But at the moment, they're streaming Crysis with full detailed settings, no lag at GDC. That's a step up from most arcade-style games, don't you think?Greymantle said:
Could streaming games revolutionize the gaming industry?
- Thread starter CoffeeGuru
- Start date
What I wonder more is, how many people are going to upgrade their pc again when the next step up from games like Crysis comes out or are going to wait out and see if this thing is all that it promises to be? I myself am going to be waiting, hoping, pleading, begging to Buddha that it is.
I've heard that there are minor problems, and the video still comes in a few milliseconds late. While that might not be a big deal for some games, it means a lot for others, so I see OnLive being limited to "casual" gamers. I also dislike the monthly fee that is likely to come with it (so canceling it means you can't play the games you bought?). I mean, at least Steam is free, so as long as I have internet I can play those games.
Agreed.balimuzz said:
In my case it's more about my monthly download quota, not my speeds. Here in Australia at least, there isn't anyone who will be able to use this effectively.
You say that no computer is large enough to facilitate so much information from around the world. I agree. That's why cluster, or cloud, computing is so powerful. It's not one computer at work... it's thousands, hundreds of thousands, and potentially much more.Zeeky_Santos said:
The lag is another valid concern. However, that being said, take a look at the trends of the tech industry in the past couple decades. Nearly forty years ago, the first couple of pings were sent between two computers in California... and that took a bit of lag. As I stated previously, phone lines were the norm for internet services ten years ago. Less than three years ago, streaming full television episodes would have seemed to be an impossible task. What's to say streaming video and I/O devices isn't around the corner in another year or two?
Well the Air Forces around the world use Flight Simulators (and not Microsoft versions either) which connect to different bases across the world for training, the lag (and im not joking) from Australia to America is a whopping 0.45 seconds. Sadly most houses dont have 20 Million for such Cabling.
OT: Since some Countries, Areas and Antartica have either Horrid internet, cant support ADSL 2+ (if there is a 3) and (In Antartica's Case) doesnt have real internet providers they would (like mentioned) go skimp broke in a matter of time.
OT: Since some Countries, Areas and Antartica have either Horrid internet, cant support ADSL 2+ (if there is a 3) and (In Antartica's Case) doesnt have real internet providers they would (like mentioned) go skimp broke in a matter of time.
Yeah, and the unlimited quotas are insanely expensive. I think it's only really businesses that have them.Caimekaze said:
That's the biggest thing I miss about living in England. Decent speed unlimited broadband is very affordable over there. It was a biiig adjustment for a download whore like myself. I used to have nights where I would download nearly 20GB overnight... The number of terabytes I must have downloaded over the past few years is embarassing to think about. :|
But you get the Aussie weather now, surely a worthwhile trade?AverageJoe said:
Anyway, I think the biggest problem OnLive faces is actually getting games. They are going to have the job of a time convincing publishers to make games compatible with their console.
Consider that the only successful new console makers in the last 15 years have been Sony and Microsoft, they can't possibly bring the same amount of cash to the table those two had to play with.
Not to mention that downloadable games pretty much belong to Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and Valve. There isn't an obvious niche for OnLive to be filling, which doesn't bode well against such well established competition.
I also think OnLive is going to be heinously expensive, regardless of what the advertising spiel says a microtransaction powered system will cost players as much or a lot more than normal games (just like 'free' MMORPG's).
If game streaming does kick off well, it will be in urbanised areas only. That doesn't make financial success impossible, just a lot harder.
Spread out populations without access to cable, relying on overly expensive broadband, will not be capable of it. Therefore, Australia is out. And since that's where I live, I'll be very annoyed if Onlive somehow becomes the main way to play games. It's a really unlikely scenario though, because of things like the fact that selling games in a hard form is more lucrative. Thankfully.
Spread out populations without access to cable, relying on overly expensive broadband, will not be capable of it. Therefore, Australia is out. And since that's where I live, I'll be very annoyed if Onlive somehow becomes the main way to play games. It's a really unlikely scenario though, because of things like the fact that selling games in a hard form is more lucrative. Thankfully.
Bah, this would certainly revolutionize gaming. In a terribly disgusting way. I can already imagine it. Insert coin to continue playing kind off commercial bullshit.
The reason I don't play WoW is because (well besides the fear of becoming addicted) I would have to pay monthly fees. If you don't keep paying, you won't be playing. I want to be able to play the game whenever I want with one single purchase.
Please don't make this succeed. Please everybody, boycott these fluckers trying to introduce this. Only malice and agony will come of it. Maybe they will make it sound nice and cheap, but I'm pretty sure we will all pay much more then necessary in the long run.
This post is slightly written out of ignorance, but I have the strongest feeling we will be screwed over if ever this will be introduced
The reason I don't play WoW is because (well besides the fear of becoming addicted) I would have to pay monthly fees. If you don't keep paying, you won't be playing. I want to be able to play the game whenever I want with one single purchase.
Please don't make this succeed. Please everybody, boycott these fluckers trying to introduce this. Only malice and agony will come of it. Maybe they will make it sound nice and cheap, but I'm pretty sure we will all pay much more then necessary in the long run.
This post is slightly written out of ignorance, but I have the strongest feeling we will be screwed over if ever this will be introduced
It doesn't matter. One way or another bits needs to be turned into packets, and packets need to go through routers and streams of data needs to be proccessed unhindered without delay and the numbers just don't lie. OnLive promises to be able to stream games in a 720p resolution at a whopping 60 frames per second. I don't need to remind anyone of what kind of ridiculous ammounts of data that is not to even mention the ammount of processing power that is needed to compress that kind of video in real-time and stream it to clients.CoffeeGuru said:
While streaming video on a large scale has been around for quite some time, streaming 720p @ 60FPS on a large scale is a treat that nobody has ever been able to do, much less on such a grand global state across North America and Europe.
As for boradband providers, some of the larger ISPs have been aggressively enfocing bandwidth caps, Comcast and most notebly Time Warner Cable in Texas that limits consumers to an embarrasing 40GB cap per month. [http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/06/40gb-for-55-per-month-time-warner-bandwidth-caps-arrive.ars] Streaming video in 720p at 60FPS will easily break that cap in one week, even less if you're a heavy gamer.
Unless they have some magic space-age technology computers, it doesn't matter how hard you compress it or for how long you've been working on it. It's just simply not possible and to put a final nail in the coffin for this one - this is supposed to work on a 1-5Mbit connection and the service is supposed to be fully operation in less than 8 months.
