Remote game services (OnLive, Gaikai, etc.)
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
I forget if it was idle thumbs or gamers with jobs (I think the latter), but they discussed this in more detail and one of the guys had actually attended a demonstration. One of the things he mentioned was that the servers would be set up together with internet providers. One particular example was a (TV) cable company that provides internet services and tv to its customers, who would host the servers so that the connection between the client and the server is very, very direct. I have virtually zero lag from my provider's servers to my PC, for obvious reasons, so that would certainly help.
I think writing an article on why it could never work before you've properly researched the topic is a bit, well, a nice example of another topic in one of this weeks podcasts (either giant bomb, idle thumbs or gamers with jobs - it's hard to keep track which with my listening habits, where I continually steal time to listen inbetween sleeping, taking care of my son and work
)
I think writing an article on why it could never work before you've properly researched the topic is a bit, well, a nice example of another topic in one of this weeks podcasts (either giant bomb, idle thumbs or gamers with jobs - it's hard to keep track which with my listening habits, where I continually steal time to listen inbetween sleeping, taking care of my son and work
)To much nit picky IMO. if this works as intended, you guys don't think a little less on the image side of things would be worth overlooking?? Also you got to think that over time they will improve their compression tech to.
I think control lag is the bigger issue, and of course pricing is HUGE with this.
I think control lag is the bigger issue, and of course pricing is HUGE with this.
Agreed. Some people just want to play the games, but don't have the money for a high end PC. The thing is, it'll have to be cheap otherwise people will just stick to the console. I mean, that's one of the big reasons for consoles. They're supposed to be a cheap specialized computer for games. Onlive and gaming consoles really fit the same market. I'm really skeptical about the controller lag.
I don't know, though, the games they're offering are games that depend heavily on visual fidelity. Did Crysis sell a lot to people who were only going to be able to play it on low?
It's not that different from playing a 60fps fighter online though?
Like this?
I don't really see an issue with them having a 'successful' demonstration with such a limited scope. However, all the issues others have mentioned seem insurmountable to me on current hardware/infrastructure when it comes to launching something like this as an actual service which tens of thousands of people should be able to use simultaneously.
It is a LOT different. When game runs on your local PC your actions are shown with around 2-3 frame latency. Over network this becomes much higher.
It is not being picky when someone challenges the notion that another will or has accomplished the impossible.
So now we're at "stop being picky if you lose quality so what?" - in that case I'm opening my own business tomorrow - so what if I can't deliver on my promises or really compete with the experiences my competitors can provide - cut me some slack and give me your money! Oh yeah investors - no need to worry about that red ink you'll be swimming in just to get me up and running cause there's no way "ISPs" have untold thousands of high end GPUs/CPUs just "laying around" much less millions of them on top of oodles of bandwidth to spare provided by pristine low latency interconnects to massive storage datacenters. No, no - don't question any of that.
Just pay the bill and we'll get this thing started...
So now we're at "stop being picky if you lose quality so what?" - in that case I'm opening my own business tomorrow - so what if I can't deliver on my promises or really compete with the experiences my competitors can provide - cut me some slack and give me your money! Oh yeah investors - no need to worry about that red ink you'll be swimming in just to get me up and running cause there's no way "ISPs" have untold thousands of high end GPUs/CPUs just "laying around" much less millions of them on top of oodles of bandwidth to spare provided by pristine low latency interconnects to massive storage datacenters. No, no - don't question any of that.
Just pay the bill and we'll get this thing started...
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, neither is really good. In your case, you'll have somewhat instant response, but your actions will seem out of sync if there is network lag, and depending on how the games lag compensation works, you might see some weirdness in the way the games sync up.
In the case of Onlive, you'll have delayed responses when you push on the controls, but all of the game logic will be 100% in sync.
This brings up another question .... How the hell is anyone going to be able to play a multiplayer game through onlive, unless it is against other Onlive users? Add the control lag into the mix with the sync lag and you're absolutely screwed.
Aparently they are not as stupid as "we" make them out to be, there has been talks about putting the servers at the major ISP´s, reduces lag. There is not going to be a million users from launch, if there is they will at least have money to provide the hardware needed.
Many games don´t relay on "twitch" and lag wont be a big issue, sure the graphics aint gonna be cool, but you will still have the most complex graphics that can be created, it will just look blocky.
I doubt alot here on the BE3D is the audience, but there is plenty with the attitude that DVD is ok, youtube is fine, Wii looks great and Stereo is a Brand from Asia.
