Sections

Xbox One has “CPU and storage equivalent of three consoles on the cloud”

Tuesday, 28th May 2013 17:52 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

Xbox One will support cloud technology and according to Xbox incubation and prototyping group manager Jeff Henshaw, the cloud will provide developers with the CPU and storage equivalent of three extra consoles.

Speaking with OXM, Henshaw said this will allow developers to create larger, persistent worlds for Xbox One users.

“We’re provisioning for developers for every physical Xbox One we build, we’re provisioning the CPU and storage equivalent of three Xbox Ones on the cloud,” he said. “We’re doing that flat out so that any game developer can assume that there’s roughly three times the resources immediately available to their game, so they can build bigger, persistent levels that are more inclusive for players.

“They can do that out of the gate.”

Furthermore, over on Stevivor, Xbox Australia spokesperson Adam Pollington told the site Xbox One would be “40 times greater than the Xbox 360 in terms of processing capabilities” when using the cloud.

“Xbox One is ten times more powerful than the Xbox 360, so we’re effectively 40 times greater than the Xbox 360 in terms of processing capabilities [using the cloud],” said Pollington. “If you look to the cloud as something that is no doubt going to evolve and grow over time, it really spells out that there’s no limit to where the processing power of Xbox One can go.

“I think that’s a very exciting proposition, not only for Australians, but anyone else who’s going to pick up the Xbox One console.”

Last week
, EA EVP and CTO Rajat Taneja claimed next-gen Xbox One and PS4 were a generation ahead of high-end PCs in a LinkedIn post reported on widely.

A few in the industry disagreed with his stance last week after the post went live.

Thanks, Develop.

Latest

69 Comments

  1. KineticCalvaria

    Proof is in the pudding!

    #1 1 year ago
  2. ps3fanboy

    in other words when the internet goes belly up, your stuck with crap… hahaha!…

    #2 1 year ago
  3. Iliad

    I call shenanigans!

    #3 1 year ago
  4. Pytox

    rocket science baby,
    the power of the cloud

    #4 1 year ago
  5. prudislav

    All hail to the magic power of the cloud ;-)

    #5 1 year ago
  6. ps3fanboy

    @6 it means you need to be ALWAYS ONLINE… and it will be as crappy as the “OnLive” game lag renting service that was a fiasco… micro$haft never learn…

    #6 1 year ago
  7. Logion

    It’s frightening how many spokespersons there are that have no clue what a cloud based solution is.

    #7 1 year ago
  8. Hcw87

    Obviously this will be used for MMO’s, like probably Destiny. Not your average FPS.

    And MMO’s are allready ”Allways online”, so big deal.

    #8 1 year ago
  9. Bomba Luigi

    I guess this is the Counter Part to Sonys Gaikai, kind of, somewhat. Don’t really understand too much of that Stuff, but thats how it sounds for an Idiot like me.

    #9 1 year ago
  10. Djoenz

    @Bomba you are not an idioto!

    #10 1 year ago
  11. Tech-N9ne

    I think Microsoft should make an MMO of some sort to show these “bigger, persistent levels” they are talking about. I won’t be surprised if they already working on a game to show case these features.

    Can’t wait for E3 ;).

    #11 1 year ago
  12. nollie4545

    Most consoles are always online anyway- it is required for online play after all.

    Cloud gaming will happen. Even for Sony fan boys.

    #12 1 year ago
  13. Kaufer

    So if you are not online the rest of the day the Xbone games will look and perform poorly?

    #13 1 year ago
  14. Djoenz

    Wait storage equivalent of three xbones does tht mean 1.5 terrabyte? Surely games will be partially cloud based then and not fully?

    I am one confused mawfucka. ? ?

    Wait 1. 5 is a lotttttt! This is impressive I have to admit.

    #14 1 year ago
  15. ps3fanboy

    @10 to put it simple… micro$haft depend on cloud to get its cpu power to run games. without the cloud the xbone will give you lower textures, lower resolution, dumber game ai etc… when it comes to gaikai it is for streaming only and the ps4 take all its cpu powers from the console it self not cloud. yet again a stupid move from micro$haft, they just admitted that their xbone isn’t capable of running games of today properly.

