Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| Doesn't really sound possible
The whole idea of using "big iron servers" to do all the AI, graphics, and so on and dumping just the graphics to your TV does sound cool. I just don't see how possible it is. I guess we will see how the product looks when (if) it is released.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | I don't think there is a good chance that it will happen. But if it did, what about rural areas? Or caps? a 1t cap would help a lot, but I think it is 5yrs or so away. |
|
LordFlux
join:2005-04-20
Warner Robins, GA
·Cox HSI
 ·Alltel Axess
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall  :I just don't see how possible it is. I agree. Everyone was complaining about controller lag in KillZone 2, which IMO, was extremely mild. I'd imagine something like this would introduce the potential for major controller lag unless you had a very low latency connection and the server was next door. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  reply to Nightfall
Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
This is a really stupid business plan in that it transfers the heavy lifting(all that extra bandwidth consumed) to the broadband ISPs without any consideration of added costs on their part.
And any people playing games on this service will quickly hit the broadband caps that are becoming ever more prevalent.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by TKJunkMail :This is a really stupid business plan in that it transfers the heavy lifting(all that extra bandwidth consumed) to the broadband ISPs without any consideration of added costs on their part. And any people playing games on this service will quickly hit the broadband caps that are becoming ever more prevalent. You're totally right. Because the consumer AND "Onlive" aren't paying ISP's for their bandwidth.
totally
Oh wait, they are.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| said by tiger72 :said by TKJunkMail :This is a really stupid business plan in that it transfers the heavy lifting(all that extra bandwidth consumed) to the broadband ISPs without any consideration of added costs on their part. And any people playing games on this service will quickly hit the broadband caps that are becoming ever more prevalent. You're totally right. Because the consumer AND "Onlive" aren't paying ISP's for their bandwidth. totallyOh wait, they are. Its irrelevant if they're paying ISPs or not because of the disproportionate amount of bandwidth to be used. This was the excuse for imposing caps. If ISPs decided to market additional bandwidth to an enterprise like this it would undercut their argument about a bandwidth crunch. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by S_engineer :said by tiger72 :said by TKJunkMail :This is a really stupid business plan in that it transfers the heavy lifting(all that extra bandwidth consumed) to the broadband ISPs without any consideration of added costs on their part. And any people playing games on this service will quickly hit the broadband caps that are becoming ever more prevalent. You're totally right. Because the consumer AND "Onlive" aren't paying ISP's for their bandwidth. totallyOh wait, they are. Its irrelevant if they're paying ISPs or not because of the disproportionate amount of bandwidth to be used. This was the excuse for imposing caps. If ISPs decided to market additional bandwidth to an enterprise like this it would undercut their argument about a bandwidth crunch. 1. I guarantee Onlive isn't paying for a consumer "unlimited" service. They are probably doing what other broadband-centric models have followed (Steam, Netflix) by negotiating low per/GB pricing. To put it more simply, they are paying for their consumption on their end.
2. The consumer paying for unlimited service should be able to use their unlimited service as they see fit. It's not the consumer's fault that their ISP's network is oversold. Hell, even with data caps, consumers have the right to use up their data caps for whatever service they want. The proportion of the bandwidth is irrelevant. How is this any different than me using bittorrent 24/7, usenet 24/7, netflix 24/7, or downloading the entire Steam catalog? What I use that bandwidth for is irrelevant.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to Nightfall
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
its a bad model because people expect a game console to be useful if the net is up or not. if my net is down i cant play WoW, but i can sure know my Xbox and PS2/PS3 will still load up a game in single player mode and distract me while the net gets worked on.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Kearnstd :its a bad model because people expect a game console to be useful if the net is up or not. if my net is down i cant play WoW, but i can sure know my Xbox and PS2/PS3 will still load up a game in single player mode and distract me while the net gets worked on. This I can totally agree with.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to tiger72
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
Oversold, yes. Your uses are your uses. The problem I see is that what you decide to use your service for effects the degree others can use their service for when they're paying the same amount. I never "abused the network" (as ISPs put it) with excessive downloading via torrents, and yet a cap was imposed on me as if I did. And very soon I predict the shoe will drop with overage fees for those exceeding the cap limit.
Now services such as this give the ISPs the excuse to lower caps even further under the guise of a bandwidth crunch, expediting the the initiation of overage costs. This will hurt the mass consumer.
[/My Ms. Cleo moment]
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Kearnstd
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
said by Kearnstd :its a bad model because people expect a game console to be useful if the net is up or not. if my net is down i cant play WoW, but i can sure know my Xbox and PS2/PS3 will still load up a game in single player mode and distract me while the net gets worked on. i only like to play with actual other people, so i could care less about single player games. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to tiger72
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
said by tiger72 :1. I guarantee Onlive isn't paying for a consumer "unlimited" service. They are probably doing what other broadband-centric models have followed (Steam, Netflix) by negotiating low per/GB pricing. To put it more simply, they are paying for their consumption on their end. 2. The consumer paying for unlimited service should be able to use their unlimited service as they see fit. It's not the consumer's fault that their ISP's network is oversold. Hell, even with data caps, consumers have the right to use up their data caps for whatever service they want. The proportion of the bandwidth is irrelevant. How is this any different than me using bittorrent 24/7, usenet 24/7, netflix 24/7, or downloading the entire Steam catalog? What I use that bandwidth for is irrelevant. But Onlive's business plan isn't reflecting the reality of broadband use and the caps. You can talk all day about how ISPs shouldn't have caps(and that is refusing to accept reality too), but they do, and Onlive is doomed if they don't take that in to account. Maybe they are waiting for the idiots in the government to change the rules for them.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·Callcentric
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·FrontierNet Intern..
