Which would you call more successful in business and culture-defining sense, Blu-ray or Youtube?
Remote game services (OnLive, Gaikai, etc.)
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Which would you call more successful in business and culture-defining sense, Blu-ray or Youtube?
They are using 1gig of ram in thier system and using windows xp the device is stuck in dx 9 mode. Much better performance using win 7 on the netbook which when i bought it at launch was a free upgrade. Dunno about now.
I've Played Re 5 at 30fps at 800x600 on the netbook with dx 10 settings and I've played sf4 also at standard res with settings on high at 40fps.
I can actually do some benchmarks but have to get it back from my gf. I also have a hp dm3 with a radeon 4300 that cost me $600 and plows through all games at default res and its an ultra portable. The only thing holding it back is the amd dual core neo cpu at 1.6ghz
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3784/toshiba-a505ds6987-turion-ii-ultra-m600/5
Here is amd's new igp the 4200 series its a $600-$700 laptop and is avalible at walmart.
Far cry 800x600 dx9 low detail 30fps.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3806/gateway-lt32-netbooks
Here are the new amd netoboks. a neo 2 at 1.7ghz single core and a radeon hd 4225.
andof course what is looking to be the cream of the crop for ultra portables the alien ware m11x r2 at $900
1366x768
Batman very high settings 63fps
BF Bad Company 2 medium settings 31 fps
Crysis mainstream 32.5fps
Dirt 2 high 31.9 fps
Farcry very high dx 10 is 29.2fps
Now your going to need a laptop to use onlinve anyway. So the alien ware might be more than a $300 laptop but your going to actually be able to use the laptop while on a plain or in starbucks or on the road to play games. Onlive requires a dedicated wired connection of not so average speed. The alien ware platform will provide much better visual experiance than onlive. ALl the other ones i've pointed out will actually give you playability on the road and unattached to wires.
Last edited by a moderator:
Even then, 90%+ of laptops currently in user hands have a well-below-ion level of performance I'm guessing.
I know my Dell I bought for 399 a while back does. It has Intel GMA 4500 or something. Even though it's dual core, 15.4" and 2GB RAM.
That is one sweet netbook though. Although dual core atom would be a lot nicer. But that's another thing, I doubt a weakling Atom 1.6 single core is much for games.
And I'm pretty sure WinXP and DX9 are performance wins if anything...or no difference XP vs 7. But we all remember how early DX10 games were running a lot slower than in DX9.
I know my Dell I bought for 399 a while back does. It has Intel GMA 4500 or something. Even though it's dual core, 15.4" and 2GB RAM.
That is one sweet netbook though. Although dual core atom would be a lot nicer. But that's another thing, I doubt a weakling Atom 1.6 single core is much for games.
And I'm pretty sure WinXP and DX9 are performance wins if anything...or no difference XP vs 7. But we all remember how early DX10 games were running a lot slower than in DX9.
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe youtube is loosing bucket loads of money for google ? Blu-ray is profitable it seems to me and will be for a very long time.
So i guess Youtube is more culture defining and Blu-ray is more sucessfull in busniess sense.
Right but lets say your flying from your house to come vist me in New Jersey . How many onlive games are you going to be able to play ?
Meanwhile on your laptop even if they are older games you'll be able to play them when using your laptop for whats its meant to do and thats be a portable pc. And its not like there aren't tripple a quality titles that you can play even on your laptop . And in a few years you will buy a new laptop and it will play more games than your current one . When will they update the visual quality of onlive ?
Is that a viable business model for server-side gaming though? Especially with everyone having a portable gaming device in the mobile/DS/iPod.
Yes, but I'm thinking that those who have laptops and not desktop PCs or consoles don't care for these types of games. I can't imagine a large contigent of shoppers buying laptops, wishing they could afford a PC or console to play games like Batman and now seeing OnLive as a fabulous opportunity.
Two very different things. How many movies are being released on YouTube..? Plus Youtube has extended to support HS resolutions. But sure, MP3's show quality doesn't matter to many, but we're also looking at a far wider content market. More people want to listen to music or watch films than play hardcore games. The people who like to play hardcore games tend to also appreciate graphics, which is why we get upgraded PCs and new consoles every 5+ years. OnLive faces two markets. The first is us gamers who would want to game a much inferior experience to what we're used to - I can't see that being very big. The second is non-gamers who aren't playing these titles but who want to yet haven't bought into platforms that enable it. I'm guesing most of those will be people who can't afford an HD console, and yet the cost of OnLive isn't making it the affordable option nor the best value. Get an XB360 on credit, 12 monthly installments, and you'll get cheaper games, a better experience, more flexibility, etc.
