CES 2014: JANUARY 7-10, 2014

There was a rack mounted PS3, though you don't see them often.
For the Gaikai solution it's a new custom rack solution based on the PS3 chipsets, much of what Gaikai has done since the acquisition is develop the hardware platform for PS3, there are constraints/requirements they had that required a new solution for reliable use in datacenters.

 

Cool, thanks. I'm guessing that was later in the console's life. I remember seeing documentation released from various US government organisations buying PS3 consoles in their hundreds/thousands for clusters for various things and I believe they were the consumer models.

 

If you think about it instead of just fob it off as a Sony-ism, there's plenty of reason for the response to be different. List the reasons why OnLive wasn't greeted enthusiastically as a startup, and compare that to why one of the largest games publishers in the world with a history of gaming hardware and softwares and service releasing a game streaming service might be.

I'm currently playing Borderlands 2 on PS3. The framerate stinks at times making it painful to play. I would like the option to 'upgrade' my system but there's no BC/FC in consoles at the moment. PC offers that with other drawbacks. We also can't take the same game and play it on other devices (mobile). Online game streaming offers a completely original solution to gaming, shifting the work to servers that'll only get better over time as hardware progresses and allowing access via thin client. It means an end to hardware upgrade cycles. It had potential when it was discussed, but OnLive couldn't turn it into a viable business. Sony almost certainly will so there's good reason to watch it, not least for all those who don't want to buy a whole new console just to play a few Sony exclusives like LoU. If I won't need to buy a PS4 or XB1 or GPU adn endure Windows gaming because the games can be streamed in a couple of years for a Netflix style subscription, I'll be well impressed.

 

Remember that people complained frequently about internet bandwidth caps or their unreliable internet as cause for concern when Microsoft required a daily internet check. Playstation Now will require many orders of magnitude more bandwidth than what Mircrosoft had planned, and Playstation Now will require a very reliable low latency connection to be feasible. So judging from people's past posts on this forum it seems like many here will not be able to use Playstation Now, it's a non solution to them. I presume it's a non solution for you too given how much you have complained about poor internet in the UK.

In your case I'd recommend just going with pc, you'd save a ton of cash and be able to play your games anywhere with no lag and 60fps if needed. Think about it, you will be paying a monthly fee so you can play Borderlands 2 over Playstation now, paying for online access via psn, paying more for games, yet you can't play it if you don't have a fast reliable internet connection. Meanwhile I can play it on a plane, on my hammock, on my tv, or anywhere really with no monthly fee, no internet connection required, no compression artifacts, no input lag, and getting games cheaper. You'll save a ton of money that way over the long term and be able to play the game as intended without compression artifacts and lag in any location you want. Given how bad your internet is judging from all your past posts about it, that would be the far better route for you.

 

That's something else entirely. Are you really that incapable of understanding the difference aspects to internet connectivity and services that every time the internet comes into play, you feel compelled to make a spurious correlation with XB1??

For those who's internet isn't good enough, they won't be using PlayNow/Gaikai/OnLive. For those who's internet is really crap, they won't be using Netflix or iPlayer or any streaming services at all. For those for whom the internet is fast enough, they will have the option of using these services. And the requirement for online gaming in terms of BW is only as much as needed for HD video. Anyone who has enough to use Netflix or whatever in HD has enough to stream a game. Of the occasions the internet is down, they won't be using those services, but that's no different to any other internet service. The fundamental difference with the MS complaints is that MS required an online connection to play an offline game. That has nothing to do with the viability of a digital-only console nor a game steaming service nor other internet related topics.

That is the major limitation and we don't know how well the connection will work, but the internet is getting better all the time. I'm not expecting Play Now to work flawlessly for everyone when it launches, but I'm not expecting it to be shelved before the internet has improved enough to use it, unless internet infrastructure has stagnated.

I've complained at internet BW in context, which you are merrily ignoring here. 8 Mbps is plenty to stream HD games (video). It's not great for downloading 50 GB games. The popularity of media streaming shows there's no issue with bandwidth for game steaming. The only issue now are potential caps and latency. If you're going to focus especially on my own personal circumstances, though I doubt I'd be buying into a Play Now service any time soon (certainly not until it's proven itself), my exchange has finally been connected to fibre, putting an end to many of my complaints. I have 30 Gbps I think, although my current use means the cheaper 12 Mbps suits me just fine. I get good quality HD streams and reasonable download times of the data I have interest in.

There are pros and cons. I won't argue any solution is ideal. However, I like the idea of an online repository for everything. I like the idea of a death to disks and every film or TV programme ever made being available on demand. I think that's a far more efficient system. If the streamed experience is good enough, that'll suit me fine. For plane journeys I'll be happy with mobile games I expect. For those who really want to play FPSes on the go, a pricey laptop will do them well. For those who want to play Sony or MS or Nintendo exclusives, there are no other options beyond buying their hardwares. Play Now means that's not a requirement, so maybe one day you'll have the option of play Naughty Dog's games on your PC in some form without having to buy a PS4/PS5. Surely that can only be seen as a good thing? Hell, if this does really well then we'll lose specialist hardware entirely. There won't be MS exclusives and Sony exclusives and Nintendo exclusives requiring $100s of (similar) hardware; there'll just be Play Now and Xbox Games and Nintendoland streaming services, like all the different movie services, all offering the libraries.

