kalmar wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Jesus, this would kick the stuffing out of Game, Gamestop, nVidia, Intel, AMD, ...
... AMD would be up shit creek with their CPU business.
The original post says this scheme is "AMD's", which kind of implies they'd supply the hardware. Is that the case? The article doesn't mention it.
Whoops. Yeah, I'd say, flip reverse it, but Intel will be fine
Craster wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Anyone who claims to be a gamer and isn't excited at the possibilities of a service like this should probably check they still have a pulse.
It's possible to be excited by the possibilities whilst still deeply cynical about the realities.
That doesn't even begin to cover it.
They can optimise for lag all they like, pinging a huge site like oracle.com is still a >100ms round trip. You're playing a game anything up to 100 physics frames behind.
Game prices would rocket since they have to buy the hardware rather than sell it to us, pay for encoding of 1080P video minimum (since we'll be on to at least the next generation of home consoles and it'll look shit) and a truly laughable amount of bandwidth.
Regardless video that big actually requires a pretty decent PC by today's standards.
You're assuming they, you and every computer, router and switch between you will continually maintain 100% reliability at a rather large transfer rate.
It's massively worse than buying games since as soon as they die, you lose everything you paid for.
For arcade games, it's a non-starter of the level of flying cars for everyone by the end of the year that are powered purely by love. For stuff like say, Peggle, Flash is here now and is a better solution.
Excited by the possibility? Even if it works on a technical level it'll be the worst thing to happen to games ever. If everyone has this rather than home consoles it kills indie dev stone dead. It'll be only open to those with the massive, massive bandwidth and processing power to host games, namely a few big publishers. You'll never see another World of Goo, they could never afford to let you play it.
All for the tiny advantage that I don't have to buy a £300 console every 5 years (I have to pay more than that no doubt to rent their £300 console instead) set against a massive, MASSIVE number of disadvantages like the possibility of losing your games at any moment, being reliant on the internet at all times to play, no modding ever, no indie games ever. You'd be forced to play only what they want you to play, when they want you to play it and pay more for the privilege.
IMO you're wrong on all those points (except for being reliant on the Internet) - just to grab one at random: Why can't Indy dev carry on? They'll have one platform to develop for, and an easy distribution method. Look at the app markets on the G1 or iPhone as an example of how well that can work.
Pretty bleak, Duds.
If I can offer an alternative use of the tech... home servers.
You buy a hunk of hardware (Xbox 1080, PS5, whatvever) for the aforementioned £300 and it comes with 3 dumb terminals. These terminals connect to the 'server' and your TVs. They offer TV watching, movies, music and games streamed from your box.
Closed loop system so lag can be managed. More likley?
If I can offer an alternative use of the tech... home servers.
You buy a hunk of hardware (Xbox 1080, PS5, whatvever) for the aforementioned £300 and it comes with 3 dumb terminals. These terminals connect to the 'server' and your TVs. They offer TV watching, movies, music and games streamed from your box.
Closed loop system so lag can be managed. More likley?
Grim... wrote:
IMO you're wrong on all those points (except for being reliant on the Internet) - just to grab one at random: Why can't Indy dev carry on? They'll have one platform to develop for, and an easy distribution method. Look at the app markets on the G1 or iPhone as an example of how well that can work.
They would need to 'rent' space on the central server farm in order to get their game on there. On every farm, if they want it available globally. That's not going to be free/cheap, not by a long shot. There's a massive difference between that and just taking up a couple of megs on a download server somewhere like iPhone/G1 apps.
Craster wrote:
They would need to 'rent' space on the central server farm in order to get their game on there. On every farm, if they want it available globally. That's not going to be free/cheap, not by a long shot. There's a massive difference between that and just taking up a couple of megs on a download server somewhere like iPhone/G1 apps.
We don't know that OnLive would be charging publisher's for server capacity, do we? In fact that would be rather silly, for the reason you have outlined. Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Craster wrote:
They would need to 'rent' space on the central server farm in order to get their game on there. On every farm, if they want it available globally. That's not going to be free/cheap, not by a long shot. There's a massive difference between that and just taking up a couple of megs on a download server somewhere like iPhone/G1 apps.
