1 edit | Hmm Naw, there will always be cases where you want something portable and stand alone. Think kids in the back seat of a car. |
|
 aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by bostonkarl1:Naw, there will always be cases where you want something portable and stand alone. Think kids in the back seat of a car. I can easily see it in 10 years for the console. Since you will have an internet connection always nearby. And I guess it would be possible for a portable device as well. 10 years is a long time. Look how much has changed since just turn of the century. |
|
 Mr FelFlynn LivesPremium
join:2008-03-17
Louisville, KY
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by aaronwt:said by bostonkarl1:Naw, there will always be cases where you want something portable and stand alone. Think kids in the back seat of a car. I can easily see it in 10 years for the console. Since you will have an internet connection always nearby. And I guess it would be possible for a portable device as well. 10 years is a long time. Look how much has changed since just turn of the century. I, and probably most other hardcore gamers, would fight the dumb terminal method since it the has the potential to double the lag, which on already laggy connections is undesirable. To top that off dumb terminals solutions like OnLive have potential to kill even generous broadband caps. To borrow from one of older posts found here »Re: ?
said by Mr Fel:said by ztmike: It's not out of the question that a heavy Onlive HD gamer could blow through a thousand gigabytes a month. Usually I agree with you Karl, but that statement I doubt is true. I would be surprised if it went over Comcasts 250gig/month. Let's do some math with the assumptions that heavy gamers play for an average of 4 hours a day at 720p resolution. 60sec*60min*4hour*30days*5Mbps/8b/1000B=270GB It may not be a 1000 GB but it's still enough to get past that cap by itself, and the number grows when you adjust for 1080p. Possible? Absolutely. Desirable? Absolutely not.
--
One time a person asked where the F button was on their keyboard. I told them they would find it next to the U button. |
|
|
|
| reply to bostonkarl1
then came holly wood
its three strikes laws , ACTA and then the UK style cmaeras in your houses
then none played ball at all anymore
and the world went silent as the drones withered and died |
|
 Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
 ·Shaw
| reply to bostonkarl1
What is the benefit of a 'dumb terminal', given CPU's, memory, drives, etc are dirt cheap, I don't see any advantage in a 'dumb terminal', nor really do I see it as ever being practical given the required richness of the gamer user experience would require pretty much a full local OS and such anyways to process graphics, inputs etc.
Think of current thin apps anymore, that dumb terminal has to run Flash, Java, .Net, Silverlight etc, not such a dumb terminal is it.
Blake
Of course I've been here before except we called it X-Windows and it spewed chunks as well.
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Just to add a bit. The Wii is currently the most popular gaming console in the US, and it takes a considerable amount of processing power to allow those nifty controllers to operate so smoothly.
I just don't see this as a practical solution in the foreseeable future. We are several tech generations away from this becoming a viable option. Until then, I'll just continue not to play the 20 or so games provided on my DVR. |
|
dagg
join:2001-03-25
Galt, CA | reply to bostonkarl1
said by bostonkarl1:Naw, there will always be cases where you want something portable and stand alone. Think kids in the back seat of a car. and they will be able to rock it old school style with their ps5...
(wait for it..... wait for it......) |
|
aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to Mr Fel
said by Mr Fel:I, and probably most other hardcore gamers, would fight the dumb terminal method since it the has the potential to double the lag, which on already laggy connections is undesirable. To top that off dumb terminals solutions like OnLive have potential to kill even generous broadband caps. To borrow from one of older posts found here » Re: ?Possible? Absolutely. Desirable? Absolutely not. 270GB is nothing. I use 1TB to 3TB each month with my internet connection. I don't care about using a paltry 270GB.
By the end of this week my available storage on my network will go over thrity Terabytes.
And as far as OnLive it remains to be seen how well it will work. I'm not used to a laggy connection since I'm on FIOS, and I'm certainly not going to try an play on a laggy connection. I would turn the system off before doing that. |
|
Mr FelFlynn LivesPremium
join:2008-03-17
Louisville, KY Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by aaronwt:270GB is nothing. I use 1TB to 3TB each month with my internet connection. I don't care about using a paltry 270GB. By the end of this week my available storage on my network will go over thrity Terabytes. And as far as OnLive it remains to be seen how well it will work. I'm not used to a laggy connection since I'm on FIOS, and I'm certainly not going to try an play on a laggy connection. I would turn the system off before doing that. Great for you, I would kill to have that kind of setup, especially storage wise. But seeing as I don't nor the majority of people here, only the privileged few can really appreciate that setup.
--
One time a person asked where the F button was on their keyboard. I told them they would find it next to the U button. |
|
| reply to Link Logger
said by Link Logger:What is the benefit of a 'dumb terminal', given CPU's, memory, drives, etc are dirt cheap, I don't see any advantage in a 'dumb terminal' I think the idea is to have the game data streamed, but the actual computing would still be on the console (graphics chip, CPU, etc). Not really a dumb terminal in the literal sense, but dumb as in no meaningful internal storage. Still not a smart idea, but I'm guessing that's the proposition. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense. It would mean taking the least expensive part of the equation out of the device, the storage system, while keeping the most expensive pieces behind. If anything, this idea is simply being pushed by the content creators, and ultimately the copyright holders that are worried about piracy. It's little more than a pipe dream at this time. |
|
Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Shaw
| Certainly the piracy issue is part of the game, as the fact is games are not cheap to develop and not every game is a big money maker and often a money loser, so ensuring return on investment is a huge concern. No one wants to pirate crap games, just the 'good' ones and those are the ones that enable the game development shops to stay in business, take that profit away and there is no point developing games (not many charity groups coding great games).
That said the technical realities around this, make me wonder what people are smoking when they suggest that this is how things will be done in the future. I'll pick a rich featured responsive interface every time over something that has to wait for the backend to do the work in a lame fashion. So any game developed like this already has a huge strike against it, hard enough to get it right without already blowing off your legs at the kneecaps.
Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool |
|