 

Claim: I have unreliable internet.
Playstation Now: Requires continuous internet connection to sustain video stream.
Result: Not suitable for Playstation Now.

Claim: I have low internet bandwidth caps.
Playstation Now: Requires lots of internet bandwidth to sustain video stream.
Result: Not suitable for Playstation Now.

Claim: I have high internet latency due to my remote location.
Playstation Now: Requires low latency to properly handle gaming input
Result: Not suitable for Playstation Now.

Are you really that incapable of seeing the correlation or do you always have to bring it back to an xb1 argument? This is why it makes no sense that some of the same people, including you, are suddenly interested in Playstation Now when your internet is quite frankly bordering on third world. Taking peoples posts here directly, including your very own on the matter, makes none of you suitable for Playstation Now. Why you are all excited about it now makes no sense to me, which is possibly what Rangers was also confused about. You as always bring it up as anti-Sony and/or xb1 crusading for god knows what reason. Are you a Sony stock holder? Because your constant taking anything more than 0.25% negative attitude towards Sony as xb1 fanboy attacks is getting tiresome. Give it a rest and read the posts on your very own forum, there's tons of them. It has nothing to do with fanboyism, but confusion from people who will clearly will not be able to use Playstation Now suddenly being all excited by it. It's not going to work for them, you know it, and I know it.

 

Change ISP. Probably going to sell the service together with select ISPs.

In the mean time, use every PS4 as a Gaikai server (aka RemotePlay).


EDIT: OnLive is not Sony. The latter has a lot more "assets". They own lotsa contents (also announced Cloud TV service), and back the fastest ISP in Japan.

 

There is big difference in saying "nothing will work without internet" compared to "will work without internet but there are optional services requiring internet connection".

 

Playstation Now will naturally exclude some customers, as it naturally requires online.

This has no relationship to Xbone originally excluding customers that did not need to be excluded.

There are many people who are not able to or do not want to be reliant on an online connection for using their console. This does not in any way mean that there isn't a market for online gaming services.

The internet can be used to provide some gaming experiences. This does not mean that you can reverse it and say that all gaming experiences should, therefore, be able to require the internet.

 

That's kind of a weird argument. Both are products that are useless without Internet service. You just pay for one as a subscription vs paying for individual content on the other. If you're Internet goes down, either way you can't play games. If Playstation Now is your only way to game, then nothing about it works when your Internet goes down or there is a service interruption. You can't assume this will be used primarily by PS3 and PS4 owners. I'd think it's mostly for people with different devices that aren't capable of gaming on their own.

I think Playstation Now sounds great with the right price.

 

It's not weird argument. Consider the original vision for xbox one. It was perfectly capable of playing games without internet but microsofts plan was to not allow that.

It would be analogous to preventing dvd's from playing back without calling home. offline media is offline media for good reason. It would have been suicide to commit to online only "next gen console". Time for that will be in future, but it's not today.

those people who don't like playstation now can opt out and still continue playing disc based games without ever connecting ps4 to internet.

 

Why not? Why can someone provide a service that requires an Internet connection but not a device that requires an Internet connection? Honestly, I'm curious to know. Is it an issue of fairness? An ethical issue? If someone sells you a device that requires wifi, and has no wired option for Internet connectivity, is that similarly wrong because it's exclusionary? Or is that just one of many requirements that a customer has to gauge when buying a good or service?

 

What I'm trying to understand is if there's something that's actually wrong about requiring online, or if you just don't like it. Why is it ok to sell a service that requires online, but not a product? What is the functional difference between the two? In either case, if you can't use it, or won't like it, don't buy it.

Is DRM an invalid reason for requiring online, as much as all of us hate it? Online streaming services basically remove ownership of individual content from users. Netflix can remove movies from their service whenever they want. Playstation Now could stop serving the games you like to play.

Playstation Now is the future and probably the right direction for gaming. I'm personally excited about the idea, maybe not right now, but for the future. I'd love to stop buying hardware and just get free graphical upgrades from the cloud as they update the "servers." Give me a thin client, with some local processing for input devices, and away we go. If the Internet goes down, I'll just do something else. Don't care about owning games. If this service was offering PS4 games, I'd sign up pretty quickly. Not very interested in PS3 games anymore, but I imagine in five years it could be serving more, and in a couple generations hardware could be the client model. Not sure if I'll be gaming when we get there, but you never know.

 

So you're assuming that everyone that has Playstation Now will own a PS4 and have that option, even though it's serving PS3 games? And even then, the PS4 can't play the PS3 games they would have been playing on the service, so your option is essentially to game on a different platform. You could have said the same thing about Xbox One. They could game on their phone, their tablet, their PC, their PS4, their 360, their PS3, their NES ... the options were nearly limitless for gaming alternatives in those cases.