| said by TKJunkMail :But Onlive's business plan isn't reflecting the reality of broadband use and the caps. You can talk all day about how ISPs shouldn't have caps(and that is refusing to accept reality too), but they do, and Onlive is doomed if they don't take that in to account. Maybe they are waiting for the idiots in the government to change the rules for them. of course, this is purely speculattion based on what we think bandwidth usage will be. who knows if they have some way of transferring information hither and yon without intensive bandwidth usage. additionally, one must challenge the norms put forth for any change to occur. the internet is changing and if the isps don't see that, then it will be the job of the customers to *make* them see this. sure, it will be rough for a little bit, but it is the only way in the long run.
q. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to morbo
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
Agreed. Playing against the computer is fun for only the five minutes it takes to intuite the algorithm that sets its strategy. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
First off you are a shill so your opinion about what is good for consumers holds little water. As pointed out numerous times, EVERYONE is paying for bandwidth at both ends and if this is not working out for your "friends" then they need adjust their business models to that which are consumer friendly (because of the monopolistic nature of the business) not stock jockey friendly.
Second, if a bulk of the processing is done at the server end then only screen refreshes are used much like a virtual terminal then the bandwidth used would be minimal.
Lastly, the rules do need to change. The ISP's need to become the dumbpipes they are and stop refusing to acknowledge this. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
 from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to TKJunkMail
I agree that it's a silly idea.
The costs of communications capacity are much greater than the costs of adding computational ability at the end point and it is likely that things will stay this way for the foreseeable future. Centralizing computational ability in exchange for shifting massive additional burden onto the communications pipe makes no economic sense.
I also have a intellectual tendency that loathes the idea of everything in the cloud. It's a rehash of an outdated client/server for everything model. Back in the day most computational ability was controlled by a small cadre of high priests running the data center. Why would anyone want to go back to those days? Because they think it is going to save them a few hundred dollars every couple of years upgrading their hardware at home? You think it won't cost you many times over what you save?
Concentrating control and ownership of computational ability is the opposite of the direction we should be moving. The personal computer was enormously liberating, it unleashed massive amounts of innovation and the decentralized ownership and control of computing it provides has been immensely beneficial to all of us. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to tiger72
said by tiger72 :2. The consumer paying for unlimited service should be able to use their unlimited service as they see fit. It's not the consumer's fault that their ISP's network is oversold. Hell, even with data caps, consumers have the right to use up their data caps for whatever service they want. The proportion of the bandwidth is irrelevant. How is this any different than me using bittorrent 24/7, usenet 24/7, netflix 24/7, or downloading the entire Steam catalog? What I use that bandwidth for is irrelevant. I agree. In addition I feel that the overage charges if/when I go over the cap should not be more than the charges for the connection with cap. IOW: If I hypothetically pay $50/month for my connection and have 250GB/Month cap then if I use 500GB this month, I should pay NO MORE THAN (and probably much less than) $50 for my 250GB overage.
I am keeping this simple (and not suggesting the fairer method of Roll-Over usage in lieu of the current "Use It or Lose It" system for your PAID FOR usage up to the Cap). I am being sold 250GB of usage for my $50. Thus 250GB of extra usage is worth ONLY $50 given that that was the cost of the first 250GB (and allocating nothing to the cost of the connection/etc). Since the connection/etc is a sunk cost (ie: I pay it no matter what my usage is), I do not see why the overage (which has had that cost FULLY PAID from the initial charge) should not just be based on a $0 fixed cost with all the usage being allocated to the usage. If fact, if I add a 2nd modem NOW to my account, I get the same charge on the modem as on my original one (and get the same bandwidth and cap as the first modem so why is the charge for overage on the original modem more than if I had two modems [ie: Was two separate customers each at just under the 250GB/Month cap]?). |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :First off you are a shill Every time the accusation of industry shill is trotted out, this will be the reply:
"This mode of reasoning is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem: attacking the person presenting the argument, instead of pointing out a flaw in their actual argument. It's a fallacy because even if the criticism of the person is true, his argument may still be valid. You can only tell if the argument is valid by examining the actual argument to see if it is actually valid.
Attacking the person instead of the argument they present is intellectually lazy. It's a substitute for thinking. It's also 100% flawed reasoning: you don't arrive at the conclusion from the argument presented."
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| reply to Ahrenl
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
said by Ahrenl :Agreed. Playing against the computer is fun for only the five minutes it takes to intuite the algorithm that sets its strategy. Which is only true if your doing something stupid like playing a FPS deathmatch game with bots.
Single player typically revolves around a STORY. You do realize some games have quite amazing plots right?
--
Forum Posts:7500 |
|
ablack6596
join:2005-01-28
Scarsdale, NY | But the vast majority have crappy stories. |
|