We don't know that OnLive would be charging publisher's for server capacity, do we? In fact that would be rather silly, for the reason you have outlined.I would be surprised if they could afford not to. Like I say, a bit of storage and a row in a DB somewhere for indy phone apps costs virtually nothing. Actually providing the processing power for those games to run and the rendering to video is a different matter entirely. They'd have to charge that out somewhere, either to the publisher or the consumer, meaning the price of indy games goes up and the takeup goes down.
Fuck me Dudley. Even by your standards this is some poorly researched drivel. At least read up on the stuff before arguing or you'll look like an idiot. I mean, seriously, investors have spent months looking at this and have decided to commit tens of millions of dollars into funding the company over seven years. Did it cross your mind they might have, you know, thought of all this already?
Dudley wrote:
They can optimise for lag all they like, pinging a huge site like oracle.com is still a >100ms round trip.
I'm getting 45ms to Google right now over a skanky ADSL line to our office, through a nasty 17 hops. The rollout of OnLive throughout 2010 will overlap with the beginnings of fibre-to-the-home that will put that into single digits. One would presume OnLive would also more heavily invest in peering partners than Google do, as this is crucial to their business.Quote:
Game prices would rocket since they have to buy the hardware rather than sell it to us, pay for encoding of 1080P video minimum and a truly laughable amount of bandwidth.
They are 720p, not 1080p. Encoding is done on a hardware card of their own design so why does that cost? There are economies of scale that they presumably are able to hit. One server could perhaps accomodate 5-10 gamers if fitted with 4 graphics cards, dual-quad processors, and sufficient RAM. Quote:
(since we'll be on to at least the next generation of home consoles and it'll look shit)
I've watched extensive content on a 720p 50" plasma and on a 1080p 50" plasma. Even at that screen size the benefits of 1080p are marginal. "Full HD" is largely a marketing trick unless you have projectors.Quote:
Regardless video that big actually requires a pretty decent PC by today's standards.
You know nothing of the decode CPU requirements of their codec, but that video shows it running on a Dell Studio laptop with integrated Intel graphics. Clearly they have this now so are talking from some informed platform when they describe the minimum specification.Quote:
You're assuming they, you and every computer, router and switch between you will continually maintain 100% reliability at a rather large transfer rate.
I have 16meg internet and it's a 5meg stream. 30% reliability.Quote:
It's massively worse than buying games since as soon as they die, you lose everything you paid for.
FUCK ME HE GOT ONE RIGHT.Quote:
For arcade games, it's a non-starter of the level of flying cars for everyone by the end of the year that are powered purely by love. For stuff like say, Peggle, Flash is here now and is a better solution.
So what? We're not talking about arcade games.Quote:
If everyone has this rather than home consoles it kills indie dev stone dead.
To write games for OnLive you need a PC. To write games for Xbox you need an expensive Xbox dev kit and Microsoft red tape up the yazoo. That's why indie games development is dead on PCs... oh no, wait, it isn't is it? It's centered on the cheap, ubiquitious, easy-to-develop on platform.Quote:
It'll be only open to those with the massive, massive bandwidth and processing power to host games, namely a few big publishers. You'll never see another World of Goo, they could never afford to let you play it.
So OnLive will charge pubs for servers? [citation needed]Quote:
All for the tiny advantage that I don't have to buy a £300 console every 5 years (I have to pay more than that no doubt to rent their £300 console instead)
Their console is "cheaper than the Wii" and optional anyway.Quote:
set against a massive, MASSIVE number of disadvantages like the possibility of losing your games at any moment, being reliant on the internet at all times to play, no modding ever, no indie games ever. You'd be forced to play only what they want you to play, when they want you to play it and pay more for the privilege.
There is some merit here. But: no patching, no mismatched version, no cracking, no piracy.Craster wrote:
Actually providing the processing power for those games to run and the rendering to video is a different matter entirely. They'd have to charge that out somewhere, either to the publisher or the consumer, meaning the price of indy games goes up and the takeup goes down.
