|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
I've read some of the articles, and they actually bring up another issue: the amount of traffic this thing requires.
Okay, let's assume that somehow they managed to set up a server cluster in every major city and the latency is indeed negligible.
But how many users such cluster would be able to support? I think 10,000 simultaneous users (in a big city) is a reasonable number. Then, if it is 5 Mbps per user, it becomes 50 Gbps per cluster (sustained transfer rate). This is comparable to the capacity of a national backbone. For example, the trans-atlantic backbone between NY and London is something in the order of 300Gbps (my data may be old though). Where are they going to get such infrastructure?
Bandwidth aside, this would generate 16.2 petabytes of traffic per month per cluster. This has to cost something too.
I don't know, maybe I am too old and sceptical to beleive that something like this is going to work, but I really cannot see how.
|
Like its been said alredy in this thread, no revolutionary technology is going to do anything for lag until we can break the speed of light. This will fail simply because of that fact. Even very small latency will become very difficult to play with if there is latency between your mouse and the screen
|
Let me see if I've got this right.
"New JIT Compiler bounds the bottleneck of thin-client console gaming to the throughput of the highest-latency player."
[ ] Sensational
[x] Succinct
|
|
|
My friend told me about this a few days ago and holy shit, if this works like they say it does, it'll be nuts. still, i'm skeptical that it will work flawlessly right off the bat so it may take a few weeks/months to work out the kinks. but this seems like a really really great idea.
|
Wow this sounds like an effective way to reduce piracy, and make gaming (especially pc gaming) more accessible to casual players.
|
This does sound like the holy grail and if it works as well as advertised then it will do great things, not just for the game community. It sounds like it's centralized around some crazy powerful compression algorithm which can allow for streaming of tons of data without lag which could easily be applied to tons of things. If it does what I think it does, Youtube should be interested in this for example.
However, I'm honestly still very skeptical. I predict there to be lag. Enough that the really lag sensitive genres like FPS and fighting games won't want to deal with it. I have a co worker that was at GDC and tried OnLive's demo and he said he noticed lag. So again, this sounds like a massive game changer for the games industry and possibly the internet as a whole but let's not get too ahead of ourselves until we try it.
|
|
|
The catch: 480p is only 640x480 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480p ). That is starcraft resolution. That is fkin low.
Combined with "If you compress game data so much that it can be sent instantaneously over the Internet" leads me to think they send you the graphics in some kind of video format: It is as if you watch the live stream of your own game in low res.
|
United States3824 Posts
How's the disbelief in the community going so far? 
This is one of those news threads that you have to keep coming back to to see how everyone is doing.
|
I don't believe it. Phantom showed up at things like GDC as well. The whole thing hinges on some sort of magic compression that they don't explain how it works, that their servers are going to be able to perform on the fly while also playing the game
|
I'm interested to see how this is gonna play out. I hope it isnt a flop and actually works as described. It is a very cool idea seeing as not everyone has or can afford a super computer.
|
|
|
If it works as advertised it would be amazing. Man sounds too good to be true though.
|
I think this service would be totally viable for turn based games or RPGs.
FPS, fighter games or games like Starcraft? I doubt it.
|
On March 29 2009 07:13 floor exercise wrote:
I don't believe it. Phantom showed up at things like GDC as well. The whole thing hinges on some sort of magic compression that they don't explain how it works, that their servers are going to be able to perform on the fly while also playing the game
You win the internet.
|
streammygames does the same thing right ? :D
|
If it works, it will save the pc gaming industry. If it fails, consoles will continue to rule until it actually works.
Pros:
1. Save the pc gaming industry.
2. Eliminate hacking/cheating.
3.Reach the macs
4.Reach the casuals for pc gaming.
5.No more upgrades for hardware.
|
On March 29 2009 06:39 Navane wrote:
Combined with "If you compress game data so much that it can be sent instantaneously over the Internet" leads me to think they send you the graphics in some kind of video format: It is as if you watch the live stream of your own game in low res.
Uh, yes? This is blatantly stated in most of the press about it, since that's simply how it works? How did you expect them to send you the graphics data, if not in some kind of image format? -_-"
|
aside from the bandwith problem, this CAN work for most singleplayer games on console/pc currently developed/released. think of gears of war 2. where the FUCK would you need low latency for the singleplayer to work?
THIS IS NOT INTENDED FOR HIGH END MULTIPLAYER and therefore, i can't see why you guys try to cast it into this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
