I have bigger faith in MS than that. If this would be such a "false" way of pushing cloud computing, MS would shoot themselves in the foot. What I saw in Crackdown 3 was a level of detailed destruction unlike anything I have ever seen before. I am not interested in that game at all, but rather what they can make of it.

Technologies evolve, however, with you it sounds like no developer ever can create new ways of using old technologies in a better way. I remember how every knowledgeable person "knew" it would not be possible to stream HD video with anything but a massive broadband connection. Yet, developers found ways to do it. I don´t care how they do it, I only care if they do it.

The sky is falling.... The sky is falling....

Oh wait, that's was just more cloud PR falling with no backing.

That being said, even the Wii-U could benefit from the cloud. The cloud isn't exclusive to Microsoft products.

Why would MS regret it? They're the ones using it as a marketing tool and considering your level of hype, they succeeded thoroughly.

You really need to read up on this. There is really not as much to it as you might think. It's just offloading tasks to somewhere else and with that extending its power. The concept is limited in itself and by other technologies such as the internet. It's what's used on the internet all the time. The concept isn't new, only its application to games.

An example for evolving technology: Mail delivery.

It started with just delivering small letters via foot or horse. It evolved into a world wide net of carriers that are able to deliver huge packages in the shortest amount of time. That is the capacity of the technology that evelved quite greatly. However it is still limited by design. A delivery won't make the package prettier or more valuable and a delivery also can't compete if what you want to have delivered is already produced in your own house. Never. No matter how much it evolves.

And with your example you are perfectly describing what I see in cloud computing for games: the capacity of what developers can do grows and the power of the console expanding. My focus is developers making bigger world, and having more freedom to do things in games, not necessarily making games prettier. I wouldn´t rule out that they will find ways to make games look better aswell, but that´s not my primary interest in it.

You need to have a more open mind and see possibilities instead of restrictions. It all becomes funnier then :).

For me, cloud computing it's kind of the same evolution as when we went from cartridges to CD:s. The graphics didn't become better but the scope of the games that could be created.

So how many dumb threads do we have from snoopy about reddragon and crackgamer?

Cloud computing does not make worlds bigger. That's not even on the list of its abilities. That's storage, not cpu. We already have huge worlds in video games and they're going to get bigger without any need of an internet conenction. At some point worlds will become so big that it becomes unfeasible to design everything by hand so it's going the route of procedually generated worlds, which take no space that would need to be offloaded.

You only look at what the technology can do but never in the video game context. Just because something is possible or nice to look at does not make it useful for gaming. There is simply no need in videogames for accurate massive particle calculations. It's easier to just simulate it with other techniques used by graphic designers. Looks the same, does not cost tons of CPU cycles. I cannot think of a single instance where developers are currently CPU limited that affects the gameplay. MS is only doing it because it looks nice, to advertise their Azure platform and because the X1 has a potato where the CPU should be.

Think of the Cell processor. So many possibilities, so much power for the time. What did it do for developers? It handicapped them and lead to inferior products and frustrated developers. Why? Because the effort involved for the small gain did not make it feasible.

We could build a space rocket right now that is capable of transporting a thousand people to Mars and back. The technology is there. Should we do it? Of course not because it requires too much money and work that could be used to fix actual problems on earth.

It's the same with cloud computing for gaming. Should we go the extra mile for minimal gain or should we concentrate on unifying CPU and GPU to make both work more efficiently, helping us in the long run? Yes, the latter one.

Even in my dreams, my internet connection is thorough crap.

While I believe in the power of cloud-based technology, I don't believe I'll be able to take advantage of it, ever. And why should I? A 2Mbps connection here in the Philippines - with data caps imposed per 24 hours - already costs more than $20 a month on the cheaper ISP. The more expensive one is trying to (successfully) bundle a "Telpad" and a "Home cam" with their more expensive service.

Don't tell me the "mobile internet" excuse, it's inexcusable to have a much faster mobile data connection than even your own wired data connection for the same price. Besides, those come with worse data caps and horrible latency if you don't live 50 meters from a cell tower.

When people "knew" it would not be possible to stream HD video, internet speeds were still measured in kbs. 2mbps was considered massive broadband. Plus the new HD video today, 4K streaming needs 30mbps, that's still pretty massive, not what I can get where I live.

Maybe one day internet will be reliable enough to guarantee an uninterrupted (no dips) high bandwidth low latency connection to a server like a lan connection. That's still a long, long way off. Plus it soon becomes far more efficient, and a lot easier to program, to simply send the whole game image over instead of bits and pieces. Game streaming will make cloud engines obsolete before they can make a real difference.

It's a great tech demo, might even make a fun multiplayer game. Yet it's not the future of gaming. It's like programming for an extra super fast cpu core that's hampered by low bandwidth you can never rely on. Not a fun thing when building something. At some level you want to have guaranteed results at expected intervals. Not basically have to make 2 engines because 1 component might ot might not be available at any time.

What it could be used for is for AI. A server tracking every npc in a large rpg mmorpg style. Of course the benefits are mostly lost to the player that isn't aware of what those npc's do on their own off screen. Better would be to enlist it for conversations, speech recognition and high quality speech generation in return. Actually being able to talk to npcs, ask for directions and all kinds of questions. This is possible already, however reliable natural language parsing tech isn't available yet. Plus voice actors still sound a lot better than any generated speech.

Anyway if you're looking for a large evolving game world you do't have to wait for cloud assisted gaming
http://www.strangeloopgames.com/eco/
It has moderate to low interest though. Not as flashy as blowing evrything up.

You cant compare those two.

Its like saying that you would also agree to not being able to call someone if a phone isnt connected to the internet.

Having an internetconnection on a device that doesnt need one to do what is it bought for should never be forced upon us,let us just keep enjoying the freedom of options and not having to pay full price for a game that depends on a service that has an end somewhere.