To the customer, I would anticipate. They're being coy about business models, and stating that they will offer options to the publishers, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them focus on subscription models rather than purchases. Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Quote:
It's massively worse than buying games since as soon as they die, you lose everything you paid for.
FUCK ME HE GOT ONE RIGHT.You rent the games.
I have to say I think this is possible but in the UK I doubt we'll have the backbone for a good few years... or at least with BT. If you can get 50Mg Virgin then I bet this would integrate nicely into their current phone packages in a year or so. I look forward to the day I can play Starcraft 2 and Halo 4 with my Bezzies with a mouse and keyboard too. Fed up of spending loads on upgrades to still be out of date.
Also everything looks very xboxy!
Grim... wrote:
IMO you're wrong on all those points (except for being reliant on the Internet) - just to grab one at random: Why can't Indy dev carry on? They'll have one platform to develop for, and an easy distribution method. Look at the app markets on the G1 or iPhone as an example of how well that can work.
What easy distribution method? Paying to buy or rent MASSIVE servers and bandwidth to stream content is easy? As opposed to "Download this zip file"?
Quote:
Fuck me Dudley. Even by your standards this is some poorly researched drivel.
Stopped reading here. Could you for just 3 seconds of your life stop being a dishonest, vindictive, intimidating, pathetic bullying manchild?
Thanks.
EDIT : If you have any serious point to make, post it without the pointless, childish insults.
Dudley wrote:
Quote:
Fuck me Dudley. Even by your standards this is some poorly researched drivel.
Stopped reading here. Could you for just 3 seconds of your life stop being a dishonest, vindictive, intimidating, pathetic bullying manchild?
Thanks.
Calm down Dudley, that was a over-forcefully put opinion, but there's no need to go off the deep end.
There's no opinion there at all, just an insult.
EDIT : But that's enough for this thread, if anyone wants to suggest anything I got wrote in a slightly more adult manner go right ahead.
EDIT : But that's enough for this thread, if anyone wants to suggest anything I got wrote in a slightly more adult manner go right ahead.
Dudley wrote:
Grim... wrote:
IMO you're wrong on all those points (except for being reliant on the Internet) - just to grab one at random: Why can't Indy dev carry on? They'll have one platform to develop for, and an easy distribution method. Look at the app markets on the G1 or iPhone as an example of how well that can work.
What easy distribution method? Paying to buy or rent MASSIVE servers and bandwidth to stream content is easy? As opposed to "Download this zip file"?
Where are all the people saying space will have to be bought or rented getting the info from? I'd imagine it will be just like iPhone/G1/Live Arcade, with the devs getting cash per rental and the service taking a percentage.
So no more freeware indie games then? You have to charge and unless the service wants to front you, can't have demos.
Hell, probably no more demos of anything, period.
And if it really is rental only, surely no-one's saying that's a good thing. If Fifa 09 remains the best in the series for instance it won't matter, it'll be pulled off the service when 10's out.
And what about stuff like EA's F1 and Papy's Nascar games. Still better than modern stuff but can't be sold new because they don't have the licence. In this world no-one could ever play them again.
Hell, probably no more demos of anything, period.
And if it really is rental only, surely no-one's saying that's a good thing. If Fifa 09 remains the best in the series for instance it won't matter, it'll be pulled off the service when 10's out.
And what about stuff like EA's F1 and Papy's Nascar games. Still better than modern stuff but can't be sold new because they don't have the licence. In this world no-one could ever play them again.
Dudley wrote:
But lag will kill it. I don't care if they have the bandwidth, the power, everything, bandwidth will kill it.
And this story is older than dirt, I remember pointing out 8000 reasons why it wouldn't work on Bruce's blog back when he was still amusing.
And this story is older than dirt, I remember pointing out 8000 reasons why it wouldn't work on Bruce's blog back when he was still amusing.
They had blogs in 1987?
Dude, they've already said you can have instant access to demos (no downloading). Prolly a subscription-based thing, like LIVE. But as the Doc says, they're being shy about their business model at the moment.
Thread delivers.
Grim... wrote:
Dude, they've already said you can have instant access to demos (no downloading). Prolly a subscription-based thing, like LIVE. But as the Doc says, they're being shy about their business model at the moment.
