Actually I’m not XbotMK1. I honestly don’t know how you came to that conclusion but I assure yoy I’m not a Xbox fanboy. I own both consoles but a PS fan all the way.

No, but im sure you are eh….NIGGER

All I see are excuses from a Microsoft fanboy.It must be really embarrassing and upsetting for these Microsoft fan boys to see a dev tell them the exact same thing everyone else has been telling them since the beginning.

Microsoft lied about the cloud which is proven by the simple fact that not a single Xbox One game has used this. They falsely advertised Xbox One. Microsoft knew damn well that the cloud doesn’t work in the simple way they were making it seem. They didn’t tell you the problems with it or explain the exact benefits. They sold you a marketing slogan and an unfinished theory.

If the cloud can simply do this, companies would all ready be doing it. Once cloud is viable, many companies will jump on the bandwagon. The theory of using the cloud isn’t anything new. Games like Battlefield and MMOs use cloud to control more objects on screen. PlayStation Now can be used to do it but Sony doesn’t make these false missleading promises like Microsoft did with Kinect and cloud.

What Microsoft was trying to sell people is currently impossible and/or unreliable due to many factors such as internet speeds, bandwidth, architecture, and flaws of relying on the internet itself. Another problem I think John Hable forgot is developer support. Developers would have to code their games a certain way for a certain architecture to make use of any benefits from cloud.

“Dude what the h*ll you talking about!? You said the experiment was a waste based on you thinking the 1st config was the final stage! I told you no! On page 9 of that doc you sent clearly stated that they did a public deployment! That led to the final conclusion. Go back and read it!”

Again, you’re just making stuff up. I never, ever said waste. Stop twisting what I’m saying.

Page 9 details a demo that had at a Mobile conference at “MobiSys’14, June 16–19, 2014, Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, USA”

Their research paper was published from a study they did on “December 1st and 3rd, 2014 in an office inside Microsoft’s building 112 in Redmond, Washington.”

I never denied a public deployment. I told you about the conference back in June
of last year. You, as per usual, just ignored it. I denied a public deployment AFTER the paper. Which I am still correct on as of this date.

“Your definition of WAN and CDN are as broad as they come”

WHAT!? LOL. Dam n you’re thick. If you say im defining these
terms, it means you dont understand them. because there was no defining,

quick lesson. WAN is the entire internet, and within it, you find CDN which makes sending and receiving of very far away data more manageable/accessible to the end user. When they say “nearby CDN” its within the context of WAN(Wide Area Network) the internet as we know it. WAN is NOT local(LAN). Those servers(CDN) are WAN dependent! LAN (local Area network) is not! You can have the LAN without the WAN. But you cannot have the CDN w/o the WAN! To access CDN is to access WAN!

Fantastic! You actually know something.
Which doesn’t change the fact that their study took place over LAN, within MS’s
offices, and the only mention of a CDN is this direct quote: Kahawai will perform best when offloading over a LAN or to a server within a nearby CDN.

Their paper makes no mention of testing it in any other capacity outside of a
confided LAN. Once again, no remote servers used according to their research paper. Even though you still keep banging on about it.

Your reading skills and comprehension are quite poor.

Dude what the h*ll you talking about!? You said the experiment was a waste based on you thinking the 1st config was the final stage! I told you no! On page 9 of that doc you sent clearly stated that they did a public deployment. That led to the final conclusion. Go back and read it!

“Your definition of WAN and CDN are as broad as they come”

WHAT!? LOL. Damn you’re thick. If you say im defining these terms, it means you dont understand them, because I did not define!

Now I’ll define.

quick lesson. WAN is the entire internet, and within it, you find CDN which makes sending and receiving of very far away data more manageable/accessible to the end user. When they say “nearby CDN” its within the context of WAN(Wide Area Network) the internet as we know it. WAN is NOT local(LAN). Those servers(CDN) are WAN dependent! LAN (local Area network) is not! You can have the LAN without the WAN. But you cannot have the CDN w/o the WAN! To access CDN is to access WAN. CDN makes WAN runs better for you & I. That is the relationship they have, in regards to this experiment, making all that big data more manageable! That was my point from the beginning, while you want to argue with a qoute that is NOT referring THE FINAL STAGE OF THE EXPERIMENT!.

LOOOOOL I’m done.

You didnt correct me.”

You “bet” I was lying, I proved otherwise, therefore I corrected you. Done so numerous
times. But, for whatever reason, you just skip over it.

“You pointed out the config of the initial test, implying that it was final. ”

Nope. Never implied that at all. You just dreamt that up. You did it again.

“I said that kind of experiment usually end in a public deployment and that its there you’ll find reference to WAN. That’s CDN!”

And I corrected you by stating the fact there was no public deployment after they released the paper. Which there hasn’t been. If fine if you think it “usually”
happen, but, in this instance, you were wrong. Get over it. The world still
spins.

Your definition of WAN and CDN are as broad as they come. I would love to know your definition lf those things. Since that statements prove you don’t know much.

Once again, CDN is mentioned once in the research paper and it’s stating the obvious “CDN nearby will be better.” Which is how all of the Internet works.

Your done? Alright.
Bye.

Little by little, we can walk far. 😉

You didnt correct me. You pointed out the config of the initial test, implying that it was final. I told you it wasnt! It was your rebuttal to me asking you why would you think they wouldn’t use remote servers via WAN. All I had to go by was the report on the conclusions. I was responding to the conclusion. Understand. When you shared that qoute, I knew that it was only the initial stage. Thats what I told you. I said that kind of experiment usually end in a public deployment and that its there you’ll find reference to WAN. I implied that public deployment is the real test. Because you didn’t understand, I advised you that they may not use the same language(WAN) but they would make reference to it one way or the other. That’s CDN! How are you correcting me when you are agreeing with XbMK, and he’s way off base? His conclusion is its all a lie. You’re conclusion is that they did it all wrong. LOL. OMG LMAO SMH..You’re ego is off the charts. End discussion. I’m done. Move on! E3 is right around the corner Fun time ahead! 🙂

Google have problems with cloud servers simply due to the speed of light.
Their R&D spending is comparable to Microsofts. (It’s almost as high as Volkswagen’s. Which is why Google’s self driving cares aren’t as good as the german ones yet.)

How do you suppose MS researched a higher light speed?

And none of that actually addresses the problem of latency.

There’s a real world and nobody has done anything great with it yet because of signal roundtrip times being what they are. Also, “This single player game requires at least 20mbps uninterrupted bandwidth” is not something anyone would like to ever print on their game boxes.

You people who continually and shamelessly salivate over empty promises and refuse to consider the counterpoints to it infuriate me.