 

Because the internet isn't required for all forms of gaming; some types of gaming require it hence nobody complains about the internet requirement for online multiplayer. Similarly its disingenuous to say someone who doesn't want DRM check in requirement must also be against the internet for services that intrinsically require it such as streaming video or Playstation Now.

 

You're the one who pushed the xbone argument in the very same post that Shifty quoted, rendering your whole post a bit ridiculous.


Let's see if I can make this really easy to understand and differentiate:

Xbone: Product.
Playstation Now: Service.

Analogy:
Pizza - food, can eat wherever I can.
Pizza Delivery - service to provide food, not available everywhere.

If I'm on top of Mount Fuji, I can eat all the Pizza I want, as long as I'm the one bringing it there. Maybe I'll even start a bonfire and warm it up a little before eating, it'll be just as good as if I was at home.
Now if I'm on top of Mount Fuji, I can't ask for Pizza Delivery. The cellphone has no reception and no remotely intelligent person would ever take the job of climbing Mt. Fuji just to deliver Pizza. Not for the price I'm willing to pay for Pizza Delivery anyways.

As a mildly reasonable, intelligent person knowing of a few facts of life, I won't say that Pizza Delivery sucks because they won't deliver to me during my Mt. Fuji climb. Pizza Delivery is a good service because it sometimes lets me order and then eat Pizza without ever leaving my couch.
Litterally, because sometimes my girlfriend answers the door to get the Pizza and I get to never leave the couch.

But you know what would make me hate Pizza?
If all the Pizza in the world had these Goblins attached that stalked it (and the person carrying the Pizza).
If I ate the Pizza at home, the Goblin would just stare at me with cold eyes, but except for the awkwardness, nothing really bad would happen.
But, if I tried to eat Pizza during my Mt. Fuji climb, the Goblin would run at me, kick me in the nuts and yell "YOU CAN'T EAT PIZZA HERE BECAUSE THERE'S NO PHONE RECEPTION".
First, because getting kicked in the nuts is really painful. Not worth it even for Pizza.
Secondly, I don't want a Goblin to take control of where I can or cannot eat Pizza.
Thirdly, phone reception? Really?! What a lame excuse for not letting me eat Pizza. It's a good excuse for not ordering pizza but for eating? Come on..
Screw that, I'm going for Instant Noodles from now on.


So, Pizza? Good. Pizza Delivery? Good. Pizza with Goblins? Not good.

 

I'll and provide a data point.

I'm currently ~ 700 km away from my home and have at times been >1300 km away from my home and I can achieve ~30ms ping. Not to mention there's a body of water about 300km wide separating my house from where I am right now. Below 30 ms is pretty much as good as it gets and that's over quite a large distance.

The service not being able to work for anybody currently doesn't translate to it never going work for them. Try to recall how the internet was 5~10 years ago and how it is today. Maybe those may be able to play PS Now over LTE networks or some new standard in a couple of years.

Again, comparing this to Microsoft's DRM is very odd. Microsoft's DRM required you to have an connection for no real functional reason. Streaming games requires the internet connection to function. You surely aren't equating an IPTV service to Microsoft's DRM policy are you?

 

There is nothing wrong in requiring always online. However there is also nothing wrong in customers who protest against that. It would just be bad business today as the guy who has more relaxed policy will sell a lot more and gain good will from customer due to less restrained use policy.

There are services that are inherently online only like netflix. There are also functionalities which are inherently offline like playing a dvd or a game from disc.

 

But I don't want to be kicked in the nuts for eating pizza without phone reception.

 

I'm not comparing it to to ms's drm, why that keeps coming up is still a mystery to me. Maybe b3d has a fetish for ms's drm? I don't know, I can't figure it out, maybe I should make a new website focusing on girls and ms's drm.

In the meantime what I am saying is that those that couldn't handle one internet based service due to:

a) unreliable internet
b) high latency
c) bandwidth caps

...will in no way suddenly be able to use this new service. It can't be done. If you can't use service '1' due to either a, b or c above, then you will not be able to use service '2' for the very same reasons. This has nothing to do with ms, their drm, their killing of kittens, or whatever else they may have done in their decades of existence. What it has to do with is looking at peoples posting history, their stance on something that requires internet and the reasons for which they can't use it, and logically applying them to this new requires internet service, in turn coming to the conclusion that they can't use the latter for the very same reasons they couldn't use the former.

If you can't use a car from Ford because you don't have access to gas, then you can't suddenly use a car from Chevy for the very same reason.

If you can't use electric device X from company Y because you don't have access to electricity, then you suddenly can't use electric device A from company B for the very same reason.

If you can't use internet offering X from company Y because your internet is crappy, then you suddenly can't use internet offering A from company B for the very same reason.

Nothing to do with ms, nothing to do with xbox, nothing to do with drm. Is that more clear?