Still can't have freeware games except at the service's choice.
Allowing iPhone games onto your infrastructure costs nothing. It's a row in a database table to make it show up in the store and a couple of megs to host the download. Actually hosting the running application is an entirely different prospect. I can't believe that an indie dev will be able to rock up and say "host my app for me, go on, it's great" because that actually means allocating space on the infrastructure for it to run in the hope that it will be attractive to customers.
Offering an app in the appstore is a no-risk proposal. Hosting a running app isn't.
Offering an app in the appstore is a no-risk proposal. Hosting a running app isn't.
Dudley wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Dude, they've already said you can have instant access to demos (no downloading). Prolly a subscription-based thing, like LIVE. But as the Doc says, they're being shy about their business model at the moment.
Still can't have freeware games except at the service's choice.
Maybe.
Craster wrote:
Actually hosting the running application is an entirely different prospect. I can't believe that an indie dev will be able to rock up and say "host my app for me, go on, it's great" because that actually means allocating space on the infrastructure for it to run in the hope that it will be attractive to customers.
Offering an app in the appstore is a no-risk proposal. Hosting a running app isn't.
Offering an app in the appstore is a no-risk proposal. Hosting a running app isn't.
But if people play it (using the bandwidth) they presumably have to pay a nominal fee for doing so, thus covering the expenses.
[edit]Forgot to finish the sentence, sorry
Dudley wrote:
Still can't have freeware games except at the service's choice.
On that service, true. But it's not going to be universal and the only platform available overnight. You'll still have consoles and PCs and mobile devices.
kalmar wrote:
Dudley wrote:
Still can't have freeware games except at the service's choice.
On that service, true.
Not true! Where does it say that?
It will certainly take a massive step change in the perception of the average gamer. Until we've got 100% reliable high speed wireless internet connections it's not even conceivable... and even then i don't like the idea of having all my stuff stored on a big computer somewhere... I want it in my spare room. If my router explodes, or I move house and the broadband company are being dicks about getting my line set up (which happens very often) then I don't want to be completely without any games.
The pricing model of this will also be very interesting. Given that most people will have a PC capable of using the service, how will it be priced? Per month per game? That sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Per month and a one-off payment per game? How much would this service be worth?
Also, do people think this will break the console market, and is it intended to do so? I like my console and computer being separate, to be honest. If one breaks then at least I have the other, etc.
The FPS thing I mentioned - I hate mouse/keys with a passion (it makes me feel like I'm playing a shiny version of missile command); there's no denying that they are more accurate, but I prefer the feel of a wireless controller.
So, can't say I'm too excited at the moment... but I've been wrong before.
The pricing model of this will also be very interesting. Given that most people will have a PC capable of using the service, how will it be priced? Per month per game? That sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Per month and a one-off payment per game? How much would this service be worth?
Also, do people think this will break the console market, and is it intended to do so? I like my console and computer being separate, to be honest. If one breaks then at least I have the other, etc.
The FPS thing I mentioned - I hate mouse/keys with a passion (it makes me feel like I'm playing a shiny version of missile command); there's no denying that they are more accurate, but I prefer the feel of a wireless controller.
So, can't say I'm too excited at the moment... but I've been wrong before.
But anyway, if the worst this service does is not allow small developers to develop things for it, then fucking hurrah.
Yes, but the difference is this:
I have 100 servers. I could allocate those 100 to 5 proven performers who I know gamers will pay a subscription fee for. Or, I could allocate 90 to those proven performers and 10 to 1000 indie developers. The performance on those indie apps will be shitty, because there are so many colocated on the same kit. Most of those games will be of the quality that would normally be offered free, so it's not really offering much in the way of incentive for subscribers to cough up their subscriptions.
In an ideal world, the owners would make a good proportion of their infrastructure available for indie use. In a realistic world, I can't see a decent business incentive for them to do so. £15/month is £15/month, whether everyone's playing EA games or whether they're playing indie stuff. At least with the appstore you can cream a percentage off the sale price for almost zero outlay, which is an incentive in itself.