So how is OnLive going to be marketed and who to?
The only way I can see Onlive being a viable service if it is setup to be inculsive to the hardcore PC gamers as much as possible.
That would require giving a subscriber the ability to register a hardcopy of a PC game with the service and/or buying a title on the service would encompass the hardcopy being shipped to the subscriber. While avid PC gamers already have a PC setup with a highend GPU which would provide a better experience, it may be a attractive service to those that don't or can't own a highend laptop to expand PC gaming beyond their desktop. Basically I see the appeal of "play your pc game on any pc anywhere" to even the hardcore crowd. However, they are going to hardly to do this if they have to double down on purchases. Furthermore, no avid gamer is going to be happy about losing their purchases once they end their subscription to a service.
I don't see how any service based around PC gaming will prosper simply appealing to casual gamers with less than capable desktops or laptops unless you ready for years of slow growth. Casuals tend to be the least informed, thereby the least interested in such a product.
That would require giving a subscriber the ability to register a hardcopy of a PC game with the service and/or buying a title on the service would encompass the hardcopy being shipped to the subscriber. While avid PC gamers already have a PC setup with a highend GPU which would provide a better experience, it may be a attractive service to those that don't or can't own a highend laptop to expand PC gaming beyond their desktop. Basically I see the appeal of "play your pc game on any pc anywhere" to even the hardcore crowd. However, they are going to hardly to do this if they have to double down on purchases. Furthermore, no avid gamer is going to be happy about losing their purchases once they end their subscription to a service.
I don't see how any service based around PC gaming will prosper simply appealing to casual gamers with less than capable desktops or laptops unless you ready for years of slow growth. Casuals tend to be the least informed, thereby the least interested in such a product.
Seems like PC + Onlive for future and no consoles.. oh well perhaps some Wii's! Comfy couch, graphics that improve over time (one would atleast think that) and no hardware breaking down left and right. 
But seriously ISP caps might really limit the usability per moth regarding Onlive though future might change for the better.
But seriously ISP caps might really limit the usability per moth regarding Onlive though future might change for the better.
I can't see this competing with the nextgen consoles, if it can't even outdo the current ones...
AC2, Dirt 2, Batman and the others are cheaper to play (actually own) on the 360/PS3, they look and play better.
The only advantage is that theoretically you could access Onlive from anywhere, but in practice anything with a standard to good internet connection just won't suffice.
You also can't really make extra money on selling hardware accessories for the system, whereas consoles provide a lot of additional revenue streams. I'd say you can't even justify DLC on this platform, and any microtransactions are problematic too.
No, this is just not competitive at all, only an alternative, for market segments with a considerably different set of required features.
AC2, Dirt 2, Batman and the others are cheaper to play (actually own) on the 360/PS3, they look and play better.
The only advantage is that theoretically you could access Onlive from anywhere, but in practice anything with a standard to good internet connection just won't suffice.
You also can't really make extra money on selling hardware accessories for the system, whereas consoles provide a lot of additional revenue streams. I'd say you can't even justify DLC on this platform, and any microtransactions are problematic too.
No, this is just not competitive at all, only an alternative, for market segments with a considerably different set of required features.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
After reading it more, it plays better than I expected, but my prospects for it taking off are now much lower.
Good results requiring a 20+ Mb connection? Lesser bandwidth = less quality (IQ and possibly latency). Lets say somewhere between 5-10 Mb for at least a somewhat decent if low IQ experience.
In most the US that would mean service from a provider with a data cap which will be saturated fairly quickly if you do much gaming. That also rules out laptops at home for most people.
Laptops on the road would far even worse, good luck getting a 5-10 Mb (and forget about 20 Mb) connection at a hotel, airport or internet hot spot.
My original thoughts of a Hotel providing this service also goes out the window. Having to provision enough bandwidth to serve the needs of enough guests?
I just can't see where this makes any sense at all anymore.
Regards,
SB
Good results requiring a 20+ Mb connection? Lesser bandwidth = less quality (IQ and possibly latency). Lets say somewhere between 5-10 Mb for at least a somewhat decent if low IQ experience.
In most the US that would mean service from a provider with a data cap which will be saturated fairly quickly if you do much gaming. That also rules out laptops at home for most people.