I agree completely. But are these people going to agree to pay for a gaming service?
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
The problem with this model is still the hardware.
I wrote a long message essentially saying what TKF said, and then deleted it and I'm glad I did because TKF said it better.
But Obonicus is right. However, the question isn't just about the target market paying for a subscription gaming service, the question is about them making a commitment to the subscription service when it requires the acquisition of hardware.
It's one thing to sign up for NetFlix and have them send you DVDs in the mail. It's something else to sign up to NetFlix so you can stream video to the 360 that you already have purchased for other reasons.
But when there's hardware involved, you are essentially eliminating the possibility of allowing a 'demo' period, and without a demo period, I don't see how this market will buy into a subscription service.
Now.. if you could convince the ISPs to send out 'OnLive' boxes with the modem or other basic hardware so it was already in the homes, you might have a chance.
But, that's really the same model that MS and Sony would both like to have (the Xbox or PS is the cable box/dvr/PLUS! Gaming machine), and they can't seem to get into bed with any of the ISPs to make it work.
I wrote a long message essentially saying what TKF said, and then deleted it and I'm glad I did because TKF said it better.
But Obonicus is right. However, the question isn't just about the target market paying for a subscription gaming service, the question is about them making a commitment to the subscription service when it requires the acquisition of hardware.
It's one thing to sign up for NetFlix and have them send you DVDs in the mail. It's something else to sign up to NetFlix so you can stream video to the 360 that you already have purchased for other reasons.
But when there's hardware involved, you are essentially eliminating the possibility of allowing a 'demo' period, and without a demo period, I don't see how this market will buy into a subscription service.
Now.. if you could convince the ISPs to send out 'OnLive' boxes with the modem or other basic hardware so it was already in the homes, you might have a chance.
But, that's really the same model that MS and Sony would both like to have (the Xbox or PS is the cable box/dvr/PLUS! Gaming machine), and they can't seem to get into bed with any of the ISPs to make it work.
They promised 720p 60 so low end hardware isn't going to cut it especially if they are going to offer games like Crysis to customers. ISPs can only provide the bandwidth and interconnects neither of which are exactly in great supply. The servers will still need to be fabricated and placed at facilites around the country and it is not as if ISPs will be letting them use their infrastructure for free. If their business model is to scale over time then by the time they will be a real threat to console vendors the vendors will have beaten them to the punch and secondly that would be at some point in the future - which consequently is when this concept actually becomes both financially and technologically realistic.
I also never called them stupid.
Whether I think they are stupid or not isn't material. I am challenging the plausibility and practicality of their service and its telling to me that the only way it enters into being realistically possible is when we scale back from supporting a lot of users and offering the same quality you can get else where.
I also never called them stupid.
Whether I think they are stupid or not isn't material. I am challenging the plausibility and practicality of their service and its telling to me that the only way it enters into being realistically possible is when we scale back from supporting a lot of users and offering the same quality you can get else where.
Last edited by a moderator:
If they're compressing the bejeesus out of it and gamers play a blurred splodge of a game, they won't need to run anything on high-end rigs! They could get away with half resolution upscaled at the client end, going by the examples people have created. YouTube and iPlayer are 'good enough' for TV content catchup and reminicing about old shows, but people I doubt people will abandon DVD for YouTube quality, and I doubt people will happily take grot-o-vision over decent clear visuals. We're not talking the difference between complex pixel-shaders versus simple texturing here; we're talking the difference between clearly defined edges and targets versus a fuzzy mess where it's unclear what's what and looking at your HUD gives you eyestrain. I don't think people will take to it. The nature of the content doesn't support heavily compressed video feeds.
I strongly recommend people who are interested to listen to the Idle Thumbs GDC podcasts. In the first one they discuss it in a fair bit of detail. One of the guys on that podcast works for the company that does the GDC organisation, and he's had a preview of the tech (though on a tiny laptop, playing Crysis and Burnout) with a fairly in-depth talk before the show opened. Also, in the second podcast, they make fun of all the people on both extremes of the responses to the service (impossible! vs I'm selling my PC now!). Very instructive.
Millions watch Youtube Music videos, and listen to shitty sound quality everyday, they use it for playlists at work, and parties were youtube is running is common place today (helps with the shitty quality).
If the alternative is expensive PC´s with expensive Graphic cards in order to experience GTA4, Crysis i still think there is an audience. It´s a wild guess how many that would actually pay X amount of dollars for that experience but there got to be some.
I am looking forward to an actual video from the booth so we can see the Video Quality