I have 100 servers. I could allocate those 100 to 5 proven performers who I know gamers will pay a subscription fee for. Or, I could allocate 90 to those proven performers and 10 to 1000 indie developers. The performance on those indie apps will be shitty, because there are so many colocated on the same kit. Most of those games will be of the quality that would normally be offered free, so it's not really offering much in the way of incentive for subscribers to cough up their subscriptions.
In an ideal world, the owners would make a good proportion of their infrastructure available for indie use. In a realistic world, I can't see a decent business incentive for them to do so. £15/month is £15/month, whether everyone's playing EA games or whether they're playing indie stuff. At least with the appstore you can cream a percentage off the sale price for almost zero outlay, which is an incentive in itself.
Curiosity wrote:
The pricing model of this will also be very interesting. Given that most people will have a PC capable of using the service, how will it be priced? Per month per game? That sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Per month and a one-off payment per game? How much would this service be worth?
Indeed, and I expect them to continue to be very coy about this. They will probably not finalise details until after the beta they are running in the summer. 'Course, I'm paying £24 a month to have dried fruit posted to my desk. I am not necessarily going to be phased by a subscription model if the value is there.
Edit -- of course, with a subscription model, even freeware games increase the value of the service and so there is a reason to accept them. They could do a tiered service, with a minimum monthly payment to access a library of older and free titles, and then one-off fees to buy certain games. They would likely do lots of Steam-style promotions too, where a certain game would be free for a weekend to promote sales, or have a different game free each week perhaps. There's a lot of things they can do with the revenue model and I'm sure the customer beta will be exploring that.
Edit 2 -- can anyone name any indie games that actually use enough CPU/GPU horsepower to want to be on OnLive anyway? Most of the ones I see around don't need Geforce 8x00 graphics cards.
Grim... wrote:
kalmar wrote:
Dudley wrote:
Still can't have freeware games except at the service's choice.
On that service, true.
Not true! Where does it say that?
I'm agreeing it's at their choice. Where does it say differently?
It doesn't. For all we know they're going to let people put what they like on there (rather unlikely, I agree). But people seem to be presenting stuff as fact a lot in this thread.
The other thing to consider, of course, is that some Indy devs may well be happy to cover bandwidth and hosting costs to let people play their game for free.
The other thing to consider, of course, is that some Indy devs may well be happy to cover bandwidth and hosting costs to let people play their game for free.
Grim... wrote:
Dudley wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Dude, they've already said you can have instant access to demos (no downloading). Prolly a subscription-based thing, like LIVE. But as the Doc says, they're being shy about their business model at the moment.
Still can't have freeware games except at the service's choice.
Maybe.
There's no maybe about it. Someone's paying for processor and huge amounts of bandwidth. It's all very well eating the £10 cost of 1000 5MB downloads a month for your little top down racing game, 50tb of those 1000 people playing it on several machines is not average Joe level.
Quote:
But if people play it (using the bandwidth) they presumably have to pay a nominal fee for doing so, thus covering the expenses.
Or to put it another way "Can't have freeware games"
If you have to be a subscriber, it's not freeware is it?Quote:
But it's not going to be universal and the only platform available overnight. You'll still have consoles and PCs and mobile devices.
That's the aim though. If you have to have a good console or PC for Indie/Freeware you might as well spend the extra virtually nothing to play commercial games properly. (and certainly in better than the 720P this currently suggests it'll offer).
Dudley wrote:
Or to put it another way "Can't have freeware games" If you have to be a subscriber, it's not freeware is it?
If you have to be a subscriber, it's not freeware is it?Freeware != "indy developers". Honest to God though, I couldn't care less if I can't play freeware games on it.
Grim... wrote:
It doesn't. For all we know they're going to let people put what they like on there (rather unlikely, I agree). But people seem to be presenting stuff as fact a lot in this thread.
The other thing to consider, of course, is that some Indy devs may well be happy to cover bandwidth and hosting costs to let people play their game for free.
The other thing to consider, of course, is that some Indy devs may well be happy to cover bandwidth and hosting costs to let people play their game for free.