    #15 1 year ago
  16. Tavarish

    This whole “Lets make ours game use shit ton of calculation power from cloud” -model will go over so well with people that have 1) Slow Internet connection 2) Monthly data caps 3) Unreliable Internet connection 4) All above or some combination

    Is it treat for people with fast and reliable Internet connections, without data caps? Maybe, even most likely, but is it really worth it?

    #16 1 year ago
  17. tenthousandgothsonacid

    Digital Foundary declares it bullshit

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gaming

    #17 1 year ago
  18. nollie4545

    Unless you have a first rate internet connection, I can’t see that having 1.5TB of storage off the console will mean a whole lot. Maybe for save games and videos and other content like pictures it would make sense, but for actual game installs and save data you will need the stuff on a hard drive as it stands.

    Of course, they could have just shipped it with a 2TB hard drive to begin with, in the PC world storage these days is so dirt cheap many gamers have two or more drives.

    As for our friend PS3 fan boi, he obviously knows more about MS and their cloud computing system than even Microsoft, so:

    1 lets just all read what he says
    2 take it as gospel
    3 wash it down with his next installment of crap

    #18 1 year ago
  19. ps3fanboy

    @18 thats another problem micro$haft haven’t thought about at all… you better not have a slow/unreliable internet or a monthly data caps… LOL!

    #19 1 year ago
  20. SlayerGT

    I’d rather pay an extra 100 bucks for 1TB and have my data local than have to subscribe for any amount of money a year and it be on the cloud. Call me old fashioned I guess.

    #20 1 year ago
  21. nollie4545

    Thinking about it, this cloud computing and storage might be necessary for fully destructible and persistent maps in MP games the server itself will record and calculate battle damage to assets in the map, and it will remain so in further subsequent games or perhaps until it is re-set by admins.

    This could potentially mean much larger maps and much more destruction involved. Vehicles abandoned in one place would remain their for subsequent games. Houses or bridges or tunnels destroyed would remain in the same state in other rounds etc.

    Much more applicable to MMOs also given the huge size of them generally.

    #21 1 year ago
  22. Bill_E_Talent

    “Of course, they could have just shipped it with a 2TB hard drive to begin with, in the PC world storage these days is so dirt cheap many gamers have two or more drives.”

    I was extremely disappointed with the 500GB offering from MS. If you want mandatory game installs as well as move people towards digital this seems like a completely backwards way of taking things forward. Storage is cheap.

    Of course I thought the requirement for ‘AA’ batteries in a next gen controller was equally baffling so I guess I just don’t know what I want(fortunately it seems MS does.)

    #22 1 year ago
  23. nollie4545

    The thing is, they were limited to 500GB for reasons of cost. My guess is it will contain a 500GB HD made by some cross-eyed pygmies in a tarantula pit in Indonesia and live about as long.

    A 500GB solid state drive would have been ace. As it stands, console gamers will be stuck with their next gen games using first gen load times.

    #23 1 year ago
  24. MidlifeAxe

    If we’re strictly talking about the hardware inside the consoles, not taking the cloud into account, does the Xbox One have weaker specs compared to the PS4?

    @25 A 500GB SSD? That would of driven up the price a lot! Of course, you can always attach an SSD on after if it matters that much to you.

    #24 1 year ago
  25. ps3fanboy

    @26 yes the xbone is weaker than the ps4…

    #25 1 year ago
  26. ps2fanboy

    ps4 and ps3 are shit compared to the best console, the ps2 anyway. you stupid modern tech people don’t know abouts reel good gameses.

    #26 1 year ago
  27. MidlifeAxe

    @27 How much difference is there?

    #27 1 year ago
  28. Lengendaryboss

    @27+28
    I really think this is the same person on triple accounts PS2,PS3 And PS4fanboy, so pathetic. Then theres the parody Erthazus account: Erthabutt. Something needs to be done about this.

    #28 1 year ago
  29. Clupula

    MY GOD, HE’S BECOME LIKE SYBIL!

    #29 1 year ago
  30. nollie4545

    Lol to the max, people are ignoring him so he posts as multiple users only with the same username. Goon.