Laptops on the road would far even worse, good luck getting a 5-10 Mb (and forget about 20 Mb) connection at a hotel, airport or internet hot spot.
My original thoughts of a Hotel providing this service also goes out the window. Having to provision enough bandwidth to serve the needs of enough guests?
I just can't see where this makes any sense at all anymore.
Regards,
SB
I just want to add that quite often the realistic throughput to a laptop can be lower than 10 Megabit given signal strength and interference.
Eventually, internet connections are going to get even faster. We've all been on 56K and (A)DSL before we got to Mbit speed connections and we're going to get 10-20-50Mbit someday, too. Bandwith caps are going to have to rise as well, as HD streaming video becomes a standard, with Youtube and all. We've also had a pretty good quality stream from all E3 press conferences this year, remember?
So, in theory, ISPs will sooner then later catch up to the requirements of Onlive. And even if they improve image quality and compression to stay competitive, which would require even more bandwidth, they'd still be less and less ahead of the average user's connection speed. By the time it'd become widespread, with multiple millions of users, the entire internet would have to get a lot faster anyway. This part of their business plan is OK in theory, there are far larger problems in the system elsewhere right now.
So, in theory, ISPs will sooner then later catch up to the requirements of Onlive. And even if they improve image quality and compression to stay competitive, which would require even more bandwidth, they'd still be less and less ahead of the average user's connection speed. By the time it'd become widespread, with multiple millions of users, the entire internet would have to get a lot faster anyway. This part of their business plan is OK in theory, there are far larger problems in the system elsewhere right now.
What happens in 2012 or 2013 when a new console comes out. You'll be dealing with even higher visual quality and onlive will have to upgrade its hardware to compete but also its resolution and thus require higher bit rates. Also as online becomes an even bigger factor in games how will onlive handle a next gen cod mw multiplayer match ?
These are exactly the kinds of problems that I see instead of the bandwidth and download cap issues.
Also, considering how few people own 1080p capable, relatively low performance notebooks and desktop PCs, I don't think that going to a higher resolution would be such an important requirement. I don't expect nextgen consoles to go 1:1 1080p anyway - if there's anything to learn from the X360/PS3, it's that they can get away with an upscaled 720p or 1024-1280x1080p easily, especially with some form of MLAA.
Also, considering how few people own 1080p capable, relatively low performance notebooks and desktop PCs, I don't think that going to a higher resolution would be such an important requirement. I don't expect nextgen consoles to go 1:1 1080p anyway - if there's anything to learn from the X360/PS3, it's that they can get away with an upscaled 720p or 1024-1280x1080p easily, especially with some form of MLAA.
I dunno , it seems like alot of laptops are heading for 1080p monitors now as they are getting cheaper and cheaper.
But more to the point if you need a wired high speed connection I don't see us getting it very soon. Even the goverment is only mandated 4mbp/s downoad speeds for the country by 2020.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Only on high end laptops. Otherwise resolution is still dominated by 768p and 800p for notebooks and 600p for netbooks.
1080p and 900p are still fairly rare unless you get into expensive gaming notebooks where it's somewhat more common.
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I'd have to disagree with you there. At least if we had a truly resolution independant UI. I'd really like displays to have at the minimum 4-8x the PPI of current displays (desktop mostly, as the increased power consumption might not be worth the greater visual fidelity on notebooks).
Regards,
SB
Regards,
SB
OnLive! fits Playstation Plus' game subscription model very well.
When PSPGo was first introduced, I thought they were going to bundle it with a service like PS+ in the (near) future.
At this pace, it looks like Sony is only executing a defensive move. Their game subscription service will accelerate when OnLive! and others gain traction. For now, they will probably grow it organically. e.g., NetFlix introduced disc rental first before streaming movie joined in.
Onlive might serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of the current videogame business model, but for now it's more likely to prove unable to gather the necessary momentum before it collapses. What lies beyond the tech has always been the more interesting aspect of it, but the implementation still remains to be the groundwork without which it can't realize its potential. The infrastructure fails to keep up with the concept so far, and the investors may not have the patience and money to keep it going until it becomes self-sustaining.
Also, there's the great risk that it turns out to be a dead-end, with people preferring to own their games in a more physical form and on more fixed terms. But to find it out, they still have to build it first...
Also, there's the great risk that it turns out to be a dead-end, with people preferring to own their games in a more physical form and on more fixed terms. But to find it out, they still have to build it first...
