|
Socoder -> On Topic -> Could this be a monopoly in the making ? |
|
| Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 09:13 | |
steve_ancell
|
We have probably all heard of cloud computing, and it now looks like the cloud is going to absorb the gaming world. But is it such a good idea ?. 1) Are they going to charge per play, or will they charge once for each game and put your rights to play it in an inventory, so you can play it until your eyes pop out ? 2) Will they charge through the nose for it ? 3) Is the indie developer going to get a piece of the pie ? I know it sounds like a good idea to have it all online and save space in your room, but if they system screws up, then it could be the end for your online game collection. At least when you buy games on disk, you get to play it until the plastic melts. |
| Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 10:21 | |
Phoenix
|
I presume you're talking about OnLive? I hate it. I want a physical copy because otherwise, as you said, there's no guarantee that I have it tomorrow. With a real copy I could've course lose it, but then it would solely be my own fault. I've also heard that the picture quality is less than optimal, and my Internet connection isn't good enough to handle this kind of stuff. 1) I think you can use both methods, ie rent or buy. 2) Probably. Games cost a lot these days, and I don't see why they wouldn't take the liberty to add various "administrational fees" to the package. 3) I doubt it, or at least not initially. |
| Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 10:23 | |
Jayenkai
|
No matter how fast the hardware on the other side is, there's no bloody way that my controller will "instantly" make the computer on the other side of the world do what I want, and return the video signal quick enough.. Not a chance.. With apps, it's doable.. you have basic input one side, and tech on the other.. Nice, simple, working. But not games. Not gonna happen.. -=-=- ''Load, Next List!'' 
|
| Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 10:31 | |
Afr0
|
Bah. I'm still sceptical. If it can do all the things they've promised us so far, that's good... but... yeah! What about the indie developer?! And also... what happens if I wanna play a game 6AM in the morning and the server crashes? Do I get a compensation? -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 10:35 | |
|
steve_ancell
|
OOPS !... I forgot to add the link. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7962180.stm Yes Phoenix, I am refering to OnLive. Jay, you got a point there, about the game controller across the world delay issue. |
| Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 10:56 | |
Scherererer
|
The last thing I want is to disappear into the cloud. If anything, I'll make my own personal cloud first of old hardware. Long live personal computing!
-=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 19:03 | |
JL235
|
At first I thought this was a great idea. People are happy with youtube videos so picture quality clearly isn't that important. Plus this will improve in time. However I'm now with Jay on this. Games go to great lengths to hide the latency problem and even with the latest and most advanced games you can still tell if your playing online or not. I don't see anyway that OnLive can get around the latency simply because the game is not local. However I still think it's a great idea and will probably be successful, however I don't see it revolutionising the market. |
| Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 19:49 | |
Stealth
|
Data centers will be able to crunch enormous amounts of data which will make the game play experience far better. Super realistic actions and more advanced routines could be preformed in a data center. Then once the internet speed gets fast enough to support decent size images being sent back, photo realistic graphics could be possible since a data center could generate this stuff for really cheap. With our current internet infrastructure (5 mbps), we could probably have pretty decent size graphics (800x600 ~15fps) at full resolution. Think about when you watch HD videos on YouTube, the concept is the same. You wouldn't need the best of the best computer anymore to play the coolest games. This could be cool. -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
|
| Fri, 27 Mar 2009, 06:59 | |
|
JL235
|
First it's going to be a very long time until a large audience in the US has the bandwidth to stream HD content. Second, no matter the width of your bandwidth or the number of terraflops available at your datacentre, your still limited by latency. My point above is that when you play games locally and I press a button, the game will play and react in real time on my PC right now in order to hide the latency. This is at the same time as contacting the server and playing it there to ensure I'm not cheating. If your streaming video then you will be in the past, always, guaranteed. You cannot beat the speed of light! Third, even today with the latest advances in technology it's still quite difficult to get a fast and _reliable_ connection. However I still think this is going to be successful, especially on the next generation of netbooks. I just don't think it's the revolution that they make out. |
| Thu, 02 Apr 2009, 20:38 | |
|
mindstorm8191 |
I have to agree on the argument that latency issues may be a huge issue to this. But on the flip side, not all games are fast-paced shooter type games. I have been playing Travian for a while now, and latency factors mean nothing for that game, even though it runs in real-time. But then, maybe when things start taking hours to complete, a second or two delay is no big deal... Not saying that will work for all games, of course! Oh, the other issue with this is that players don't have to worry about their own PC specs to play the game. I have, as of late, been working on a browser-based game. The neat thing about that is, the PC specs you have isn't that important, so long as it can view webpages. My main reason for doing this is that a new player doesn't have to download anything to play the game - not even Flash (which I don't have, so I can't develop in that anyways...) -=-=- Vesuvius web game
|
| Fri, 03 Apr 2009, 03:45 | |
|
JL235
|
Mindstorm It's not about the game being in the past, but about latency on your controls. You press shoot, wait 0.3 seconds, and only then see the player shoot. But then, maybe when things start taking hours to complete, a second or two delay is no big deal... It might seem small but it's actually quite noticeable. This is a model multiplayer games used in their infancy, but this problem is why they don't anymore. Instead if you press shoot then you shoot. It's all the world updates (like over players moving) and data validation checks (is their health correct?) that take 0.3 seconds to complete. |
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||