    #30 1 year ago
  31. Richenbaum

    @29 you might want to find a better source for accurate technical specs than a random comments section troll…

    funnily enough if you look at the specs right now they’re almost identical except the ps4 has better ram.

    #31 1 year ago
  32. MidlifeAxe

    @33 The benefits of asking on here is that several people can inform me. (I’m fully aware of the PS2/PS3/PS4 troll boy ;) )

    So, apart from the difference in RAM, the specs are pretty much identical?

    #32 1 year ago
  33. Richenbaum

    @34 I didn’t suggest that you don’t ask on here at all, just don’t ask the village idiot and expect any kind of useful answer.

    well they both have amd 8 core processors, both have amd radeon graphics, both have 8gb ram, etc etc. ps4 will probably have a bit of a technical advantage again. enough that it’s really noticeable in the games? who knows.

    #33 1 year ago
  34. drewbles82

    I will never use cloud, not for at least 10yrs, its rubbish, we dont have decent connection round here for it.
    Plus if it goes down, your screwed, at least if the net goes down, i can still play all my games on the 360.

    #34 1 year ago
  35. nollie4545

    From what I can see, the consoles are very similar in terms of hardware, how their operating systems run and how well developers can get games to work on them is another matter. As I understood it the xbox 360 was inferior to the PS3 in tech spec but had a more straight forward operating system and was easier to code games for, hence more 360 titles looked/played better than those on the PS3.

    #35 1 year ago
  36. Hcw87

    CPU is identical in the PS4 and Xbox One, the retard above (ps3fanboy) just posts crap with zero knowledge.

    The difference is in the GPU and RAM (768 GPU cores vs 1152) (1.23 TFLOPS vs 1.84 TFLOPS).
    Also the RAM in PS4 is faster, but GDDR5 typically has higher latency than GDDR3. Will just have to see about this one.

    This is just numbers, but it simply means PS4 MAY end up getting slightly higher framerates and slightly better textures IF the developers are willing to go that extra mile (probably only noticable on PS4 exclusive games).

    Games on PS4 will NOT look *MUCH* better than on Xbox One, in fact i doubt anyone will see a difference.

    #36 1 year ago
  37. Wen3

    PS4 can do it too they got cloud tech too Gaikai man, but I guess they chose not to use it like that and its alright because Sony its taking one step at a time they got a powerful console 50 percent more than xbox one,once they max it which will take roughly 4 years then they will unleash their cloud and game will be even bettr with cloud adding half of what is the ps4 and it will look better than this 3 times xbox cloud because they will have lazy devs with less experience on complex algorithms and programming shit stuff.They will be lazy and less skilled because they would know how to make the most out of small processing speed.I Made up my mind its ps4 all the way for me…………PS4 ALL THE.Microsoft I hate your style you just destroying the game industry

    #37 1 year ago
  38. Hcw87

    @39
    Another dumbass. Where do you get your ”50 percent more power” from?

    Also… Paragraphs.

    #38 1 year ago
  39. MidlifeAxe

    @38 Great. That’s all I wanted to know! :)

    #39 1 year ago
  40. Wen3

    More Ram more power simple fact

    #40 1 year ago
  41. Wen3

    Okay let me put it this way faster ram more power

    #41 1 year ago
  42. Wen3

    HCW87 dude you act like you know with Teraflops ish dude the ps4 and xbox were custom made for better efficiency don’t think you know stuff because of your overcloacked poor built pc which is slow …The ps4 is 50 percent more powerful and that is fact

    #42 1 year ago
  43. G1GAHURTZ

    Sweet!

    Buy one, get three free!

    #43 1 year ago
  44. ps3fanboy

    @Wen3, good you have made up your mind and chosen the ps4. you will not regret your choice, that i can promise you.

    #44 1 year ago
  45. Gekidami

    @38
    http://oi42.tinypic.com/2ylv6lh.jpg

    #45 1 year ago
  46. ps3fanboy

    @45 G1GAHURTZ, dont forget the monthly online fee your forced to pay to play..