Indeed. We don't know.
I also agree that it's got the potential to be a roaring universal success, then a monopoly, and then be detrimental to small publishers, free games, demos, or low cost gaming.
But such are the technical and financial barriers that I just don't think that's very likely.
Thankfully I'm almost certain just the technical barriers will kill it long before launch and if they don't, certainly shortly thereafter.
Even the most optimistic bandwidth I've heard is 5MBit, the government wants the UK to have access to *2*, and that's in 3 years. We're a decade off average consumer having enough overhead to reliably stream 5Mbit, even if they're prepared to accept internet hiccup == lose game.
Even the most optimistic bandwidth I've heard is 5MBit, the government wants the UK to have access to *2*, and that's in 3 years. We're a decade off average consumer having enough overhead to reliably stream 5Mbit, even if they're prepared to accept internet hiccup == lose game.
Dudley wrote:
Even the most optimistic bandwidth I've heard is 5MBit, the government wants the UK to have access to *2*, and that's in 3 years. We're a decade off average consumer having enough overhead to reliably stream 5Mbit, even if they're prepared to accept internet hiccup == lose game.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/23/bt_fttc_exchanges/ "BT has released new details of its fibre to the cabinet (FTTC) rollout, including a list of the first 29 exchanges to be upgraded to offer faster broadband in early 2010. Engineers will run fibre optic cables between the exchanges and street side cabinets, closer to homes and businesses. Downstream speeds will be improved to up to 40Mbit/s, with up to 10Mbit/s upstream. ... The next set of exchanges to be upgraded will be announced in Autumn. BT plans to upgrade 40 per cent of its network - about 10 million premises - by 2012." 
Curiosity wrote:
The FPS thing I mentioned - I hate mouse/keys with a passion (it makes me feel like I'm playing a shiny version of missile command); there's no denying that they are more accurate, but I prefer the feel of a wireless controller
I may be broken but I too prefer joypad/sticks to keyboard/mouse for FPS and am quite happy to put up with it for other games. I also prefer sitting comfortably on my sofa looking at a telly to being sat at a desk with a screen in my face. Actually the other killer for this is, even if everything else works, only one person in a household is likely to be able to play a game at any given time as well.
Now this service would probably not work with many peps but BT have purchased the hardware and Cisco are working on the structure to get this working. The current target in general is to host everything IP based, very much like Virgin does at the moment. So Phone/2 x TV HD/Broadband on one IP line and this is aimed to be about 50Mbit to host it all. However this can all be interchangeable due to the nature of technology. This should in theory be completed by BT by 2012 for a good chunk of the population and should make it feasible for the OnLive idea to work.
OnLive could work and they could release a development kit and probably could fence off areas to the development underground to play with and explore. Again the more content they offer they better the service looks even if it is shareware style toss.
OnLive could work and they could release a development kit and probably could fence off areas to the development underground to play with and explore. Again the more content they offer they better the service looks even if it is shareware style toss.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
BT has released new details of its fibre to the cabinet (FTTC) rollout, including a list of the first 29 exchanges to be upgraded to offer faster broadband in early 2010. Engineers will run fibre optic cables between the exchanges and street side cabinets, closer to homes and businesses.
Meanwhile, right now in 2009, the exchange my sister is on isn't even scheduled to get ADSL in the first place.
I have a one meg service and we get 4 channels of analogue telly, no digital (last time I checked.. and they're going to turn that off).
My point is, there's a big difference between what's possible and economical to provide in a few wealthy urban centres, and any sort of critical mass where it can be considered universal.
National Grid really should have fibred up its pylons when it had the chance, ethernet-over-power actually does work over the dozen yards between the home and the transformer, and it would have been fibre the rest of the way.
Dudley wrote:
Actually the other killer for this is, even if everything else works, only one person in a household is likely to be able to play a game at any given time as well.
Split-screen?
kalmar wrote:
Meanwhile, right now in 2009, the exchange my sister is on isn't even scheduled to get ADSL in the first place. I have a one meg service and we get 4 channels of analogue telly, no digital (last time I checked.. and they're going to turn that off). My point is, there's a big difference between what's possible and economical to provide in a few wealthy urban centres, and any sort of critical mass where it can be considered universal.
