 |
 | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Doesn't really sound possible 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. | |
|
| |
| |
| | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs 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
| Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs 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
| Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs 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 | |
|
| | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| 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 | |
|
| | | | | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| 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 | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs said by tubbynet :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. Onlive says bandwidth usage will be huge - about 1GB/hr.
»tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090325/···ng_games
The company puts the data usage at just under a gigabyte per hour of high-definition gaming. The only Internet application with comparable consumption is high-definition video, like movies bought through iTunes, watched on Netflix Inc.'s streaming service, or downloaded from file-sharing networks.
A service unveiled this week aims to stream video games over the Internet, setting gamers on a collision course with cable and phone companies that are seeking to curb growing demands on their networks by charging for heavy usage.
For instance, Comcast Corp., the country's second-largest ISP, limits usage to 250 gigabytes per month, and cuts off repeat violators. OnLive says its users would need to play around the clock for nearly 12 straight days to reach that.
However, other Internet service providers are trying lower limits, then charging extra for those who go over. It's not clear which approach will win out, but subscribers on low-limit ISPs could quickly find themselves paying far more for their Internet connection, particularly since many gamers spend more than 20 hours a week on a game.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
1 edit | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs 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 | |
|
| | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| said by Skippy25 :First off you are a shill so your opinion about what is good for consumers holds little water. you lost any credibility with the sentences that followed this remark! | |
|
| | | | | | | | compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs said by S_engineer :said by Skippy25 :First off you are a shill so your opinion about what is good for consumers holds little water. you lost any credibility with the sentences that followed this remark!
No, he hasn't lost any credibility with that statement. The reason why is every time a new service is announced there is a group of people here who take the position that the service is unfair to the ISP. When these same people time after time take very simplistic positions that favors the ISP at all cost then a reasonable conclusion could be that they are shill. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs said by compton :said by S_engineer :said by Skippy25 :First off you are a shill so your opinion about what is good for consumers holds little water. you lost any credibility with the sentences that followed this remark! No, he hasn't lost any credibility with that statement. The reason why is every time a new service is announced there is a group of people here who take the position that the service is unfair to the ISP. When these same people time after time take very simplistic positions that favors the ISP at all cost then a reasonable conclusion could be that they are shill. Or one could draw the conclusion that they (or he) understand the cost to businesses. These unforeseen events are game changers for businesses that have a model in place.
The simplistic view of this is unfortunately the prevailing one these days. "I want what I want when I want it" with no consideration of the ramification for these desires. If you've got a argument with his position then make it...otherwise you just look like a shill for the ignorant! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs said by S_engineer :Or one could draw the conclusion that they (or he) understand the cost to businesses. These unforeseen events are game changers for businesses that have a model in place. The simplistic view of this is unfortunately the prevailing one these days. "I want what I want when I want it" with no consideration of the ramification for these desires. If you've got a argument with his position then make it...otherwise you just look like a shill for the ignorant!
Let me ask you a question. I am a customer of Comcast Internet Services. What do you consider fair use of my Internet connection? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Did I not have a 2nd and 3rd point to my original posting?
I am sure the last point you and him really didn't like... | |
|
| | | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| 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]?). | |
|
| | 
asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
 from:
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. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| 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 | |
|
| | |
| | | compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Doesn't really sound possible said by tiger72 :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.
Then don't buy the service. When you buy the service you know it depends on your Internet connection. If the possibility of your Internet service being interrupted is a deal breaker then it's not for you. What's so hard about that. I and many millions of people have VOIP phone service. We know that it depends on our Internet service, but we still got it anyway, because Internet service is very reliable these days. | |
|
| | |
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | 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. | |
|
| | | | 
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| 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 | Re: Doesn't really sound possible But the vast majority have crappy stories. | |
|
| | | | | | 
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| Re: Doesn't really sound possible said by ablack6596 :But the vast majority have crappy stories. The vast majority of people in multiplayer are crappy as well. | |
|
| | | | Mattie_B
join:2008-05-16
| 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. I guess you have not played the Killzone 2 AI. Their AI is the first that really impressed me. | |
|
| | |
| k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| said by Nightfall :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. I think its very much possible (explore the concept of Xclient/Xserver), however, the bandwidth requirements are pretty high EVEN for an application like firefox. Possible yes, usable? Probably not. This will defiantly be something interesting to look for though. They may even just use the Xclient/Xserver idea...we will see. | |
|
ender7074
join:2006-11-21
Saint Louis, MO | Pipe Dream Yah, this and the Phantom will revolutionize gaming.... Sorry, I'm keeping my consoles in my home where they work when I want them and at the speed they should be running at. | |
|
| 
royhandy
Panem et circenses
Premium
join:2000-05-23
Yesterday
clubs:  | Re: Pipe Dream Phantom was the first thing I thought of, too. | |
|
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Re: Pipe Dream said by royhandy :Phantom was the first thing I thought of, too. someone should backtrace this company and see if it has any relations to phantom, sounds like a very similar business model.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
Brad B
Premium
join:2005-07-07
Everett, WA
·Comcast
| Questions... So all the rendering happens server side, right? What bothers me is: How are they going to handle lag?