    #46 1 year ago
  47. ps2fanboy

    Yeah he can promise you with certainty that the system that doesn’t even exist yet is clearly the best choice because he’s got the modern day Sony empire cock in his mouth as a sellout that turned his back on the true Sony system, the ps2!

    #47 1 year ago
  48. Lengendaryboss

    @49
    Whats that? Oh its just irony calling :D

    #48 1 year ago
  49. mxmassef

    One crucial factor why I prefer consoles over pc is that you are able to play games in split screen.

    #49 1 year ago
  50. merrc

    Geez, where is the PS4 info??

    #50 1 year ago
  51. laughing-gravy

    Very interesting article on Digital Foundry about this infinite power of the cloud. Basically it’s bullshit!
    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gaming

    #51 1 year ago
  52. DrDamn

    @51
    This. Couch gaming is not simply playing games on your TV. It’s also playing games on your TV with friends who are also sat on the aforementioned couch.

    #52 1 year ago
  53. The_Red

    So even after everybody including Digital Foundry calling their BS, they are still talking about CPU advantages of cloud? As in real-time which is hampered by bottlenecks like the SPEED of FREAKING LIGHT!?

    #53 1 year ago
  54. laughing-gravy

    The Ps4 does have 50% more native hardware power than Xbox one. 12
    CU as opposed to 18 CU in the GPU and only six CPU cores for gaming in Xbox one because of OS overheads and all 8 for gaming on PS4.

    #54 1 year ago
  55. _LarZen_

    Oh Microsoft…..why have thy forsaken us.

    #55 1 year ago
  56. ps3fanboy

    xbox one is xbox done!

    #56 1 year ago
  57. Cobra951

    Yeah, more like 3 consoles with 3000 times the lag. See the link above from laughing-gravy (#53).

    #57 1 year ago
  58. jmg24bad

    So gaikai vs whatever microsoft has.

    #58 1 year ago
  59. Keivz

    I’m amazed that they are saying this. Surely they wouldn’t be flatout lying? 3x the power? I mean even if it’s 2x that’s almost unbelievable. I don’t mind being always on for that (I am anyway) but developers would have to have a disclaimer on their titles though.

    I would love a demonstration.

    #59 1 year ago
  60. SplatteredHouse

    @53: That’s a brilliant article, and I happened to have just finished reading it :)

    I thought it especially interesting that Microsoft, even with a Cloud backdrop, encounters a problem that Sony did on PS3. Common ground is needed for viable third-party multiplatform releases.
    Either they allow other platforms to use that tech, OR, games makers cannot rely on that resource being present (like a peripheral) and so they are unlikely to program with its use in mind!

    Is Cloud just another word for “ass” to Microsoft, because most impression I have seen suggests that they’re busy pulling a whole lot out of there, either way.

    #60 1 year ago
  61. SplatteredHouse

    @55: I liked the investigative, well explained and detailed approach taken in that article. The bottlenecks in latency and bandwidth would seem to rule out many uses within games for handing off to the cloud, and I thought it was more telling the sort of (YET AGAIN) non-committal, vague responses given by the Microsoft staff when questioned. This is getting silly.

    #61 1 year ago
  62. NeutralBlade

    Besides a cloud-supported game requiring a mandatory, constant internet connection, the game will be completely removed from the market and disabled on your console once server support is pulled; which your full purchase will cease to exist, and server shutdowns will certainly occur.

    Even a scaling system were a game would run on minimal specs without cloud support, is still unacceptable; no one wants to play games at minimum specs, as it will look and perform terribly. A lot of of people will blindly rush into purchasing the Xbox One, but I won’t be one of them. I’ll wait and see how Microsoft screws this up, and the best way to fight the cloud, is not to purchase games that require it.

    Some people say that consoles will die out. Well, when the generation comes where you’re basically renting games at full purchase price, the end will surely come indeed; they can use the piracy excuse all they want, their greed will put them all out of business. And looking at Microsoft’s approach, we’re not far from an all-digital era. This next-gen “nickel-and-dime” technology we’re getting soon on both platforms, isn’t the features gamers want or need.