Without wanting to ride roughshod over the problems of rural broadband, a bunch of wealthy urban centres is easily enough to sell the service into. It doesn't have to be universally accessible to make a profit. This was mistake Dudley made few posts ago, mentioning the "2 meg for all" pledge from the government.Also note they aren't talking about anything beyond continental USA at the moment, even if it's a roaring success I think we'd be lucky to see it anytime soon. If I were them looking at international expansion, I'd be targetting the far East and continental Europe before I looked at the UK, which would need an entire dedicated data centre to target a relatively small population (compared to, say, a single cluster serving France/Germany/Italy/Spain).
Yeah, fair point.
It'll coexist if it goes anywhere at all, I reckon.
It'll coexist if it goes anywhere at all, I reckon.
Dudley wrote:
Actually the other killer for this is, even if everything else works, only one person in a household is likely to be able to play a game at any given time as well.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/23/bt_fttc_exchanges/ "Downstream speeds will be improved to up to 40Mbit/s, with up to 10Mbit/s upstream. ... The next set of exchanges to be upgraded will be announced in Autumn. BT plans to upgrade 40 per cent of its network - about 10 million premises - by 2012." I doubt we'd see a OnLive rollout in this country much before 2012 anyway, and last time I looked even (4*5Mbit) << 40Mbit. And 10 million households is a big market to aim at for a phase one deployment.I stress again that OnLive are strictly talking about the USA market in 2010, so talking about the UK broadband statistics in 2009 is not particularly relevent. If you want to consider their possible overseas expansion, look to the Far East markets. Huge broadband penetration, huge broadband speeds, and very high population density.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Fuck me Dudley. Even by your standards this is some poorly researched drivel. At least read up on the stuff before arguing or you'll look like an idiot. I mean, seriously, investors have spent months looking at this and have decided to commit tens of millions of dollars into funding the company over seven years. Did it cross your mind they might have, you know, thought of all this already?
Dudley wrote:
They can optimise for lag all they like, pinging a huge site like oracle.com is still a >100ms round trip.
I'm getting 45ms to Google right now over a skanky ADSL line to our office, through a nasty 17 hops. The rollout of OnLive throughout 2010 will overlap with the beginnings of fibre-to-the-home that will put that into single digits. One would presume OnLive would also more heavily invest in peering partners than Google do, as this is crucial to their business.45ms = about 3 frames. Playing a game at least three frames behind would be... not good. And it's not as simple as a ping, anyway. Google isn't a good representation anyway - it's generally going to get quick pings, due to the high level of demand of the service. Even if it grows the market considerably, this service would not get even close to the amount of bandwidth google needs.
On a technical level, I don't really see it being possible without prohibitive levels of spending, and even then you're stretching it.
I've no idea about the feasibility of the technical side of things. But it's very exciting that I might be able to play games on my mac etc.
But I don't like how this another step towards establishing gatekeepers who allow you access to content.
Imagine if the whole of the SNES and MEGADRIVE era was all stuck on a bunch of servers somewhere. I wonder if they would still be around like they are today. So many wonderful things in our culture comes from Remixs rips and theft, and I worry about what will happen when we're only allowed access to media in very specific ways. Also, all this cloud talk makes me think about whether the power of PCs is levelling out. Which is a very, very worrying concept to me. Humanities glass ceiling maybe?
Still though, iPlayer style playing of PC games? YES PLEASE!
But I don't like how this another step towards establishing gatekeepers who allow you access to content.
Imagine if the whole of the SNES and MEGADRIVE era was all stuck on a bunch of servers somewhere. I wonder if they would still be around like they are today. So many wonderful things in our culture comes from Remixs rips and theft, and I worry about what will happen when we're only allowed access to media in very specific ways. Also, all this cloud talk makes me think about whether the power of PCs is levelling out. Which is a very, very worrying concept to me. Humanities glass ceiling maybe?
Still though, iPlayer style playing of PC games? YES PLEASE!