So if you move your character to the right and the command gets sent up to them. Their servers move your character, render the frames, and send it back to you. Is this all going to happen in milliseconds? I would think the data being sent back to the client would be the tricky part. Downloading a 1920x1080 image (as an example) doesn't happen in milliseconds. | |
|
rcabor
join:2007-04-17
Grand Prairie, TX | Lag The amount of lag from the time I press a controller button to the time the screen reacts would make it unplayable I think. | |
|
mgbaker
join:2000-05-14
Charlotte, NC | Whatever Not going to happen..... anytime soon.
Consoles will live for a very long time. | |
|
blueeyesm
join:2003-09-05
Waterloo, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | Perhaps.. ...instead of giving away the hardware, the company teams up with ISPs to make a gaming package that blends in the cost of the account, hardware internet access and the appropriate bandwidth necessary per month.
This would lower overall costs for both company and consumer, allow Onlive to focus on making sure their content system runs smoothly, give ISPs a new customer base and control content delivery while adherring to the ESRB rating system.
If EA, Sony and others were smart, they should jump onboard to be able to use this 'gaming portal' method for releasing games and other content at a much lower cost. This could be seen as a massive "green" initative in that plastics are not needed to be manufactured, and at the same time it could prevent their works from being illegally distributed.
On the flip side of this, it would require ISPs to upgrade their infrastructures to (I would guess) some sort of FTTH standard, in order to reduce lag and be able to significantly increase uploading bandwidth. | |
|
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: Perhaps.. And thus you begin segmenting the internet just how it should not be.
If it cannot work in an open system, then it should not be used on the internet. | |
|
| |
blueeyesm
join:2003-09-05
Waterloo, ON | Re: Perhaps.. So, nothing should ever evolve, just for the sake of keeping something open?
You have zero faith in engineers.  | |
|
| | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Perhaps.. Why do you ask me to have faith in engineers to work with segmenting and yet you can't have that same faith in those engineers making it work without segmenting? My faith benefits the consumer. Your faith benefits stock jockey's. I think I will keep my faith.
They ARE dumbpipes and need to act accordingly, or be regulated into it. When it serves them, they want to let the market decide. So then let the market decide. By the very nature of the network and the very nature of the market the more people that get on the service the more it will be saturated and the more people will go else where that is not so saturated. Thus the network will balance itself. If they want more customers, then they add more bandwidth. THAT is how the market should work.
The problem is these DUMBPIPES don't want to invest to make that market model work. They want to take the current expenditures and try to cram more and more on the pipe while introducing new revenue streams and use "network management" as the bandage to do so. | |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
join:2006-07-30
Ocean Gate, NJ | Thin client computing is the future. This might not work now, but will in a few years.
The problem is that this will end up being ad driven. | |
|
| 
MSauk
MSauk
Premium
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT | Re: Thin client computing Man this would be great! No more consoles or whatever connecting to your tv. No more wires, etc..
This would be a cool | |
|
| | jesseb_66
join:2002-12-06
Tucson, AZ
| Re: Thin client computing I can see this in fttp area's. Perhaps docsis 3 as well. I'd say its at least 5 years off.
The down side for me is I LIKE messing with my gaming rig its what got me into computers in the first place. Call it a hobby. I can see this being more of a draw for those pansy console gamers. | |
|
| | | 
DrModem
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA | Re: Thin client computing You'd have to eliminate latency by making your signals travel faster than the speed of light among other things.
Otherwise this is a ridiculous idea for gaming.
Cloud computing:
Great for Word, horrible for Call of Duty. | |
|
fgdfg
@chevrontexaco.com | No Thanks! No thanks to cloud gaming! I like my computer hardware, although i could always use more bandwidth.  | |
|
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | I remember the first time this came out It was called X Windows. | |
|
neufuse
join:2006-12-06
Indiana, PA
·Comcast
| owing.. I'm sorry but I like owning my consoles and physical games... not some comapny that could potentially tell me "oh you've played that enough, play something else" or let you only play certain games at certain times... or something really stupid like that | |
|
|
ownillusion
@comcast.net
| Re: owing.. Yeah there's nothing like "owning" the games that work on a single system that has faulty hardware. RROD, overheating problems and firmware. Oh yeah, the system that is updated by the system vendor, unless you never connect to the Internet to play. Of course firmware can be updated by game discs. Wow, you really do own your hardware and software.
You have the illusion of control over your hardware and software. Nothing else. | |
|
|
| |
CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO
1 edit | Bad Math? Let's see if I can make a complete idiot out of myself here:
I currently play online games at 1920x1200, 32bits/pixel, 60FPS.