    Microsoft better get their act together, before not long after the new system’s release, people will start calling for its end. I wonder how many of these “new features” will end up disabled due to consumer backlash. I’ll wait to see if Sony plans to screw us in a similar manner, since they been dodging questions about this matter. We’ll find out soon enough.

    #62 1 year ago
  63. Richenbaum

    @64 That is a great point. I think that post more than anything I’ve read so far has just completely put me off the idea of the xbone…

    I back things up like crazy and like to go back and play my old games when I can. There’s no way I’m going to invest in a system if it will be irreplaceable and/or dead someday.

    #63 1 year ago
  64. G1GAHURTZ

    Yeah, ‘cos I like to keep all my games to play them about 10 years after I traded them all in…

    …Oh wait!

    #64 1 year ago
  65. NeutralBlade

    @66 Game series with yearly releases, are at the highest risk of losing server support 2 – 3 years after it’s initial release. And if a game doesn’t meet sales expectations, server support is considerably more likely to be dropped before its time. Because the question is this. Who’s going to pay for all this server support?

    Publishers will cut costs by dropping server support for their games, and it will become a normal practice; unless they then force consumers to pay a monthly fee to keep the servers online, but who wants to do that on top of what they’ll already be paying? First they cry about not profiting from used games, and their next issue will be the cost of keeping servers running, so they want gamers to pay more to support them; versus releasing standalone games that don’t require the cloud at all.

    The only digital games I’m ok with with buying, are budget games. But once you’re paying full price for essentially rented games, the whole experience is no longer fun. Everyone should want to own what they purchase, because yes, you should have the right to play your purchased console games, will after its generation is over.

    Those who don’t care about DRM limiting the lifespan of games, will be crying in the future when they have to pay full price for content they’ll never own. The best strategy will always be a standalone platform, so whether if you’re on or offline, you’ll have the ability to enjoy the content that you own.

    #65 1 year ago
  66. G1GAHURTZ

    ^ That’s an awful lot of speculation there…

    Besides, games have been having their servers shut down for years now, so it’s obviously not that big of a problem for most gamers, who usually already have the newest version, anyway.

    As for me, I don’t really have a problem with paying for a game that I might not be able to use in 10 years time. I used to spend a lot of money on arcade machines, and I never owned a single one of those.

    If I pay £50 and get a game with 500+ hours of gameplay in it, and probably a newer, improved version just a year or two away, I don’t see it as a problem in the same way that you do.

    #66 1 year ago
  67. NeutralBlade

    @68 The difference between past and present use of servers in the console market, is that games weren’t required to be always on; unless it’s was an MMO, which that genre didn’t see many releases in this particular market, in comparison to others. Multiplayer servers only disable a feature in a game, versus an entire title being shutdown once the servers go offline if it’s tied to the cloud. There is a big difference between losing a feature, and losing a product. And servers lasting 10 years is not commonplace, nor a common business practice in this market. The vast majority of shutdowns occur in a fraction of that time.

    The console market hasn’t been an always-on experience, and once it begins to move towards that technology, it will have a direct effect on everything we own. While I can understand it’s not a problem for you, it is a concern for most consumers. And also, one of the main reasons why the arcade market died, is because people prefer to own their games, versus pay to play. Generally speaking, owning a product will always be better than renting it at full price.

    #67 1 year ago
  68. ps3fanboy

    @68 stop living in denial… just get a ps4.

    #68 1 year ago
  69. SplatteredHouse

    @66 Make games that players value = game less likely to be traded.
    Make insubstantial pap, make throwaway experiences. Patch it in later, and…people will “discard” after use, to take some of the sting out of what they may perceive as an inflated/unwarranted purchase price – which now, they get a little laundry list of DLC to see whether that was content removed, a cynical ploy, or genuine bonus content – by their own assessment. How much did the game actually cost.

    According to EA Mathematics 101, $60 new + day one DLC = $80 sale. Will that change? How are the DLC antics of publishers likely to alter in the event of a sea-change in the used games space – my belief is, that those policies probably would not.
    After all, why should they, once the publisher knows they’ve an integrated, strapped in audience.

    #69 1 year ago

Comments are now closed on this article.