Mr Dave wrote:
45ms = about 3 frames. Playing a game at least three frames behind would be... not good. And it's not as simple as a ping, anyway. Google isn't a good representation anyway - it's generally going to get quick pings, due to the high level of demand of the service. Even if it grows the market considerably, this service would not get even close to the amount of bandwidth google needs.
On a technical level, I don't really see it being possible without prohibitive levels of spending, and even then you're stretching it.
On a technical level, I don't really see it being possible without prohibitive levels of spending, and even then you're stretching it.
Exactly, Google have more money than God and they're not even quick enough. Oracle are a better example to me. The short version is you'd have to host it entirely in the UK to have any hope at all. A quick check of news.bbc, which is literally 2 miles from me I believe is still average 17ms. Closer but it needs to be under a frame at MOST. More worrying even on that BBC test it wavered from 11 to 23. Variable lag on my games.
Dr Lave wrote:
Imagine if the whole of the SNES and MEGADRIVE era was all stuck on a bunch of servers somewhere. I wonder if they would still be around like they are today. So many wonderful things in our culture comes from Remixs rips and theft, and I worry about what will happen when we're only allowed access to media in very specific ways. Also, all this cloud talk makes me think about whether the power of PCs is levelling out. Which is a very, very worrying concept to me. Humanities glass ceiling maybe?
But this is what worries me more. If this becomes the only gig in town then it's a horrible, horrible thing. We'll be paying more (because it DOES cost more) and getting less. Again. We lose so much and the only difference it would make to my PC is buying £60 graphics card slightly less. (and my current one is 2.5 years old and hasn't tripped over anything I want to play yet).
Dr Lave wrote:
I've no idea about the feasibility of the technical side of things. But it's very exciting that I might be able to play games on my mac etc.
But I don't like how this another step towards establishing gatekeepers who allow you access to content.
But I don't like how this another step towards establishing gatekeepers who allow you access to content.
. But the entire industry is going down the shitter anyway. Look at the music industry and commercial local radio, they've both had a slow decline over the years until both are at breaking point. Gaming will go the same way.The only bright light is the indie devs. But in terms of "new", nothing turns me on and makes me want to purchase a PS3, Xbox 7 or a Wii. Now a SNES on the other hand......
Dudley wrote:
Exactly, Google have more money than God and they're not even quick enough. Oracle are a better example to me. A quick check of news.bbc, which is literally 2 miles from me I believe is still average 17ms.
Why would Google, Oracle, or the BBC optimise their web server clusters for latency? They wouldn't. They would have mutiple tiers with load balancers and failover nodes because they have no reason to value the difference between 10ms and 100ms; to a web browser, those are the same. OnLive, however, do have a reason to work towards removing latency and therefore would architect their server cluster differently. I don't see what bearing the one has on the other.Quote:
Closer but it needs to be under a frame at MOST.
Why? This thorough literature review of reaction times states that human reaction time for "simple" stimulus ("press this button when the screen goes red") is 180-220ms, and that for a "choice" stimulus where a decision must be made are of the order 350-400ms. So on what basis do you state that "lag must be under one frame AT MOST"? Your hand-eye co-ordination is running 20 or so frames behind when you play a game right now.Quote:
The short version is you'd have to host it entirely in the UK to have any hope at all.
No-one is disputing this is the case. Undersea fibre hops would certainly harm the service, no argument there. Indeed, they acknowledge themselves that they will need 3-5 datacentres in the USA in order to keep the server local enough to each player.Quote:
But this is what worries me more. If this becomes the only gig in town then it's a horrible, horrible thing. We'll be paying more (because it DOES cost more) and getting less. Again. We lose so much
Why the assumption that they will gobble the entire industry up? The world has room for both Steam and GOG and it has room for this and other games distribution systems. It might kill the boxed PC software market, but that's already on its arse anyway.I'm doing my best to debate this with you Dudley but you aren't backing up your arguments with facts and you aren't even bothering to reply to my counter-arguments. Are you interested in debating this properly or are you going to continue making it up as you go along? Because I'm putting a fair bit of effort into this and you're not reciprocating.
Page 2 of 11 [ 525 posts ]