring to me then I've always been interested what cloud computing can do. If you talking about the mobs of people that slated the cloud, some still do, some have changed their mind with what's been shown and some just keep quite about it after seeing good evidence that cloud computing is real and can work great. People are allowed to change their mind.

(4) A cloud computing only game and a online only multiplayer game both need a connection to work. If you don't pay for live or internet you just avoid these games. If a game uses cloud computing to enhance the game, but still have a good functioning game without connection and cloud computing, what's the deal. If the cloud computing is for online mod only and takes away the online aspect if you don't have a connection, then 95% of the games out there take something away from you if you don't have a connection.

Hey GG, what up buddy.

So what issue do you have with cloud computing? People justifying always online?

Sounds like you are for "always online" supporting Gaikai and game streaming. Which by the way will be completely "always online".

Is always online seen as a bad thing anyway. I know how it came to be a buzzword that everybody used but why people started hating it was for different reasons. The always online thing that people hated was the periodic check that the X1 planned to have to prove that you still own your physical game. They backlash was that the X1 stripped the rights of you freely selling your own games how and when you want. If you had no connection you don't have access to any part of your game, even single player.

This is the type of always online and DRM that people didn't like. For some reason all DRM and anything that can be pinned with "always online" is bad for no real reason.

With cloud computing you choose to buy the game for the cloud computing features. Did Titanfall get a backlash for being "always online"?

Anyway if you are against "always online" then you should be against Gaikai also.

Its that time of the year that we start talkimg about cloud gamming and how its the second comming of the messiah again ?

My issue with cloud is it was only really promoted heavily to give XB1 owners a lifeline. MS are just using it for PR and it will never ever be something that will be utilised fully by the industry. This industry won't get behind something that cripples or limits their short term profit, but it would get behind something that broadens their demographic and so increase their profits. One is a coding issue while the other isn't an issue at all. Offline their game doesn't work as well as online ... not an easy sell to devs or consumers. With PSNow (or any other service that comes along to compete) developers just have to submit their game and Sony then transmit it through PSNow. These devs still have their console/PC gamers but also have anyone else with a broadband connection. At some point in the distant future, when the takeup of Gaikai like tech is a high enough percentage, we'll transition over completely.

Yep I agree. We will more than likely only see a few games that will use cloud computing on Xbox One and all of them will most probably be made from MS studios.

I don't want cloud computing to be implemented fully into general gaming as in the majority of games being on the cloud. The negatives outweigh the positives. On a worldwide level, PSN and xbox live are no where near good or stable enough to be depended on to work all the time. Hell, on world wide level, the internet is not good enough for it. Going from to being able to play offline when you want to always online and more restrictive DRM are also huge negatives. What happens when a game is no longer supported by the cloud? We just can't play it. This is a tech that will hurt gaming in the long run.

To me, this a shit sandwich. There's some people on this trying to convince others why they should eat a shit sandwich and why it would better for everyone if they ate it too. If a few companies want to use it in gaming on small scale. FIne but I don't want it used by most devs to make their games.

Some good points. I think it isn't quite ready yet for gaming. It should be implemented in ways that make sense, for instance Crackdown only uses it for online multiplayer.