Strazdas said:
I dont think so. Console gamers too seem to be demanding games at higher resolution and framerate now. Just look how much attention is paid when PS4 has higher resolution or fps than Xbox One. Besides, if ubisoft wants streaming its going to want streaming everywhere, inclding PCs, and 1080@60 is the bareminimum pcs are going to demand.
I think there's a reason he said consoles, rather than PCs, are going to be outdated by streaming. As when you hit 1080p streaming, we'll be using 8K displays and demanding that instead. You can't keep up with the PC scene, it just moves too fast.
And console players demand higher resolution and better framerate... yet they don't get it, and buy anyway. Because more than resolution and framerate, they like the convenience and relative cheapness. Its why they're not gaming on the computer half the time. In fact, historically, the consoles that have gone for more power, have been flops. Things just don't work out as well on many levels when that happens. This generation the PS4 is killing the Xbone, but a lot of that is in the terrible rap that the Xbone got near launch, where it focused on being a home media spywar... entertainment device, whilst Sony focused on the games. That and people are getting sick of Microsofts Shit, TBH. Had both been marketed the same way, they likely would have been pretty even, potentially even the Xbone pulling ahead with a lower asking price than the PS4.
Quantum entanglement is probably the most realistic solution to faster than light communication. i wouldnt say its happening though. we can barely agree that the concept exists so far, not effect it in any way yet.
No, we know it exists, and we can entangle particles. The only problem is the world record for the length of time we have artificially entangled two particles is about 13 seconds or so. We've got a lot of work to go in getting a sustained entanglement, and once that's done we've got to figure out how to use them to communicate, and then you'll have to work around the fact that an entangled particle only has one pair... There are a lot of engineering problems to figure out, but give us 200 years and we'll have nailed it. 200 years ago we were still throwing our sewage out into the street, cars didn't exist, and white man was trying to colonise Africa. 3-4 generations is a lot of time for things to change.
there is no workaround for the speed of light. the only real workaround would be to build a dataserver in every town and village no matter how small. good luck with that.
You say that...
Its the same sort of thing as people in the old times saying there was no workaround for not being born with wings, and then hot air balloons were invented and we could float through the sky.
Additionally it doesn't need to be everywhere. Just focused around major living areas, where most users will be using it. Why build one out in woop woop for 5 people who play games? Not going to happen. Having one centre cater to 20,000 gamers? Yeah, sounds much better. Rurals get short changed, but then again they always do. From the company's perspective, income is more important than reaching everyone with the technology, and shortchanging a 100,000 more remote users, whilst maintaining a core userbase in the 10s of millions, is a pretty decent deal.
The reason you can play FPS games with seemingly no latency online right now is because everything is calculated on your computer and only confirmed with server every once in a while. the input from your controller/mouse is instantly being calculated on your end and only gets corrected if server disagrees with it (what is often called rubberbanding).
Precisely, a workaround for the speed of light problem, which I thought we just said didn't exist. No, the workaround won't be the same as for in games, however such workarounds can and do exist. Processing, naturally, has to partially be done client side. Considering the TVs will have CPUs at that point, and some already do, I don't see that as too far outside the realm of possibility in 20 years or so, to have the TV apply the same sort of algorithm streaming video uses to kill its file size [You watch a 1080p movie over 2 hours. Why are you not storing Terrabytes of data? Because intelligent algorithms cut that down to usually around 2Gb, with minimal loss in quality most of the time], to be able to send multiple frames of data, so they will play whilst waiting for a response from the client, which tells them the next 5 frames to display, or however many is normal for normal latency.
In this way the screen can continue to present flawless images, whilst awaiting the next bit of info from the server. Visually, latency isn't much of a problem after this. Still has some issues, but again, intelligent software creation can act as a workaround here. Say the TV sends not only the input, but which frame it was displaying at the time the input was entered. When you can display, say, 10 frames between server responses, and you send back that in the previous batch, frame 7 was when the button was pressed, the server can have a check it runs to see if that was within the 'bounds' of when an action should have been performed, and if you have the animations for success and failure start of nearly the same, you can just swap out the ending, and control latency is reduced as well.
In streaming you loose the local calculation and display, so you will feel the full effects of latency.
Eh, you lose
some of the local calculation and display. There is no "It must be 100%" rule for streaming, and with processors in the TVs that accept streaming, you can rely on a small amount of client side processing to help you along.
Action animations and reaction delays like that makes for what we call "floaty" gameplay and is universally hated.
Depends on the game. See the Arkham series games. Don't feel floaty, and animations for attacks can take half a second at times. There's also the gameplay nicety of needing to time your attacks properly, I often found myself only inputting commands once or twice a second. Twitch gameplay? Yeah, going to suffer the same problems online twitch gameplay suffers today. Timing based gameplay, or god forbid, non-action oriented gameplay? Yeah, it'll get on fine.
Its not guaranteed to happen in the next 20 years, but its not outside the realm of possibility that streaming games could become a thing. Certainly not yet, but its not beyond the realm of possibility that, when technology advances a bit, and the industry sees a couple of properly mainstream pushes involving both game developers and hardware makers, and service providers, towards the streaming style, it could be achieved. It wouldn't be perfect, but then again nothing is. It'd be an undertaking, but it could be done. With a bit more technology, again, presently its not there.