OK
If this service wants to give me the same experience with the remote servers doing all of the rendering, then logically their service would be sending me the finished frames to display on my screen, right?
So a single frame at 1920x1200 is about 2.3 million individual pixels, and assuming 32bit color, that's about 73.7 million bits per frame. Take that to 60 frames per second, and you're looking at 4.4 billion bits per second.
Unless I'm completely screwing something up, that means a constant data stream of over 4 gigabits per second for their service to give a comparable experience to my home-rendered games.
Surely they've got some kind of wicked compression schemes, so that figure is high, but still...
Ahh, here we go:
If you're hooked on your quad-core, dual-GPU gaming rig running on a 30-inch, 2560x1600 display, then OnLive is not likely to be your cup of tea.
Obviously...
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... | |
|
| amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| Re: Bad Math? You're probably not far off... GPUs generally decompress "on the fly" so that you get those glorious full-frames of color drenched goodness at high resolution. Input is usually compressed textures... Perhaps they'll actually have a GPU in the box, similar to an nVidia ION that's cheap enough to mass produce and give away, but powerful enough to render playable framerates at something above 800x600  | |
|
Alvito
@spcsdns.net
| Way Bigger Than Just Games If verified, this compression technology will revolutionize not just video game distribution and play, but also virtual worlds, mirror worlds (Google Earth), HD WebTV and so forth. Wow.
»memebox.com/futureblogger/show/1730 | |
|
|
DrModem
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA | Re: Way Bigger Than Just Games Why do you want video compression on a game?
That defeats the whole purpose of making stuff look better. | |
|
| |
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| Re: Way Bigger Than Just Games said by DrModem :Why do you want video compression on a game? That defeats the whole purpose of making stuff look better. To understand you would need to read the article about how the service works... | |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| In real time? Don't think so. Even with less than 20ms connection, this would be barely useful for any action. Even an old Atari game, or Mario, or what have you would be impossible to play. Enough people curse their games for the lag between controller and screen - add the uncertainty of the internet, and this would be laughably unplayable.
I understand downloading a game, playing it, and even playing online, but to have the entire game be rendered by a remote system would be a waste.
A little further reading here (»www.itworld.com/personal-tech/64···chnology) states that you'd need 2Mbps for SD and 4Mbps for HD...
...Oh, and the part they don't mention is that you'll also need 0ms pings to their servers | |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Amazing!! Truly ground-breaking!! I am surprised nobody came up with this before. Where do I send my check in to invest in this totally new concept? | |
|
DivineDark
join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs: | Two Words Sega Channel | |
|
decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
| ha With the motivation and caps the local duo's are starting to use.. Things like this and video streaming services are just a dream in the future... You will be buying or streaming everything from your net provider if they have their ways.. And it looks to be this way... Donno about us dialup folks though... Lol, guess we just continue reading our txt only sites and talk of technology developements we"ll never see... | |
|
HeavyC
join:2004-03-31
| Kotaku has some decent videos up of the service today. »kotaku.com/5181625/see-onlive-in-action
There are several games they already have up and running right now as a demo at GDC 09 this year. They explain how the resolution displayed will scale to your currently available bandwidth. They were saying 4 to 5 Mbps would be enough to render a 720p game at 60fps. 1.2 Mbps would be needed to do a Wii quality SD image at 60fps.
The games can be streamed down to a Windows PC or a Mac. They also have a thin client box for TV use. Who knows how this will ultimately work out, but I don't think you can outright dismiss this as the next Phantom since there seem to be real demos of the tech taking place. | |
|
| ender7074
join:2006-11-21
Saint Louis, MO
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Kotaku has some decent videos up of the service today. LOL so the vast majority of users would have something that may or may not look as good as the Wii? Well whooptie doo. This is not a knock against the Wii, personally I love to play the Wii, but camon. The graphics of the Wii are not anything to get excited about. If some company thinks that people will be satisfied with that level of graphics, they are crazy. | |
|
| | Samwoo
join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA | Re: Kotaku has some decent videos up of the service today. Not graphics of the wii... but the resolution of a wii. | |
|
| jebediah
join:2002-08-28
Salem, OR
| said by HeavyC : They were saying 4 to 5 Mbps would be enough to render a 720p game at 60fps. 1.2 Mbps would be needed to do a Wii quality SD image at 60fps. 720p, that'll look incredible! No, wait, a couple years ago that would've been impressive. I'm sure one will sacrifice other visual details as well in order for this to work even halfway decently. I'll spend a few extra bucks and keep building my own systems. I think they're gambling on the fact that a lot of people think it takes $2-5K to buy a good gaming PC and it's good for only 6 months. Nothing could be further from the truth. | |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net | Isn't this essentially a rental model for gaming?... Is this what people want? | |
|
|
|
|
Broadband May Kill The Game Console Wars
·
·
·
Not for current gamers...
